[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 95 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7310-S7349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Cochran amendment be laid aside.
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at the appropriate time I intend to 
propose an amendment. I will be glad to discuss it at this time. 
Perhaps the Senator from Nevada could clarify for me when it might be 
appropriate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when Senators Voinovich and Leahy took the 
floor, the purpose was to allow them to speak about our dearly departed 
friend. At the time the quorum was called for, we were trying to 
resolve this issue that was on the floor--the Harkin amendment and the 
second degree by the manager of the bill. We are almost ready to do 
that. I was asked by the Senator from Iowa to hold things up until that 
was resolved. That is why I offered the objection. We should be in a 
position soon to move forward, but I think the Senator should go ahead 
and speak.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, is it the desire of the distinguished 
manager, the Senator from Mississippi, that I go ahead and discuss the 
amendment or wait until a resolution of the pending Harkin and Cochran 
amendments?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the Senator 
proceeding. I think it would expedite the proceedings of the Senate if 
he would discuss his amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to enter into a time agreement on this 
amendment. Whatever is agreeable to the Senator from Mississippi and 
the Senator from Wisconsin would be fine.
  I will be proposing an amendment, joined by Senators Gregg and 
Schumer, that will stop the Federal Government from wasting taxpayers' 
dollars on an unnecessary and outdated sugar program that costs 
consumers as much as $2 billion in inflated sugar prices.
  I ask unanimous consent to have Senator Lugar added as a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. The amendment is simple. It withholds funding for the 
costly Federal sugar program for fiscal year 2001.
  Mr. President, my colleagues and I are here today to say enough is 
enough. The American taxpayers have subsidized the sugar industry, with 
price support loans and strict import quotas in various forms, since 
1934. Each year American taxpayers pay close to $2 billion in 
artificially high sugar prices and this year paid an additional $60 
million to bail out sugar producers facing massive loan defaults.
  We're not here today to dispute the choice of sugar as a consumer 
product. Most Americans buy some type of sugar product on a daily 
basis--a can of soda or a candy bar--and most Americans buy various 
types of sugar products every time they shop in a supermarket. What we 
object to, as consumers purchase these products, is that the federal 
government is unfairly overcharging them.
  The sugar program has outlived other agricultural commodity subsidies 
that have since been phased out through past farm bills. However, the 
retention of this flawed program has not been dictated by common sense 
or sound economics, but political influence.
  Originally, the sugar program was intended to prop up sugar prices to 
ensure a profit for sugar farmers. Unfortunately, the higher prices 
result in the usual ``trickle-down'' effect. Food companies have to pay 
the higher price for sugar, which is then passed on in the form of 
higher prices for sugar products. The average consumer ends up paying 
the cost of sugar subsidies in the grocery store.
  Let me take a few moments to explain why federal assistance for the 
sugar program should end.
  First of all, it is unfair to American consumers. A recent GAO report 
confirms what we have known all along,

[[Page S7311]]

that American consumers pay close to $2 billion each year in inflated 
sugar prices. Mandatory price quotas are imposed on American-grown 
sugar at roughly 22-24 cents a pound compared to 6 cents a pound for 
sugar grown in other parts of the world.
  This past year, in 1999, U.S. sugar prices were four times higher 
than the world price.
  The benefits of the sugar program are hopelessly lopsided. 
Approximately 42 percent of all sugar program benefits go to 1 percent 
of growers. These are not small family farmers, but big sugar tycoons 
who obtained millions through this federal subsidy. Four sugar cane 
companies in Florida received more than $20 million. One grower 
receives close to $65 million annually from this subsidy. About 30 
sugar growers were also able to collect one million each from this 
subsidy. That is not small business; that is not a small farmer.
  Mr. President, these sugar growers--and I will be naming them and 
identifying them--have been incredibly generous politically. They have 
been heavily involved in contributing to both parties in very large 
amounts of money.
  Second, the federal sugar program is anti-free market and anti-free 
trade. The sugar program severely limits imports of lower-priced 
foreign sugar into the American market so farmers can make a profit 
through higher prices.
  The end result, unfortunately, is that this overpricing has caused an 
overproduction of sugar. This excess supply of sugar drives prices 
below the guaranteed price level. This type of policy is absurd and has 
damaged our credibility in the world market.
  Large-scale sugar growers in Florida contribute directly to the 
devastation of the Everglades wetlands through increasing sugar cane 
production. Again, high sugar prices lead to overproduction of sugar. 
Florida's sugarcane industry is situated near one of America's most 
pristine freshwater lakes. The direct conversion of sensitive wetlands 
to sugarcane production and the accompanying agricultural runoff 
flowing into the Everglades have a direct impact in the decimation of 
one of America's most treasured ecosystems.
  For years, sugar cane producers were able to resist and avoid any 
responsibility for cleanup. The small portion they are now required to 
pay for cleanup hardly makes a dent into the billions estimated for 
restoration of the Everglades.
  Who makes up the difference in these costs? Again, the taxpayers make 
up the difference by paying nearly a third of the restoration costs.
  I have spent a fair amount of time in the State of Florida. There is 
a growing, deep, and very legitimate concern about the Everglades. 
There is no doubt that the flow of pesticides into the Everglades is 
directly related to sugarcane growing and has had a direct impact on 
the ecology of that very fragile ecosystem which is an American 
treasure, not just a Florida treasure. We should at best not subsidize 
people who engage in the growing of sugarcane which causes direct 
damage to one of the most beautiful spots in all the world.
  Finally, American taxpayers had to pay for a multi-million bail out 
for sugar processors who did not meet their loan obligations. Earlier 
this year, the administration spent $60 million to purchase more than 
150,000 tons of surplus sugar to prevent mass forfeitures.
  Why are taxpayers bearing the brunt of these defaulted loans? Because 
a fundamental flaw in the federal sugar policy allows sugar producers 
to forfeit their crops to USDA if the market price falls below the loan 
rate. Sugar producers turn over excess sugar to USDA, keep their loan 
money and the federal government has to absorb the loss. In other 
words, if sugar producers are unable to sell their sugar, the federal 
government promises to buy all the sugar they produce.
  Often, forfeited sugar is sold at a substantial loss to the federal 
government. The federal government has no options under the existing 
sugar program--if the government does not spend millions buying excess 
sugar, it loses out anyway as sugar processors default on their loans 
and are not required to pay back to the federal government. With a 
surplus of sugar in the world market, the federal government will not 
be able to sell this excess unwanted sugar. It's a double-whammy.
  Mr. President, these forfeitures are a direct cost to the American 
taxpayers.
  And, even worse, this may be only a foreshadowing of a tidal wave yet 
to come. The federal government may be forced to spend millions more in 
purchasing additional sugar if the sugar industry has their way. The 
big sugar lobby is already pressuring USDA to purchase more sugar at a 
cost of $100 to $500 million on further sugar bail-outs before the end 
of this year.
  How is this absurdity allowed to continue?
  Mr. President, the answer is clear. The sugar program is alive 
because of well-financed sugar interests, or the ``Iron Triangle'' of 
the commodity world. Sugar interest represent one of the highest soft 
money contributors nationwide.
  Between 1995 to 1999, the sugar industry contributed more than $7 
million in soft-money contributions, more than any other commodity 
group. In 1999 alone, the sugar industry contributed $1.5 million in 
soft-money contributions to both sides of the aisle. The famous Fanjul 
family of Flo-Sun sugar industries, known as the ``First Family of 
Corporate Welfare,'' are among the most generous benefactors in soft 
money contributions. Sugar interests are cashing in at the register at 
the expense of consumers, and turning that profit into political 
influence to keep their stronghold on this federal subsidy.
  Before I conclude, I want to highlight several commentaries about the 
sugar program in a few prominent media programs and articles.
  Fallacies of the sugar program earned special coverage as part of a 
``Fleecing of America'' segment on NBC's ``Nightly News with Tom 
Brokaw.'' During this segment, Art Jaeger from the Consumer Federation 
of America claims, ``the program gives too little money to the farmers 
who need the help, too much money to farmers who don't need the help.''
  ABC World News Tonight highlighted sugar subsidies as part of its 
``Its Your Money'' segments, telling all Americans that maintaining the 
sugar program is a way ''to guarantee that even more farmers will take 
advantage of this sweet deal, producing even more sugar, meaning more 
taxpayer bailouts.''
  The Center for Responsive Politics touts the sugar program as ``white 
gold'' for sugar producers and characterizes it as the ``Energizer 
Bunny of U.S. government policy,'' It keeps going and going with no end 
in sight.
  The Center for International Economics stated that the ``U.S. Sugar 
Program does not sit comfortably as part of U.S. trade policy. High 
sugar protection harms the credibility of U.S. initiatives for freer 
trade.'' The World trade Organization has pointed out its 
inefficiencies. The World Bank has dedicated consideration attention to 
the high costs of U.S. sugar policies.
  The National Center for Public Policy Research concluded that the 
sugar program was ``one of the federal government's most ridiculous 
programs'' and should be ended.
  In a recent USA Today editorial, advice was offered to politicians--
``Repeal this sweetheart deal before another crop of unneeded sugar 
gets planted.''
  The Coalition for Sugar Reform also supports elimination of this 
costly program. The Coalition represents such groups as Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Everglades Trust, Consumers for World Trade, 
and the United States Cane Sugar Refiners' Association.
  In a letter of support for ending the program, the Coalition states 
the amendment we are offering today ``will finally compel change in a 
program that can no longer be sustained or justified.''
  What more evidence do we need to end this lop-sided sugar policy? Why 
should the federal government and American taxpayers be expected to 
continue support for this program that is running rampantly out of 
control and clearly violates free market and free trade principles?
  Mr. President, I want to make clear once again--today's vote is 
important to protect American consumers and taxpayers.
  The recent million-dollar sugar bail-out is the final straw that will 
break the camel's back for this failed program.

[[Page S7312]]

  I would like to quote from the New York Times editorial of July 14, 
1997.

       A combination of import restrictions, guaranteed prices and 
     subsidized loans keeps sugar prices artificially high, 
     roughly twice the level in other countries, and thus 
     transfers about $1.5 billion a year from consumers to a 
     handful of large sugar growers. Almost half of the benefits 
     from the sugar program go to little more than 1 percent of 
     growers. The high prices act like a tax on food, hitting 
     hardest at poor families who typically spend a large fraction 
     of their budget on food and other necessities. If the 
     Schumer-Miller proposal passes, sugar prices could fall 20 
     cents for a five-pound bag.
       The sugar growers justify their subsidies as needed to 
     counter foreign-subsidized imports and to protect the jobs of 
     domestic workers. Neither argument withstands scrutiny. There 
     are ample rules to prevent foreign countries from ``dumping'' 
     government-subsidized sugar in United States markets. Also, 
     by propping up raw sugar prices, the program has driven half 
     the United States sugar refiners out of business or out of 
     the country, taking jobs with them.
       There is a second, powerful reason to eliminate sugar 
     subsidies. They breed excessive production of sugar cane in 
     environmentally sensitive areas. In the Florida Everglades, 
     about a half-million acres of wetlands have been converted to 
     sugar cane production. Excessive sugar cane production has 
     interrupted water flows and contaminated the Everglades with 
     polluted agricultural run-off.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times 
editorial and the Wall Street Journal article of April 27, 2000, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2000]

          Big Sugar Seeks Bailout, Gives Money to Help Get Way

                          (By Bruce Ingersoll)

       Washington.--Never have old hands at the Agriculture 
     Department seen such a turnout: 11 U.S. senators trooping 
     into Secretary Dan Glickman's office to lobby for a big 
     sugar-industry bailout.
       ``When you have 11 senators showing up,'' says Florida 
     sugar-company executive Robert Buker, ``that's horse-
     power''--enough power, he believes, to push an ambivalent 
     Clinton administration into an unprecedented market 
     intervention to bail out distressed U.S. sugar producers.
       The producers are floundering beneath a market-depressing 
     glut of sugar. Comes October, they face another problem: a 
     ten-fold jump in Mexican sugar imports. The federal sugar-
     loan program, which has cosseted them for nearly two decades 
     is suddenly in danger of imploding.
       So, to shore up the domestic market, sugar lobbyists are 
     imploring administration officials to authorize a bold sugar-
     buying spree. Only by spending $100 million now to buy sugar 
     and boost market prices, they contend, can the government 
     hope to head off a much costlier wave of sugar-loan 
     forfeitures later this summer, in the midst of an election 
     campaign.
       Fighting the sugar lobby at every turn is a well-financed 
     alliance of consumer groups, candy makers, confectioners and 
     other major users of sweeteners. Their vision of the sweet 
     hereafter is a deregulated sugar industry, and they want the 
     administration to let the market sink. Says Jeff Nedelman, 
     spokesman for the Coalition for Sugar Reform: ``The whole 
     house of cards is starting to collapse.''
       The government has long managed to keep U.S. sugar prices 
     far above the world price, largely by curtailing imports of 
     lower-cost sugar. That benefits producers, obviously, though 
     it also means consumers get stuck with a price-support tab--
     estimated at more than $1 billion a year--in the form of 
     higher sugar, candy and soft-drink prices.
       But in recent months, due to rising sugar plantings and 
     improving yields, prices have fallen below the guaranteed 
     price-support levels of 18 cents a pound for raw cane sugar 
     and 22.9 cents for refined beet sugar. Lately, price are up a 
     little in anticipation of a bailout. Under the loan program, 
     sugar processors who put up sugar as collateral are entitled 
     to forfeit their crop, keep the loan money and let the 
     government eat the loss.
       Processors are threatening to forfeit as much as 1.4 
     million tons of sugar valued at an estimated $550 million. 
     The sugar lobby's pitch to Mr. Glickman and White House 
     officials is that buying 300,000 to 350,000 tons immediately 
     will give the market enough lift to avert massive forfeitures 
     at the end of August and September. Sugar prices are at a 20-
     year low,'' says Sen. Larry Crag, an Idaho Republican. ``The 
     potential for loan forfeitures . . . is very real.''
       The senators visiting Mr. Glickman on March 26--all but one 
     from major sugar-producing states--told the agriculture 
     secretary that ``he needed to get on the stick,'' says Mr. 
     Buker, senior vice president of United States Sugar Corp., 
     the nation's largest processor. On April 6, a dozen sugar-
     state lawmakers met with White House Chief of Staff John 
     Podesta. They and the industry fear costly forfeitures would 
     be a public-relations debacle, sparking moves in Congress to 
     scrap the shaky program.
       Administration officials wouldn't be so hesitant about 
     buying heaps of sugar if they knew what to do with it. One 
     option is to sell excess sugar on the world market at cut-
     rate prices, but that would-be just as controversial as 
     Europe's oft-deplored dumping practices. Another is to donate 
     it overseas as humanitarian aid, but so far no country has 
     shown any interest in empty calories.
       Limited amounts could possibly be used for school lunches 
     and other feeding programs. The only other viable option is 
     to use it as feedback for ethanol plants, but it would have 
     to be dirt-cheap to compete with corn, which sells for a 
     nickel a pound.
       Diverting sugar into ethanol, a fuel additive, would 
     displace corn, costing farmers $100 million a year, the 
     National Corn Growers Association argues. They shouldn't have 
     to ``shoulder the burden'' of bailing out sugar producers, 
     the association says.
       Adding to the difficulty of a bailout is the opposition 
     from politicians who represent more sugar consumers than 
     producers. Splurging on sugar would be a ``quick fix'' of 
     ``dubious legality,'' 15 House members asserted in a 
     bipartisan letter. It would bestow a ``bonanza'' on 
     processors, without preventing forfeitures in the end, Senate 
     Agriculture Committee Chairman Richard Lugar cautioned last 
     week. The Indiana Republican also warned that ``dumping'' 
     sugar overseas would infuriate trading partners.
       Ultimately, though, such considerations may not offset the 
     political leverage of Big Sugar, which gave Democrats and 
     Republicans $7.2 million between 1995 and 1999, more than any 
     other commodity group in Washington. The fact that the 
     meeting with Mr. Glickman was attended by New Jersey Sen. 
     Robert Torricelli, who hails from a state with no sugar 
     growers but is chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 
     Committee, highlights sugar's importance in an election year.
       At least three sugar states--Michigan, Ohio and Florida--
     are seen as being in play in the presidential race. Earlier 
     this year, Florida Crystals Inc., owned by the Cuban-born 
     Fanjul family, gave Sen. Torricelli's committee $50,000. Last 
     July, Alfson Fanjul hosted a $25,000-a-couple dinner, 
     attended by President Clinton, raising more than $1 million 
     for the Florida Democratic Party. Mr. Fanjul is renowned for 
     calling up the president to discuss sugar-related issues.
       Particularly desperate are three big Hawaiian sugar-cane 
     producers, Gay & Robinson Sugar Co., an Alexander & Baldwin 
     Inc. subsidiary and Amfac/JMB-Hawai; Inc., whose first 
     shipload of the season is due to reach the mainland next 
     week. Unlike their counterparts, they are ``price-takers,'' 
     says the lobbyist, Dalton Yancey. Under an exclusive contract 
     with a refinery on San Francisco Bay, they are obligated to 
     base the price of arriving shiploads on the going New York 
     price, no matter how far it falls below the guaranteed price-
     support level. The contract doesn't allow putting sugar under 
     loan or forfeiting it.
       Adding to the industry's problems is a looming surge of 
     Mexican imports. In October, under, terms of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement, Mexico will be free to ship 
     250,000 metric tons of low-duty sugar into the U.S.
       Despite more than a 20% drop in prices since 1996, sugar 
     production is still much more profitable than raising grain 
     or cotton. The result is that the nation's 10,000 cans and 
     beet growers are shifting more land into sugar. Their 
     lobbyists portray them as suffering from agriculture's woes, 
     including crop failures and lost markets, when in fact most 
     fare better than nonsugar producers.
       All told, the sugar problem threatens to haunt the White 
     House and Vice President Al Gore's presidential bid. It could 
     complicate the coming visit of Mexico's president to 
     Washington, and could further hamstring U.S. efforts to open 
     up overseas markets for meat, corn sweetener and other 
     foodstuffs.
       Ironically, the administration could have avoided the whole 
     sticky mess. But Messrs. Glickman and Podesta, under intense 
     industry pressure, went along with an administrative decision 
     last fall to reinstate the guaranteed minimum price, even 
     though under a 1996 change in the loan program it shouldn't 
     have been offered to processors.
       Now, the industry is arguing that ``sugar is in crisis,'' 
     in the words of Jack Roney, economist for the American Sugar 
     Alliance.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 14, 1997]

                         End Sugar's Sweet Deal

       The House will vote again soon on whether to eliminate loan 
     subsidies that keep sugar prices high while fostering 
     destruction of the Florida Everglades. A bipartisan proposal 
     sponsored by Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Dan 
     Miller, Republican of Florida, to phase out sugar subsidies 
     barely lost last year. It may come up for another vote this 
     week in the form of an amendment to an appropriations bill. 
     That will give the House a second chance to put the interests 
     of consumers and the environment over those of a small crowd 
     of politically powerful sugar growers.
       A combination of import restrictions, guaranteed prices and 
     subsidized loans keep sugar prices artificially high, roughly 
     twice the level in other countries, and thus transfers about 
     $1.5 billion a year from consumers to a handful of large 
     sugar growers. Almost half of the benefits from the sugar 
     program go to little more than 1 percent of growers. The high 
     prices act like a tax on food, hitting hardest at poor 
     families who typically

[[Page S7313]]

     spend a large fraction of their budget on food and other 
     necessities. If the Schumer-Miller proposal passes, sugar 
     prices could fall 20 cents for a five-pound bag.
       The sugar growers justify their subsidies as needed to 
     counter foreign-subsidized imports and to protect the jobs of 
     domestic workers. Neither argument withstands scrutiny. There 
     are ample rules to prevent foreign countries. from 
     ``dumping'' government-subsized sugar in United States 
     markets. Also, by propping up raw sugar prices, the program 
     has driven half the United States sugar refiners out of 
     business or out of the country, taking jobs with them.
       There is a second, powerful reason to eliminate sugar 
     subsidies. They breed excessive production of sugar cane in 
     environmentally sensitive areas. In the Florida Everglades, 
     about a half-million acres of wetlands have been converted to 
     sugar cane production. Excessive sugar cane production has 
     interrupted water flows and contaminated the Everglades with 
     polluted agricultural run-off.
       When the Schumer-Miller bill comes up for a vote, 
     representatives who claim to defend the interests of ordinary 
     consumers ought to vote yes. The bill lost narrowly last year 
     in part because some urban representatives--including Gary 
     Ackerman, Jose Serrano and Thomas Manton of New York--voted 
     no. They harmed their own constituents but can make amends 
     this week.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I now quote from the April 27, 2000, 
article from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Big Sugar Seeks 
Bailout.''

       Never have old hands at the Agriculture Department seen 
     such a turnout: 11 U.S. senators trooping into Secretary Dan 
     Glickman's office to lobby for a big sugar-industry bailout.
       ``When you have 11 senators showing up,'' says Florida 
     sugar-company executive Robert Buker, ``that's horsepower''--
     enough power, he believes, to push an ambivalent Clinton 
     administration into an unprecedented market intervention to 
     bail out distressed U.S. sugar producers.
       The producers are floundering beneath a market-depressing 
     glut of sugar. Come October, they face another problem: a 
     tenfold jump in Mexican sugar imports. The federal sugar-loan 
     program, which has cosseted them for nearly two decades, is 
     suddenly in danger of imploding.
       So, to shore up the domestic market, sugar lobbyists are 
     imploring administration officials to authorize a bold sugar-
     buying spree. Only by spending $100 million now to buy sugar 
     and boost market prices, they contend, can the government 
     hope to head off a much costlier wave of sugar-loan 
     forfeitures later this summer, in the midst of an election 
     campaign.

  Mr. President, the article is very revealing in that it describes the 
top contributors in the year 1999 and the amounts of money that have 
been distributed. It is quite remarkable in its entirety.
  I quote from an article in Time magazine, November 1998, entitled: 
``Sweet Deal, Why Are These Men Smiling? The Reason is in Your Sugar 
Bowl.''

       Occupying a breathtaking spot on the southeast coast of the 
     Dominican Republic, Casa de Campo is one of the Caribbean's 
     most storied resorts . . . and that's truth in advertising. 
     The place has 14 swimming pools, a world-class shooting 
     ground, PGA-quality golf courses and $1,000-a-night villas.
       A thousand miles to the northwest, in the Florida 
     Everglades, the vista is much different. Chemical runoff from 
     the corporate cultivation of sugar cane imperils vegetation 
     and wildlife. Polluted water spills out of the glades into 
     Florida Bay, forming a slimy, greenish brown stain where 
     fishing once thrived.
       Both sites are the by-product of corporate welfare.
       In this case the beneficiaries are the Fanjul family of 
     Palm Beach, Fla. The name means nothing to most Americans, 
     but the Fanjuls might be considered the First Family of 
     Corporate Welfare. They own Flo-Sun Inc., one of the nation's 
     largest producers of raw sugar. As such, they benefit from 
     federal policies that compel American consumers to pay 
     artificially high prices for sugar.
       Since the Fanjuls control about one-third of Florida's 
     sugar-cane production, that means they collect at least $60 
     million a year in subsidies, according to an analysis of 
     General Accounting Office calculations. It's the sweetest of 
     deals, and it's made the family, the proprietors of Casa de 
     Campo, one of America's richest.
       The subsidy has had one other consequence: it has helped 
     create an environmental catastrophe in the Everglades. 
     Depending on whom you talk to, it will cost anywhere from $3 
     billion to $8 billion to repair the Everglades by building 
     new dikes, rerouting canals and digging new lakes.
       Growers are committed to pay up to $240 million over 20 
     years for the cleanup. Which means the industry that created 
     much of the problem will have to pay only a fraction of the 
     cost to correct it. Government will pay the rest. As for the 
     Fanjuls, a spokesman says they are committed to pay about 
     $4.5 million a year.

  Do a little arithmetic. We got $60 million in Federal subsidies, of 
which they will pay $4.5 million for the Everglades. Not a bad deal.

       How did this disaster happen? With your tax dollars. How 
     will it be fixed? With your tax dollars.
       It is not news that sugar is richly subsidized, or that the 
     Fanjuls have profited so handsomely. Even as recently as 
     1995, when Congress passed legislation to phase out price 
     supports for a cornucopia of agricultural products, raw sugar 
     was spared. Through a combination of loan guarantees and 
     tariffs on imported sugar, domestic farmers like the Fanjuls 
     are shielded from real-world prices. So in the U.S., raw 
     sugar sells for about twenty-two cents a pound, more than 
     double the prices most of the world pays. The cost to 
     Americans: at least $1.4 billion in the form of higher prices 
     for candy, soda and other sweet things of life. A GAO study, 
     moreover, has estimated that nearly half the subsidy goes to 
     large sugar producers like the Fanjuls.
       A spokesman for Flo-Sun, Jorge Dominicis, said the company 
     disagrees with the GAO's estimate on the profits the Fanjuls 
     and other growers derive from the program.
       ``That is supposed to imply somehow that our companies 
     receive $60 million in guaranteed profits,'' he said, ``and 
     that is flat-out not true. Our companies don't make anywhere 
     near that kind of profit.''
       Dominicis, like other proponents of the sugar program, 
     contends that it doesn't cost taxpayers a penny and is not 
     unlike government protection of other American industries. 
     ``If our [sugar policy] is corporate welfare, which I don't 
     believe it is, then all trade policy is corporate welfare,'' 
     he says.
       Flo-Sun is run by four Fanjul brothers, Alfonso 
     (``Alfie''), Jose (``Pepe''), Andres and Alexander. Their 
     family dominated Cuba's sugar industry for decades, and they 
     came to this country with their parents in 1959, after Fidel 
     Castro seized power. The Fanjuls arrived just as a U.S. Army 
     Corps of Engineers project to control the flow of water in 
     the Florida Everglades made large-scale development possible. 
     The total acreage planted in sugar cane there soared--from 
     50,000 acres in 1960 to more than 420,000 today.
       Within that swampy paradise lies yet another subsidy. Each 
     year, according to a 1997 estimate, the Army Corps of 
     Engineers spends $63 million to control water flow in central 
     and south Florida. This enables growers to obtain water when 
     they need it or restrain the flow during heavy rains. Of the 
     $63 million, the Corps estimates $52 million is spent on 
     agriculture, mainly sugar-cane farmers, in the Everglades.

  The article further states:

       Though by no means the largest special interest in 
     Washington, the sugar lobby is one of the most well-heeled. 
     And among growers, the Fanjuls are big givers. And among 
     growers, the Fanjuls are big givers. Family members and 
     corporate executives have contributed nearly $1 million so 
     far in this decade, dividing the money fairly evenly between 
     political parties.
       This knack for covering for political bases carries all the 
     way to the top of the Fanjul empire. Alfonso Fanjul served as 
     co-chairman of Bill Clinton's Florida campaign in 1992. His 
     brother Pepe was national vice chairman of finance for Bob 
     Dole's presidential campaign in 1996 and was host to a 
     $1,000-a-head fund raiser for Dole at his Palm Beach mansion. 
     After Clinton's 1992 victory, Alfie was a member of the 
     select group invited by the Clinton camp to attend the 
     President-elect's ``economic summit'' in Little Rock, Ark.
       Careful readers of Kenneth Starr's impeachment report to 
     Congress will note that on Feb. 19, 1996. . . . The two spoke 
     for 22 minutes. The topic: a proposed tax on sugar farmers to 
     pay for the Everglades cleanup. Fanjul reportedly told the 
     President he and other growers opposed such a step, since it 
     would cost them millions. Such a tax has never been passed.
  That is access.
  I will be glad to continue this debate, and I will be glad to again 
enter into a time agreement on this amendment when it is appropriate 
for me to have it considered by the full Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback and Senator 
Fitzgerald as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Mississippi--I know he has the 
right to the floor--could I make a request to my colleagues? I have 
been on the floor for several hours waiting to introduce an amendment. 
I ask unanimous consent that after the McCain amendment I be allowed to 
introduce an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand we have been able to reach an agreement on 
the list of amendments remaining in order to be offered to this bill. I 
am prepared, now, to make that unanimous consent request.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold?

[[Page S7314]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to withhold and happy to yield to the Senator 
from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. One moment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand not all of the agreement can 
be agreed to at this point, but I will recite that which can be agreed 
to if there is no objection. We will see if there is.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only 
remaining first-degree amendments in order to the pending Agriculture 
appropriations bill, that they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments, and no points of order be considered waived by this 
agreement.
  I will submit a list of amendments rather than reading them.
  The list follows:

       Jeffords: Drug importation.
       Burns: Crop Insurance Program.
       B. Smith: Wildlife services.
       B. Smith: Relevant to list.
       B. Smith: Relevant.
       B. Smith: Relevant.
       B. Smith: Relevant.
       B. Smith: RU486.
       B. Smith: Sanctions.
       B. Smith: Sanctions.
       B. Smith: Sanctions.
       B. Smith: Sanctions.
       Abraham:Prescription drugs.
       Ashcroft: Relevant.
       Ashcroft: Relevant.
       Chafee: Sanctions.
       Warner: Relevant.
       Warner: Relevant.
       G. Smith: Goose related crop depredation.
       Santorum: National robotics consortium.
       Santorum: African farming.
       Collins:Relevant.
       Abraham:Relevant.
       Abraham:Asparagus.
       Gramm: Relevant to list.
       Gramm: Relevant.
       McCain: Relevant.
       McCain: Relevant.
       McCain: Relevant.
       Cochran:Relevant.
       Cochran:Relevant.
       Cochran:Relevant.
       Cochran:Relevant.
       Nickles:Relevant.
       Campbell: Bison meat.
       Grams: Finpack.
       Grams: Ratites.
       Lott: Relevant to list.
       Lott: Relevant to list.
       Stevens:Relevant.
       Stevens:Relevant.
       Jeffords: Dairy exports.
       Hutchinson: Relevant.
       McConnell: Sulfites in wine.
       Sessions: Emergency feed operations.
       Sessions: Emergency feed operations.
       Sessions: Satsuma orange frost research.
       Specter:Amtrack.
       Thurmond: Relevant.
       Akaka: Agriculture product.
       Baucus: Oregon inlet (point of order).
       Baucus: Beef industry compensation.
       Baucus: Food Stamp Montana.
       Baucus: Northern plains.
       Baucus: Montana sheep industry.
       Baucus: Oregon inlet.
       Boxer: Citrus imports.
       Boxer: Organic wine.
       Boxer: Relevant.
       Byrd: Relevant.
       Byrd: Relevant.
       Cleland:Emergency loans, poultry producers.
       Conrad: Motion to instruct conferees.
       Conrad: Relevant.
       Conrad: Relevant.
       Daschle:Relevant.
       Daschle:Relevant.
       Daschle:Relevant.
       Daschle:Relevant to any amendment on the list.
       Daschle:Relevant to any amendment on the list.
       Daschle:Strategic Energy Reserves.
       Daschle:Agricultural competition.
       Daschle:CRP contract integrity.
       Daschle:Wetlands pilot.
       Dodd: Oysters.
       Dodd: Relevant.
       Dorgan: Relevant.
       Dorgan: Relevant.
       Dorgan: Disaster aid.
       Dorgan: Bison meat.
       Dorgan: Food aid.
       Dorgan: Drug importation (with Jeffords).
       Durbin: Point of order/motion to strike re: hard rock 
     mining.
       Edwards: USDA community facilities.
       Edwards: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feingold: Relevant.
       Feinstein: Citrus.
       Feinstein: Rice.
       Feinstein: Relevant.
       Feinstein: Relevant.
       Graham: Cuba sanctions.
       Graham: Citrus canker.
       Graham: Nursery crops.
       Graham: Relevant.
       Harkin: Emergency watershed.
       Harkin: GIPSA.
       Harkin: GIPSA emergency.
       Harkin: Meat and poultry inspection.
       Harkin: Agrability.
       Harkin: Renewable fuels.
       Harkin: Renewable fuels.
       Harkin: Methamphetamine.
       Harkin: FDA.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Harkin: Relevant.
       Inouye: Commodity Credit Corp (CCC).
       Inouye: Relevant.
       Johnson: Relevant.
       Johnson: Relevant.
       Johnson: Relevant.
       Johnson: Relevant.
       Kennedy: Food safety.
       Kennedy: Prescription drugs.
       Kohl: Relevant.
       Kohl: Relevant.
       Kohl: Relevant.
       Kohl: Manager's amendment.
       Landrieu: Agricultural research.
       Leahy: Relevant.
       Leahy: Relevant.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Levin: Relevant.
       Lieberman: Relevant.
       Lincoln: Relevant.
       Lincoln: Relevant.
       Reed: Lobster shell disease.
       Reed: Hunt River watershed (ground water source).
       Reed: Pocasset River plug (flood plain management).
       Reed: Pocasset River plug (flood plain management).
       Reed: Relevant.
       Reed: Relevant.
       Reid: Relevant.
       Reid: Relevant to any amendment on the list.
       Robb: Tobacco research.
       Torricelli: Speciality crops.
       Torricelli: Domestic violence.
       Torricelli: Lead.
       Torricelli: SOS domestic violence.
       Torricelli: Relevant.
       Torricelli: Relevant.
       Wellstone: GIPSA funding.
       Wellstone: Calculation of farm income.
       Wellstone: Food Stamp study.
       Wellstone: Summer Food Program.
       Wellstone: Telework Amendment No. 1.
       Wellstone: Telework Amendment No. 2.
       Wyden: Relevant.
       Wyden: Relevant.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I further ask consent that following the disposition of 
the above-listed amendments, the bill be advanced to third reading and 
passage occur, all without any intervening action or debate. I also ask 
the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the 
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate, those being the entire subcommittee plus Senators Stevens 
and Byrd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi still has the 
floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the manager of the bill, 
and also the Senator from Arizona, we will withdraw our objection now. 
We will allow Senator McCain to proceed to offer his amendment, if that 
is appropriate.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The objection, not to the last part of the agreement?
  Mr. REID. I stated no objection to the agreement. The last part is 
out.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is suggesting it is okay for Senator McCain 
to proceed and complete action on his amendment?
  Mr. REID. What the Senator read is appropriate. There is provision in 
there, a little short paragraph at the end that you did not read. We do 
not agree with that. So the unanimous consent agreement----
  Mr. COCHRAN. As stated, you have no objection.
  Mr. REID. In the first two paragraphs, that is correct. I said that. 
I also state we have no objection to setting the Harkin amendment aside 
so the Senator from Arizona can now offer his amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the Harkin amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 3917

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Gregg, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. 
     Fitzgerald, proposes an amendment numbered 3917.


[[Page S7315]]


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

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the sugar 
                                program)

       On page 75, between liens 16 and 17, insert the following:
       Sec. 7  . Sugar Program.--None of the funds appropriated or 
     otherwise made available by this Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel of the Department of 
     Agriculture to carry out section 156 of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272).

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I could spend more time. I ask unanimous 
consent an article from the Savannah Morning News entitled ``Two Sides 
of the American Dream'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Savannah Morning News, August 3, 1997]

                    Two Sides of the American Dream

                            (By Bob Sechler)

       By some accounts, Alfonso and Jose Fanjul personify the 
     American Dream--Cuban-born immigrants who arrived in the 
     United States almost 40 years ago, emerging as millionaire 
     sugar growers through pluck and hard work.
       But others say the brothers are better symbols of what ails 
     the country. Their ostentatious lifestyles, complete with 
     Palm Beach, Fla., mansions, yachts and chauffeured 
     limousines, are the spoils of a corporate welfare system that 
     rewards wheeler-dealers willing to ante up for political 
     influence, critics say.
       ``They know how to play the game, and they know who to hire 
     to play the game,'' said Joe Garcia, a representative of Save 
     the Everglades in Florida, an environmental group that has 
     tangled repeatedly with the Fanjuls (pronounced Fahn-hool) 
     and their Flo-Sun sugar empire.
       Regardless of which Fanjul family portrait proves most 
     accurate, Savannahians likely will get to know the brothers 
     well.
       The Fanjuls and Flo-Sun will hold a controlling interest in 
     Savannah Foods and Industries--a major local employer and an 
     80-year corporate fixture in Chatham County--if a proposed 
     merger with a Flo-Sun subsidiary is approved by Savannah 
     Foods' stockholders in October.
       ``One thing you can say about them is they know sugar,'' 
     said Tom Hammer of the Sweetener Users Association.
       Hammer's group, which represents candy manufacturers and 
     other industrial sugar users, has lined up against the 
     Fanjuls--and lost--in political battles over the federal 
     sugar program, which provides huge benefits to growers such 
     as Flo-Sun.
       Still, Hammer voices a grudging respect for the family and 
     its sugar success.
       ``They are formidable opponents in terms of knowing what is 
     the best system for them and being willing to stand up for 
     it,'' he said. ``That is the political system at work.''


                          from cuba to florida

       The Fanjuls' roots in sugar date to pre-revolutionary Cuba, 
     where their family had dominated the industry since the 19th 
     century.
       But the family fled Cuba when Fidel Castro came to power, 
     buying 4,000 acres in Florida in 1960 and beginning Flo-Sun.
       The company's success since then has been phenomenal, 
     ballooning to 180,000 acres of cane fields and accounting for 
     40 percent of the sugar grown in Florida. The worth of the 
     private sugar empire has been estimated at $500 million, not 
     including extensive outside holdings by the family elsewhere 
     in the United States and in the Dominican Republic.
       But the success of Flo-Sun, and of the Fanjul brothers who 
     now run it, is attributable as much to acknowledge of the 
     sugar industry as it is to a knack for American-style 
     politics.
       The Fanjuls--Alfonso, 59, Jose, 53, and other family 
     members--have been active at all levels of government when 
     their interests are at stake, and they've always been willing 
     to back up their positions with their checkbooks.
       They helped fight off a proposed Florida measure last year 
     that would have assessed a penny-a-pound tax on raw sugar to 
     fund Everglades restoration. Flo-Sun and other Florida sugar 
     growers combined on a $22.7 million campaign aimed at 
     defeating the plan, compared to $13 million spent by Florida 
     environmentalists and other proponents of it.
       Neither brother is a U.S. citizen, but Alfonso co-chaired 
     President Clinton's 1992 Florida campaign and Jose served on 
     the campaign finance committee of 1996 GOP contender Bob 
     Dole. The two Fanjuls recently applied for U.S. citizenship.
       Flo-Sun and its subsidiaries donated $224,500 to the 
     national Democratic Party from 1995-1996 and $319,000 to the 
     Republicans. The amounts don't include contributions to 
     individual candidates.
       ``The Fanjul brothers play interesting, both-sides-of-the-
     street politics here in Washington,'' said Burton Eller, who 
     has faced off against Flo-Sun as chairman of the Coalition 
     for Sugar Reform, a group bent on dismantling the federal 
     program that benefits sugar growers such as Flo-Sun.
       Some observers say the goal of the brothers' two-pronged 
     politicking has been to preserve the status quo--which 
     includes a lucrative federal system of price supports and 
     import quotas that benefit domestic sugar growers.
       Others dismiss the criticism as the whining of losers.
       ``Their efforts to be involved in government are 
     commendable,'' said U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida 
     Republican who represents the Fanjuls' south Florida home 
     base.
       ``When has that become a crime?'' asked Foley, who 
     collected $4,000 in contributions from the brothers and Flo-
     Sun last year. ``They live here. They pay taxes. They employ 
     people, and they live within the boundaries of the system.''
       Flo-Sun received up to $64 million in benefits in one year 
     alone under the federal sugar program, according to an 
     estimate by the government's General Accounting Office.
       The Fanjuls and other sugar growers won a heated political 
     battle last year to maintain the program. The federal price 
     supports and import quotas that benefit sugar growers are 
     preserved in the 1996 federal Farm Bill, which outlines farm 
     policy through 2002, even though subsidies for many other 
     farm products are being phased out.


                           Expensive victory

       But the win in the Farm Bill fight cost the Fanjuls more 
     than money. It came at a time of increased scrutiny on 
     campaign finance and when consumer advocacy groups were 
     blasting the federal sugar program as nothing more than a 
     handout to big sugar growers.
       The timing brought unwanted focus on the Fanjuls--known for 
     being intensely private--and resulted in them being dubbed 
     ``poster boys for corporate welfare,'' among other things, in 
     unflattering profiles in several national publications.
       Photographs of their sports cars and mansions and 
     descriptions of a jet-setting lifestyle fueled the fire.
       Flo-Sun spokesman Jorge Dominicis said the Fanjuls couldn't 
     comment this week because of a mandated Securities and 
     Exchange Commission ``quite time'' leading up to all mergers 
     involving public companies, such as Savannah Foods. 
     Representatives of Savannah Foods have declined comment for 
     the same reason.
       But Foley said much of the focus on the Fanjuls' lifestyle 
     and political activity has been unfair.
       ``Some of it is born out of, I don't want to say prejudice, 
     but they are Cubans and they've come here and they've been 
     very successful,'' he said.
       ``They came from a land where all their property was taken 
     (by Castro), and they've emerged very successful. It's been 
     called corporate welfare, but they play on the same playing 
     field as everyone else.''
       Luther Markwart, chairman of the U.S. Sugar Beet Growers 
     Association, an ally of cane growers such as Flo-Sun, also 
     said the criticism of the Fanjuls is baseless.
       ``They're very smart businessmen and their family has been 
     in sugar for six generations,''. Markwart said. ``The people 
     that are calling them the names, are the big industrial users 
     (of sugar) and some of the environmentalists down there'' in 
     Florida.
       None of the public criticisms of the Fanjuls has questioned 
     their business acumen.
       Still, Savananah Foods stock has plummeted since the 
     announcement several weeks ago of the proposed merger with a 
     Flo-Sun subsidiary. Stock in Savannah Foods has dropped from 
     nearly $19 a share prior to the announcement to $14.12 a 
     share now.
       The slide is being attributed largely to a sense that 
     Savannah Foods isn't reaping full value for its assets in the 
     proposed merger.
       Under the terms of the deal, the Fanjuls and Flo-Sun will 
     control 83 percent of shareholder voting strength in the 
     merged company despite owning only 58 percent of the shares.
       ``It's basically a question of a public company that is 
     going to be in the hands of private people, for the most 
     part,'' said Victor Zabavsky, an analyst with Value Line 
     Publishing in New York who follows Savannah Foods.
       But if the merger goes through, Foley said average 
     Savannahians who look to Savannah Foods as a major employer 
     and a good corporate citizen have nothing to fear.
       ``A lot of the media spotlight on (the Fanjuls) has been 
     negative,'' Foley said. ``But that's not the Fanjuls--they 
     want to be good corporate citizens. They're certainly going 
     to be very concerned with the community and the employment 
     base of Savannah Foods.
       ``Its not just political coffers they pour money into,'' he 
     said. ``They help virtually every charity that asks. They are 
     very philanthropic.''


                              Top stories

     Alfonso Fanjul, 59
       A native of Cuba who received a bachelor's in business 
     administration from Fordham University in New York City.
       Chairman and chief executive officer of Flo-Sun. He also 
     will serve in the same capacity in a new company formed 
     through the merger of Flo-Sun subsidiary Florida Crystals and 
     Savannah Foods and Industries.
       A prominent Democrat who co-chaired President Clinton's 
     1992 Florida campaign.
       Among other endeavors, he is a trustee of the University of 
     Miami, the Intracoastal

[[Page S7316]]

     Health Foundation and the Good Samaritan/St. Mary's Hospital.
     Jose ``Pepe'' Fanjul, 53
       A native of Cuba who received a bachelor's in economics 
     from Villanova University and a master's in business 
     administration from New York University.
       President and chief operating officer of Flo-Sun. He'll 
     serve in the same capacity in a new company formed through 
     the merger of Flo-Sun subsidiary Florida Crystals and 
     Savannah Foods and Industries.
       A prominent Republican who served on the campaign finance 
     committee of 1996 GOP presidential contender Bob Dole. He 
     also is vice chairman the national Republican Party's finance 
     committee.
       Among other endeavors, he is a trustee of the intracoastal 
     Health Foundation, the Good Samaritan/St. Mary's Hospital and 
     the American Friends of the Game Conservancy. He also is a 
     director of the Knights of Malta, the Americas Society, the 
     Spanish Institute and the New Hope Foundation.
     Fanjuls' news clippings
       Sugar growers such as Flo-Sun successfully defended their 
     lucrative system of federal price supports and import quotas 
     in a heated political battle over the 1996 Farm Bill. But 
     last year's Farm Bill fight, along with renewed calls for 
     campaign finance reform, have focused national media 
     attention on Flo-Sun's Fanjul family and its practice of 
     lavish political contributions. Here is a breakdown of what 
     some publications and organizations have had to say about 
     Flo-Sun and the Fanjuls.
       Center of Responsive Politics: ``With their wealth 
     conservatively estimated at several hundred million dollars, 
     the Fanjuls can afford to spread around lots of political 
     money. And they do. . . . The Florida sugar cane industry's 
     campaign contributions may have helped preserve the federal 
     price-support system for sugar.''
       George magazine: ``Though Cuban citizens, the Fanjul 
     brothers had proved quick students of American-style wheeling 
     and dealing and before long were living much as they had in 
     their pre-Castro homeland--only protected by even more 
     wealth, power and Teflon.''
       Mother Jones magazine: ``The Fanjuls' total (political) 
     giving has been consistently underreported because they give 
     through an array of family members, companies, executives and 
     PACs. During the 1995-96 election cycle, members of the 
     Fanjul family contributed $774,500 to federal campaigns. . . 
     . It's an excellent investment. In return, a grateful 
     Congress maintains a sugar price support program worth 
     approximately $65 million annually to the Fanjuls.''
     U.S. Sugar Corp.
       U.S. Sugar Corp., another large Florida sugar grower, also 
     is a major beneficiary of the federal sugar program. U.S. 
     Sugar donated a combined $230,000 to the national Democratic 
     and Republican parties in 1995-96, not including 
     contributions to individual candidates.
       National Enquirer: ``It's the sweetest deal on earth. Every 
     time you buy a pound of sugar grown by the Fanjuls and other 
     U.S. sugar growers, you pay more than a nickel extra--and the 
     money goes right into their pockets.''
       New York Times: ``The support program (for sugar) has kept 
     some marginal producers in business while producing big 
     profits for more efficient companies. The most conspicuous 
     example of the latter is Flo-Sun, a huge operation north of 
     the Everglades controlled by two brothers, Alfonso and Jose 
     Fanjul . . . Given their obvious interest in keeping the 
     subsidy program alive, the Fanjuls are lavish contributors to 
     politicians in both parties--giving as much as $3 million 
     since 1979, by one estimate.''

  Mr. McCAIN. There was an Associated Press article of May 12 entitled 
``Sugar Growers Get Bailout: Purchase of Surplus Will Cost Taxpayers 
About $60 Million.'' I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Sugar Growers Get Bailout--Purchase of Surplus Will Cost Taxpayers 
                           About $60 Million

                          (By Philip Brasher)

       Washington, May 12--The government plans to buy and store 
     150,000 tons of surplus sugar to bail out farmers who have 
     produced so much of the stuff that prices have dropped 25 
     percent over the past year.
       The Agriculture Department put off the decision about what 
     to do with the sugar, which will cost taxpayers about $60 
     million. The department has considered donating it overseas 
     or else selling it at a steep discount for refining into 
     ethanol, a fuel additive normally made from corn.
       Growers have been threatening to forfeit to the government 
     as much as $550 million worth of sugar pledged as collateral 
     on federal marketing loans.


                       fend off loan forfeitures

       ``We are acting to help address dramatically low sugar 
     prices,'' Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman said in 
     announcing the planned purchase. ``By buying U.S. sugar now, 
     we expect to save as much as $6 million in administrative 
     costs that the government might otherwise incur from expected 
     loan forfeitures later this summer.''
       A coalition of candy- and food-makers, consumer advocates 
     and environmental groups that opposes the sugar program had 
     urged the administration to let prices fall.
       ``Obviously, the administration has no plan for disposing 
     of the sugar,'' Jeff Nedelman, a spokesman for the group, 
     said today.
       ``They cannot dump it overseas for fear of igniting a trade 
     war. They cannot give it away for humanitarian aid, because 
     no country wants it, and they cannot refine it into ethanol 
     without fear of depressing corn prices. They have a crisis of 
     their own making and no good answer.''


                      further action a possibility

       The department did not rule out buying more sugar. Farmers 
     expect the Clinton administration ``will take further action, 
     as needed, to avoid forfeiture of sugar under loan to the 
     government,'' said Ray VanDriessche, president of the 
     American Sugarbeet Growers Association.
       Glickman's decision came on the eve of a visit by President 
     Clinton to Minnesota, a major sugar-growing state. Clinton 
     and Glickman were to visit a farm outside of the Minneapolis-
     St. Paul area today to appeal for Congress to approve 
     permanent trade relations with Cuba.
       The government guarantees farmers a minimum price for 
     domestic sugar through the loan program and quotas on 
     imports, but increases in domestic production are making it 
     difficult for USDA to control domestic prices.
       Growers who put their sugar up as collateral for a federal 
     loan have the right to forfeit the crop to the government if 
     prices fall below the guaranteed price.


                     surgery needed, not band-aids

       ``The sugar program does not need Band-Aids, it needs major 
     surgery,'' groups opposed to the program said in a letter 
     last month to Glickman.
       Glickman urged sugar growers to cut back on plantings by 
     idling land in the government's Conservation Reserve Program, 
     which pays farmers to take acreage out of production.
       ``We expect the sugar industry to rapidly develop 
     conservation and production options that can form the basis 
     of a sustainable sugar policy,'' Glickman said. ``Simply 
     relying on continued government purchases over the longer 
     term is neither feasible nor realistic.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I quote:

       The Agriculture Department put off the decision about what 
     to do with the sugar, which will cost taxpayers about $60 
     million. The department has considered donating it overseas 
     or else selling it at a steep discount for refining into 
     ethanol, a fuel additive normally made from corn.
       ``The sugar program does not need Band-Aids, it needs major 
     surgery,'' groups opposed to the program said in a letter 
     last month to Glickman.
       Glickman urged sugar growers to cut back on plantings by 
     idling land in the government's Conservation Reserve Program, 
     which pays farmers to take acreage out of production.

  Obviously, that has not happened.
  I want to quote from an interesting one on June 16. Brian Williams of 
NBC Nightly News:

       Now time for ``The Fleecing of America.'' We have told you 
     here before about price supports for sugar producers in this 
     country, consumers paying what amounts to a hidden tax. Now, 
     according to a new report from the General Accounting Office, 
     what some already consider an outrageous fleecing of America 
     is about to get even worse. Here's NBC's Lisa Myers.
       Lisa Myers, reporter. For sugar beet farmers like Craig 
     Halfmann, what critics claim already is a sweet deal is 
     getting even sweeter. The government is using seventy million 
     of your tax dollars to buy a hundred fifty thousand tons of 
     sugar from farmers like Halfmann, enough sugar to lay five-
     pound bags end-to-end from New York to Los Angeles three 
     times. Why? To prop up sugar prices by reducing supply.
       Craig Halfmann, sugar beet farmer. We're in a crisis 
     situation and we're just asking the USA to help us out as 
     farmers.
       Myers. But critics say it's ridiculous and a windfall, 
     especially for big sugar producers, people who make millions. 
     But we'll get to them in a moment. You see, those seventy 
     million taxpayer dollars are in addition to the inflated 
     prices you already pay for sugar and don't even know it.
       Senator Richard Lugar. This is one of the most serious 
     outrages in the agriculture side consumers have never 
     understood, that they are paying a tax every time they get a 
     pound of sugar.
       Myers. And a candy bar, and cereal, even canned ham. It's 
     all because of the sugar program, and here's how it works. 
     The government uses import restrictions and price supports to 
     keep the sugar supply down and drive prices up. Today the 
     world price of sugar is about eight cents a pound. But US 
     growers get more than twice that much, about twenty cents. 
     And it all shows up right here, in what you pay. Experts 
     estimate the average family of four spends an extra twenty-
     six dollars a year for sugar because of the program. This 
     government report says that that works out to almost two 
     billion dollars straight from your pockets to sugar 
     producers. Supporters of the program insist it doesn't cost 
     that much, and say struggling farmers need even more help 
     this year, since bumper sugar crops drove down prices.

[[Page S7317]]

       Unidentified Man. All the government has done is to come in 
     and buy some of the surplus sugar. The government is holding 
     that sugar. They will sell it eventually, possibly even at a 
     profit.
       Myers. The Agriculture Department claims that buying excess 
     sugar now may save taxpayer money.
       Keith Collins, USDA Chief Economist. Well, who benefits 
     from the purchase, I think, is the taxpayer. We think that 
     actually saves us some money and at the same time supports 
     prices a little bit now.
       Myers. Not so, say consumer advocates.
       Art Jaeger, Consumer Federation of America. The program 
     gives too little money to the farmers who need the help, too 
     much money to farmers who don't need the help.
       Myers. In fact, the biggest winners of all, critics say, 
     are the biggest sugar growers, like Pepe and Alfonso Fonhoul 
     (sp?) of Palm Beach, Florida. They've earned as much as 
     sixty-five million dollars a year from the program.
       Jaeger. Anytime you ask consumers to pay one-point-five to 
     two billion dollars a year more for food and the 
     beneficiaries are largely wealthy sugar cane growers in south 
     Florida, I think that's a fleecing of America.

  Mr. President, I am sure I will hear from the opponents of 
eliminating this subsidy that this is simply a program for small 
farmers, for small growers. The facts do not bear that out. I want to 
repeat, the majority of this sugar subsidy money goes to the large 
sugar farmers who also, coincidentally, happen to be major political 
donors in the American political process.
  I do not quite understand how my free-enterprise, free-market, less-
government-intervention, less-government-regulation colleagues will 
come here to the floor and argue that somehow this program is good for 
American citizens. It is not. Clearly, the facts state that it is a 
subsidy paid to a privileged few and it costs American taxpayers and 
American families a great deal of additional money.
  I know there are a lot of abuses. I know there are a lot of programs 
that favor a privileged few in American government. But this one is 
perhaps one of the most egregious, and we should stop it.
  I say to my friends who will oppose this amendment: No. 1, I will be 
glad to means-test this amendment; No. 2, I will be glad to have a 
phaseout of the sugar subsidies as well. If you agree to neither, you 
are basically saying let's let the Fanjul brothers continue to get $65 
million a year in subsidies and let's let the American family pay it.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator 
McCain, to offer an amendment that phases out the Federal sugar 
program.
  The current sugar program is one of the last vestiges of a 
centralized, subsidized U.S. farm sector which has mostly gone by the 
wayside. This is a special interest program that benefits a handful of 
sugar barons at the expense of every man, woman and child in America.
  Several years ago, the GAO estimated that consumers paid $1.4 billion 
more at the cash register because of the sugar price support. Today, 
because the world price for sugar is lower and the price paid in the 
U.S. is higher, the cost to consumers could be twice as high.
  And, and let's not forget that the sugar support system has already 
cost America thousands of refinery jobs. Why? Because the sugar program 
is such a bitter deal, refiners cannot get enough raw cane sugar to 
remain open. In Brooklyn and in Yonkers, we have lost one-third of our 
refinery jobs in the last decade. And it has already cost the 
Everglades hundreds of acres of pristine wilderness.
  Four years ago, when we came within five votes in the House of 
terminating the sugar program, the world market price for sugar was 
about ten cents and the U.S. price about 20 cents. Today the world 
price is less than a nickel and the U.S. price is almost a quarter. In 
other words, the gulf between the free market and the sugar program is 
getting wider.
  Under any reasonable and rational measure the sugar program should be 
repealed. If the issue is jobs, the environment or the consumer--then 
we have no choice but to repeal. Standing with me are liberal, moderate 
and conservative members of Congress. Standing with us are liberal, 
moderate and conservative public interest organizations. At all ends of 
the political spectrum the answer is the same--it's time to repeal the 
sugar program.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the McCain 
amendment today. I certainly will not rise to the challenge the Senator 
from Arizona has placed. I never rise to the challenge of the editorial 
board of the New York Times or the tabloid test of NBC's ``Fleecing of 
America.'' I did that once with the ``Fleecing of America.'' I did 
because they were wrong. They had misused their facts, as they are 
misusing them now, and the Senator from Arizona has brought in those 
facts.
  The reality is, I stand on the floor today to defend about 1,000 
farmers in my State of Idaho, and I think you will hear from others 
today who defend American agriculture and its productive power and its 
ability to sustain itself within a world market and our willingness to 
put up reasonable safeguards to assure that sustainability at the local 
level. In my case, in Idaho, with nearly 1,000 sugar beet farmers, it 
is necessary and appropriate. I stand, not to apologize whatsoever, but 
to strongly support what I think is a necessary and appropriate 
program.
  As with other commodities, those of us from agricultural States know 
that many in agriculture today are in crisis. They are at or below 
break even by a substantial amount. There is no difference between the 
potato farmer of Idaho or the sugar beet farmer of Idaho or the corn 
farmer of Iowa today.
  In the case of sugar, prices this year compared to last summer are 
down by about 26 percent, and as a result of that, the Government has 
responded aggressively and appropriately to the crisis in rural 
America, making approximately $70 billion of total expenditures since 
1966 to America's agricultural producers.
  I am not going to apologize for that, and here is why: Banks are not 
going under; farms are not going under; America's food supply on the 
shelf is more abundant, safer, and of a higher quality than ever, at a 
lower price. The American consumer today spends less of his or her 
consumer dollar for American food, including sugar, than any other 
consumer in the world.
  Should we apologize for that? I think not. What we have tried to do--
and I think we have been reasonably successful--is balance out a 
domestic program with foreign competition while consistently working to 
open up foreign markets and clearly to liberalize the whole of the 
agricultural programs of this country.
  USDA recently did purchase sugar. The Senator from Arizona has spoken 
to that. The reason they did was to try to stabilize the market and 
stabilize the price. There is no question that thousands of jobs in 
rural America depend on that action. I defended that action and I do 
now with no apology.
  Sugar policy has run at largely no cost to the U.S. Government since 
1985. I say that because what the Senator from Arizona failed to talk 
about was the amount of money directly contributed by the industry 
itself. In fact, it has been a revenue raiser. Since 1991, $279 million 
have been placed in the Treasury by a special marketing tax paid 
directly by the sugar producers. Did the Senator from Arizona mention 
that? Oops, I guess the Wall Street Journal did not mention it, nor did 
the New York Times mention it, nor did the ``Fleecing of America'' 
mention it. Of course, if they did not mention it, it ``ain't'' worth 
mentioning.
  The probable net cost of the announced purchase and removal of sugar 
has been more than covered by the revenues of the sugar policy. As I 
helped other Members of this Senate design that policy, that is exactly 
what we tried to do: to balance it out so the industry itself was self-
financing.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not at this time. Let me finish my statement.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator mentioned a very important marketing 
assessment, which had been taken out in last year's omnibus bill.

  Mr. CRAIG. Since 1991, the marketing assessment has raised $279 
million. That was my quote. That is a fact the Senator cannot dispute. 
This 132,000-ton purchase is a step toward

[[Page S7318]]

preventing the forfeiture of a much larger amount of sugar. USDA has 
estimated that 600,000 tons could be forfeited at a much higher cost to 
the Government--the Senator from Arizona is correct--based on current 
programs and current forfeitures. Pulling that sugar from the market 
now costs substantially less. The purchase saves the Government money 
and promotes the stopping of this kind of effort based on forfeiture, 
and that does save the American taxpayer money.
  The purchase would not have been necessary and there would be no 
threat of forfeiture if sugar producers were not required, under the 
WTO and the North American Free Trade Agreement, to import about 15 
percent of our consumption. I happen to have voted against the North 
American Free Trade Agreement because I felt this was a loophole that 
would potentially cost the producers of the State of Idaho their crops 
and maybe their farms. Now, of course, reality begins to bear itself 
out.
  Further compounding the problem has been extensive import quota 
circumvention by a term that is now well known by those of us who are 
interested in agriculture. It is known as stuffed molasses. Low prices 
for other crops driving producers to beet and cane sugar production and 
extremely favorable weather conditions for the last 2 years have all 
contributed to the oversupply of sugar and the need for Government 
intervention.
  Stuffed molasses, as my colleagues know, is a way of circumventing 
the law by loading up molasses with sugar, moving it through import 
into this country, then pulling it in and refining the sugar out of it. 
It is kind of like covering up, violating the law, if you will, in a 
legal way. It certainly violates the spirit of the trade agreement.
  Allowing sugar prices to continue to fall will put more sugar farmers 
out of business, but it will not help consumers one bit. There is a 
general assumption on the part of those who oppose the sugar program 
that once you drop the price of sugar to the world price, all of a 
sudden candy bars get cheaper, soda pop gets cheaper, confectionery 
foods get cheaper, and we know that is not the fact. It has never been 
the fact. We might transfer a little profitability from the sugar 
farmer to the candy maker or to the soft drink producer, or to those 
who generally supply confectionery goods to the consumers of this 
country.
  Does it translate through to the farmer? No, it does not, and it 
never has.
  While the price food manufacturers and makers of candy--cereal, ice 
cream, cookies, and cakes--pay for sugar--they will always pay that 
amount. That is the character of the way the industry works. They 
simply either make a little more or make a little less, based on the 
margins in which they buy.
  The truth of the matter is that in the U.S., the sugar program has 
saved the consumer money by stabilizing the price across the board and, 
therefore, consistency. I remember long before I served in the Senate, 
without this sugar program, there were dramatic fluctuations in the 
marketplace. People were going in and out of business. Confectionery 
producers and soft drink suppliers were arguing at one point that sugar 
was so dramatically high that they had to raise their prices, and then 
sugar fell dramatically, but those prices did not come down. U.S. 
consumers pay about 20 percent less for sugar than does a consumer in 
other developed countries of the world.
  It is strange that I could use that figure--and it is a figure of 
fact, well established in the marketplace. Why don't other developed 
countries' consumers pay what we do? They buy on the world market. They 
buy, as the Senator from Arizona suggests, at a much cheaper price. The 
reason is the stability we have offered and, therefore, the averages 
that are very important to look at when you are looking at an overall 
price of the issue.
  Do I support the program? Yes, I do. Am I apologetic for it? No, I am 
not. The reason is very simple. Over the years, we have worked to craft 
a program that balances itself out and, in large part, has paid for 
itself. As we work to create a more open market and phase these kinds 
of programs out, I will support those efforts, too.
   It is very important for the whole of this country that I think we 
create that kind of stability. I hope we can do so.
  At the appropriate time, I, or the chairman of the subcommittee, will 
move to table the amendment of the Senator from Arizona for the simple 
reason that we think it would destabilize the markets of this country. 
It certainly would have a dramatic impact on my State and the 1,000-
plus farmers who make up the sugar portion of Idaho's agriculture 
production.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise, as well, in defense of this 
program. I rise in defense because I represent a State that is one of 
the most agricultural States in the Nation. The fact is, this program 
has helped stabilize an otherwise disastrous situation.
  This chart shows what has happened to sugar prices since the most 
recent farm bill. This is what has happened to refined beet sugar 
prices. On this chart it looks like a cliff because it is. Prices have 
collapsed. If we did not have something to counter the cycle, we would 
see mass bankruptcy in rural America. That is a fact.
  The Senator from Arizona comes out and he reads clippings from 
various news articles. Unfortunately, those people know virtually 
nothing about what they are writing about. They say, over and over, 
that the world price of sugar is 8 cents a pound. Absolute nonsense. 
The world price of sugar is not 8 cents a pound. The vast majority of 
sugar in the world moves under long-term contract at much higher prices 
than the 8 cents a pound. About 18 cents a pound--that is what most 
sugar in the world sells for. What the Senator from Arizona is talking 
about is what is reported in the popular press--repeatedly--which is 
flat wrong.
  The price they are talking about is not the world price; the price 
they are talking about is the world dump price for sugar. It is what 
sugar sells for that is not under contract that is hard to sell. That 
is a dump price. It is far below the cost of production. It does not 
represent what sugar sells for in the world. It is an absolute fiction.
  Every time we have ended the program, what has happened to prices? 
Let's ask that question. Because the suggestion from the Senator from 
Arizona is, if you would end this program--you phase it out--prices to 
consumers would go down.
  Let's have a reality check.
  What has happened in the times we have ended the program? Did prices 
go down or did prices go up? You know what happened? Prices 
skyrocketed. That is what happened when the program ended. The fact is, 
this is a program that stabilizes prices. And that is critical to the 
survival of thousands of family farmers.
  The Senator from Arizona talks about one large interest as though 
that represents the totality of producers. Let me say to the Senator 
from Arizona, and to those who write these articles that attack the 
program and talk about one small group with large economic resources, 
what they are not doing is telling the whole story and telling the 
American people that literally thousands and thousands of family 
farmers are dependent on the stabilization this program provides. That 
is a fact.
  Come to my State. Go farm to farm. Meet these families. They are not 
wealthy people. They are people trying to make it in an environment in 
which the prices of the products that they make have plunged. Without 
this program to stabilize prices, there would be financial ruination 
all across the heartland of America. Is that what the Senator from 
Arizona advocates? Is that what he wants to have happen? Because 
assuredly that would be the case.
  One of the things that gets missed in this debate is this notion that 
somehow the United States is an island unto itself and that we do not 
have to worry about what the rest of the world is doing. If one would 
pay a little attention to what the rest of the world is doing, what one 
would find is that the United States is giving support to its producers 
at a level much lower than our major competitors.
  This chart shows what our major competitors are doing in terms of 
support for their producers--$324 an acre.

[[Page S7319]]

Here is the support we are giving our producers--$34 an acre. By the 
way, these are not Kent Conrad's numbers. These are numbers from the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
  Our major competitors are outgunning us 10-1. I would suggest the 
Senator from Arizona is recommending unilateral disarmament for our 
agricultural producers in what is, in effect, a trade war. He would 
never do it in a military confrontation--never. If the other side had 
50,000 tanks, and we had 10,000 tanks, would the Senator from Arizona 
be out here recommending we cut the number of our tanks in half? Would 
that be the first move? I do not think so.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator allow me to answer his question?
  Mr. CONRAD. After I complete my thought and presentation, I will be 
happy to.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is too bad the Senator will not yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. No. I will be happy to after I complete my statement, as 
I allowed the Senator to complete his. I ask for the same courtesy from 
the Senator from Arizona as I extended to him.
  We are outgunned 10-1. If our opposition had 50,000 tanks and we had 
10,000, would the Senator from Arizona advocate cutting our number of 
tanks in half? That is exactly what we did in the last farm bill. They 
were supporting their producers at $50 billion a year. We were 
providing on average of $10 billion of support. And we cut our support 
in half.

  I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, it is a frivolous 
statement. It has no connection to the estimated $1.5 billion. The 
Senator from North Dakota said that I have been quoting from newspaper 
articles, et cetera. The Senator from North Dakota usually relies on 
the GAO.
  I have heard him quote from the GAO quite often. What the GAO is 
saying is the sugar program cost domestic sweetener users about $1.5 
billion in 1996 and $1.9 billion in 1998.
  If a foreign government was subsidizing anything--as they are Airbus; 
and the United States with Boeing--of course, I would take my complaint 
to the World Trade Organization and we would see about the outcome. I 
would not build further protectionist barriers for a private 
manufacturer of any product whether they be tanks or not.
  The Senator from North Dakota recently espoused fervently that we 
means test the estate taxes, the so-called death taxes. There was great 
lamenting on the other side of the aisle about the fact that wealthy 
people would get off scot-free, and that we should not let them be 
completely absolved from estate taxes.
  Will the Senator from North Dakota agree to a means testing on the 
amount of money so that the Fanjul brothers will not get $65 million a 
year of Arizona taxpayers' and North Dakota taxpayers' dollars? At 
least you could agree to a means testing of this, rather than 42 
percent of all these subsidies going to 1 percent of the sugar growers 
in America.
  So my answer to the question from the Senator from North Dakota: No, 
I would never agree to what he is saying. I would agree, however, to 
take the proper measures to remove protectionism on both sides of the 
Atlantic and all over the world. That is why I am a supporter of free 
trade.
  Mr. CONRAD. I just say that the Senator from Arizona says he would 
not do something, but that is precisely what he is doing on the floor 
of the Senate--precisely what he is doing--engaging in unilateral 
disarmament on behalf of our producers, when they are already being 
outspent 10-1 by our major competitors, the Europeans.
  What the Senator from Arizona says is: Let's just abandon our folks. 
We are going to play by a different set of rules. We are going to be 
purists on this side of the Atlantic. On the other side of the 
Atlantic, they get to take these markets the old-fashioned way. They 
get to go out and buy them. The result will be exactly what is 
happening, I say to the Senator from Arizona, whom I respect and 
admire.
  I disagree firmly with him on this point. I respect and admire the 
Senator from Arizona; I make that clear. We have a spirited debate and 
discussion going here, and that is in the best tradition of the Senate. 
This has no personal feeling attached to it.
  I want the Senator from Arizona to know, I think this is precisely 
wrong. The fundamental reason it is wrong is because this is not the 
way world agriculture is working. What is happening in world 
agriculture today is our major competitors are going out and buying 
these markets. If we don't give some assistance to our producers, what 
will happen is the other side will take market share, as they are. The 
USDA now projects that this year for the first year the Europeans are 
going to surpass us in world market share. Why? Because they are going 
out in a very concentrated, calculated way and buying market after 
market from us. If we are going to throw in the sugar market, as we 
have thrown in the wheat market, as we have thrown in the barley 
market, pretty soon we will find an America that is second rate with 
respect to agriculture production. That would be a tragedy. It would be 
a mistake.
  The Senator references the GAO report. GAO is not perfect. If we look 
at this report and study it objectively, USDA put a team together and 
looked at this report. They concluded the validity of the results are 
suspect and should not be quoted authoritatively. Here is a sampling of 
some of the words USDA career analysts used in describing the GAO 
report: naive, arbitrary, in error, inconsistent, inadequate, a 
puzzlement, inflammatory and unprofessional, not well documented, 
incomplete, unrealistic. In a nutshell, the instant experts at GAO 
compared the U.S. price--the same thing the Senator from Arizona has 
done, the 8 cents he quotes--to a world dump market price that is a 
fraction of the cost of producing sugar and assumed that if grocery 
chains and food manufacturers could have access to that dump market 
sugar, they would pass 100 percent of their savings along to consumers.
  I have seen this over and over and over. It is an easy mistake to 
understand because people are writing about this industry who know 
nothing about it. They say over and over, the world price of sugar is 8 
cents. That is absolute nonsense. It is not true. It is not accurate. 
That is the dump price for world sugar. It would be the same as talking 
about the world steel price and failing to look at all of the steel 
that sells to the automobile industry around the world under contract, 
instead to look at the dump market where just a fraction of world steel 
and world sugar sells.
  It is economic know-nothingism, frankly, to make that reference. It 
is not reality.
  We have very difficult issues to deal with in world agriculture. In 
our country, the No. 1 issue is right here. Are we going to let our 
producers get swamped by a flood of European money, by tough 
competitors who have made a determination that what they want to do is 
dominate world agriculture and they are going to do it the old-
fashioned way. They are going to go out and buy these markets from us. 
That is what they are doing--$324 an acre of support on average versus 
our $34. If we want to continue to engage in unilateral disarmament and 
let American agriculture go right down the tubes, this is a good place 
to start, right here, today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk on this issue. It is an 
important issue to this country; it is an important issue to my State.
  I suspect much of what I state may have perhaps already been said. 
Nevertheless, I think it is important that we take a continuing look at 
the facts of the issue. We have heard a lot of emotional discussion 
with respect to it. The fact is, we have been through this before. 
About every year we seem to go through the same discussion.
  It does impact many people. It is not something where just a few rich 
people are involved. It provides 420,000 jobs in 40 States. Many 
agriculture communities are dependent on sugar production, as are some 
in my State. Frankly, it is one of the few products that is processed 
on to retail use. It comes out of the State ready to put on the grocery 
store shelf. Seldom does that happen in my State.
  It provides a $26 billion annual economic activity and is a very high 
quality product, one that is changing. We

[[Page S7320]]

talked about the candy and so on. Most of that comes from corn 
sweeteners. Nevertheless, it is very important. It is a very efficient 
industry; by world standards, we have the 18th lowest cost of 
production out of 96 producing countries, despite the fact that we have 
high-cost environmental standards and those kinds of costs.
  As the Senator from North Dakota made quite clear, we keep talking 
about the ``world'' price. It isn't the world price. It is the dump 
price. Almost all the countries are subsidized. After they raise more 
than the subsidy applies to, it is dumped on the market. That needs to 
be understood.
  We need to understand that consumers have benefited from this 
program. Retail sugar prices are virtually unchanged since 1990 and are 
20 percent below the developed country average. It is about the most 
affordable in the entire world, as a matter of fact.
  We have talked about taxpayer benefits. Until this year, the sugar 
program has been a zero cost program for 15 years, since 1985. It 
generated $279 million in revenue since 1991 that was paid by the 
industry into the Government. It is WTO, NAFTA compliant. Prices have 
been very low for the producers, very low in the industry.
  Unfortunately, there has not been a passthrough. What we find is the 
grocery stores have not lowered their price. The price of sweetened 
products is up 7 to 9 percent. At the same time, the grower price has 
been down approximately 20 percent. We find a great deal of activity 
there.
  We have heard several times about the GAO report. The Senator talked 
about that. Certainly, the findings of USDA were such that they 
confused the world market with the dump price, as was pointed out. They 
also assumed that the lower costs were being passed on 100 percent 
through the retail market. That is not the case. Even though I am a 
great supporter of GAO, that study was not one that has been 
particularly useful.
  The wholesale price for refined sugar has been down, is down, 25.9 
percent in the last 3\1/2\ years. At the same time, the price for 
refined retail sugar is about the same. Ice cream is up. Candy is up. 
Cookies are up. Cereal is up. We haven't seen that pass through to the 
product.
  I will not continue to go through this. I think we have covered many 
of the facts. This is a very important industry in my State. Our sugar 
beet production is one of the most efficient in the world. We have 
three refineries. It is very important to us. We have been through this 
whole discussion before. I think we agreed, then, this is an important 
matter to the country, to agriculture. I rise in opposition to the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues who have 
engaged in the debate so far.
  It is summertime in Washington so I guess that means it is sugar 
amendment time. The Senate essentially voted on this once before. It 
seems we do it every July and August, during the summer months. The 
exact same amendment was voted on last August 4. The Senate rejected 
the amendment by a vote of 66-33, a 2-to-1 margin. I think the reason 
it was rejected by such a large margin is that Members are finally 
beginning to understand the sugar program and what it really involves 
and why it has worked for so many years as a benefit both to producers 
and also to the consumers of sugar and sugar products. It is not a 
perfect program, but it is one that has improved over the years. I will 
make a couple of comments about it.
  Before that, I want to mention the fact that not too far back, this 
Congress was really involved in the crisis involving the increase in 
gasoline prices. We talked about gasoline prices going up 25 cents a 
gallon, 30 cents a gallon, 50 cents a gallon, and everybody being in an 
uproar about it.
  The sugar program has been at a loan rate of 18 cents since 1985. It 
hasn't gone up one-half cent since 1985. What I want to do is take a 
moment to try to explain, as briefly as I can, how the program works. 
We have had talk on the floor this afternoon about these ``huge'' 
subsidies being given to some wealthy family, I heard, somewhere in 
Florida. I have almost 700 sugar cane farms in Louisiana and the 
growers would be very surprised to learn there is a big subsidy program 
out there, because the sugar program is not a direct subsidy from the 
taxpayer by any stretch of the imagination.
  What sugar farmers get is a loan, as other commodities also get, such 
as rice, cotton, and other farm products. The loan is 18 cents per 
pound for sugar. It is a non-recourse loan. What that means, simply, to 
people not in the agriculture business, is it gives farmers the option 
of putting their crop under loan at harvest time. They have the option 
to either pay back the loan in dollars or, if the market price falls so 
low they cannot do that, they can forfeit their sugar to the Government 
as payment for the loan.
  The interesting thing is that, since 1985, there has not been one 
single forfeiture under the loan program. Not one. Farmers have put 
their crop under loan and they have paid back the loan when the loan 
was due to the Federal Government. That is how the program works. There 
is no direct subsidy to make up the difference in a price, where 
taxpayers have to dip into their pockets to give to a sugar farmer. It 
is a non-recourse loan, which means they can either pay it back in 
dollars or forfeit the amount of sugar that they have put under loan.
  Some would say, well, the sugar program protects domestic sugar by 
preventing sugar imports from coming into this country. That is not 
true. In fact, the sugar we are importing varies between 15 and 20 
percent. It comes from 40 countries around the world. It is GATT legal. 
It comes into this country, under the program, from 40 different 
countries around the world.
  Here is the thing that I think is really interesting, because I guess 
in addition to saying it is a huge subsidy program--which it is not; it 
is simply a loan program--is that somehow consumers are being harmed by 
this program. This chart, I think, is consistent with what Senator 
Conrad from North Dakota was pointing out. We have a bar chart; I think 
he had a graph. It is essentially the same thing. This is data from the 
Department of Agriculture. It is not from the sugar industry; it is 
from the USDA. It indicates that it has been 3\1/2\ years since the 
start of the 1996 farm program when we put the new and improved program 
into effect.
  The chart from USDA indicates that the prices for producers have 
fallen, and the consumer prices for sugar and sweetened products have 
risen. This shows sugarcane farmers in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, 
Hawaii, which produce the bulk of the sugarcane used for sugar. Since 
1996, when we put the program into place, the price of sugarcane to the 
producer, to the farmer, has fallen 14.6 percent. These are USDA 
numbers. The prices for wholesale refined sugar, beet sugar, USDA tells 
us, have fallen 31.9 percent. These are USDA numbers. They show prices 
falling to the producers, the farmers of cane sugar, and prices falling 
to the producers of sugar from sugar beets.
  You would think that if the price to the farmer is falling by 31.9 
percent, in one case, and 14.6 percent for sugarcane farmers, my 
goodness, that must be great for consumers, right? Everything that uses 
sugar should have a corresponding fall in its price, right? Wrong.
  Look at what happened to the price of sugar on the shelf. The price 
of sugar on the shelf has risen a very small amount, while the price 
for the people producing sugar cane and sugar beets has been 
drastically falling. But the price of sugar on the shelf has been on 
the increase when you would expect that it would be going down. Look at 
what happened. Here is where the complainers were. How many Members of 
Congress have gotten letters from people saying gas prices are too 
high? Probably quite a few of us. ``Do something, Senator. Gas prices 
are too high.'' How many people have gotten a letter from a housewife, 
or somebody running a home, saying, ``You know, my biggest problem is 
that I went to buy 5 pounds of sugar and it is so high I have to choose 
between clothes and shoes and sugar.'' Nobody is writing about that and 
complaining about the price for 5 pounds of sugar going through the 
roof. Do you know why? Because it is not.

  Here is what has been happening. The people who use it--the large 
manufacturers who make candy--and I can name them, but I will spare 
them the

[[Page S7321]]

embarrassment--have had their prices go up 6.4 percent, while a main 
ingredient, sugar, has been plummeting over here. Not the price of 
candy. A main ingredient's price has been going down, but the price of 
their product has been going up.
  Cookies and cakes are big users of sugar. The most important thing in 
these products is probably sugar. Their prices have gone up 6.6 
percent, according to the USDA, while the price of sugar, a main 
ingredient, has plummeted. Cereal? Big users. There are a lot of sugar-
coated flakes for kids. Cereal prices have gone up 8.3 percent. The 
price of sugar to the farmer has plummeted.
  The last one is ice cream. I love it. I would buy it no matter what 
it costs. It has gone up 9.8 percent. There is a lot of sugar in ice 
cream. What they are paying for the sugar is a lot lower than it used 
to be. Boy, their product price doesn't reflect that. If there are 
problems here, they are candy, cookies, cereal, and ice cream. It used 
to be the soft drink industry, but they got out and quit using sugar. 
Today the price of their product is more than it was when they were 
using sugar. And then look at the cans of artificially sweetened soft 
drink products and the cans of the naturally sweetened soft drinks; the 
price of an artificially sweetened soft drink is no less than the price 
of the one that is using the natural sweetener. Try to explain that 
when they say the real problem is sugar prices.
  These are USDA figures, not mine and not sugar producers. Their 
prices have plummeted under the program. There is no direct Government 
subsidy. It is a loan. Sugar farmers have never forfeited one single 
loan since 1985. They have paid it back, and paid it back in dollars, 
and it has been the same loan rate since 1985. It has been 18 cents. 
That program, designed to help everybody, has seemingly not helped the 
farmer very much. But it is the only thing we have. Like every other 
product and commodity that we try to help in a balanced fashion, it has 
done that.
  I will conclude by saying that this is the same vote we had last 
August. The Senate spoke very clearly then, 66-33. I hope that we will 
do the same thing today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I guess I have been around this old 
business of agriculture about as long as anybody. We have seen high 
commodity prices and we have seen low commodity prices. Years ago, when 
we would get a high surplus of any type of commodity, the price went 
down and so did the price in the grocery store. We had to eat our way 
out of this thing, so to speak. It happened in livestock, pork and beef 
and chicken products. But that is not the case anymore.
  I was interested in his chart showing how, even though the price of 
sugar has gone down, the prices of candy, cookies, other baked goods, 
cereal, and ice cream has continued to go up. I don't want anybody 
fiddling with my ice cream. I like it like it is. If it goes up a 
little bit, that is OK. But don't come back and say if all of the 
support is taken away from sugar, the prices will go down in the store. 
It doesn't work with this product. It was about a year and a half ago 
that live hogs hit an all-time low and got down to around 10 cents a 
pound. Yet, when I went to my grocery stores out here in Springfield, 
VA, and back in Billings, MT, guess what? Boned out, double-cut pork 
chops were still around $5 to $6 a pound.
  Folks, I don't know how sharp your pencil is. But that ``don't 
pencil.'' That just ``don't pencil.''
  We are looking at a program that has cost the taxpayer virtually 
nothing. Yet it sustains many small farmers. Sure, there are a couple 
of big ones down in Florida. But there are a couple of big ones in 
everything. For the most part, this is support for farmers in the Big 
Horn Basin of Wyoming and the Yellowstone Valley between Billings and 
Sidney. It keeps them in business.
  I ask the American people, when it comes to farm programs or 
insurance, do you insure your car? Yes. You do. Do you insure your 
house? Yes. You insure your house. Do you insure your life? Yes. We do 
that. I look upon this as just a little insurance policy. It doesn't 
cost us very much money, but it ensures that your grocery stores will 
be full of the most nutritious and safe food of any grocery store in 
the world and priced less than the percentage of the disposable income 
of any other place in the world. That is a pretty good insurance 
policy. We don't have to garden. We don't have to plant, or seed, or 
weed, harvest, or process. We can continue to do what we want to do in 
our profession. It is guaranteed that you are going to have that supply 
in any amount and fixed in any way and processed in any way.
  We already talked about the numbers. But we are basically looking at 
people who have a great deal on the line. They risk a lot. They are 
subject to the elements. They have no control over that. They have no 
control over the retail end of the product--none whatsoever. If we are 
going to keep this very efficient food machine alive, this is the 
insurance policy that we all have. It serves this country very well.
  I suggest that you not support the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Arizona. It is well intentioned. As the Senator from Louisiana 
said, it is indeed July.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see my friend from North Dakota on the 
floor. Of course our entire relationship is characterized by respect. 
Obviously he makes a strong case for his point of view. I not only 
respect but I appreciate and enjoy the verbal exchanges we have from 
time to time. He is a worthy adversary. I will not take very long.
  It was alleged that marketing assessments are large amounts of money. 
That is true. I believe it is $272 million or something such as that. 
But I think it is appropriate to mention that those marketing 
assessments in last year's omnibus bill were done away with. The sugar 
producers do nothing to address the budget deficit. I think an argument 
can be made that this Senator from Arizona may not be the most expert 
on agricultural issues. I plead guilty to that. I believe there are 
other issues in which I am better informed.
  A cosponsor of this amendment is the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Senator Lugar. Senator Lugar is in support of this 
amendment. I am honored that the chairman of the committee is in 
support of this amendment. I think his viewpoint should also be taken 
into consideration, particularly with more gravity than mine.
  There was a study conducted by the Center for International 
Economics. It was prepared as part of the trade agenda and conference 
on the 1st and 2nd of October 1999 in Geneva. I will read the beginning 
of this study:

       If ever there was a case for multilateral trade 
     liberalisation, and if ever there was a liberalisation from 
     which the global economy stood to gain, it is sugar. The 
     world sugar market contains some of the largest and most 
     blatant forms of trade protection. Many of these have a 300 
     year history. The worst of the worst are in developed 
     countries. They greatly distort trade and prices. Although 
     the world economy, consumers and efficient sugar producers 
     stand to gain substantially from liberalisation, some 
     producers, especially those in developed countries, stand to 
     lose. And herein lies a political challenge--there are large 
     vested interests that are likely to oppose sugar trade 
     liberalisation. In the Uruguay Round these vested interests 
     won hands down. Should they win again, they are likely to 
     further undermine developed country credibility in the WTO 
     and the WTO itself. Ultimately countries unilaterally 
     liberalise trade. The best that multilateral forums can do is 
     to assist that process. The biggest gains in trade 
     liberalisation come form reducing the biggest distortions 
     first. Giving prominence to sugar and other highly protected 
     products in the WTO millennium round makes economic sense. 
     Such prominence is also needed to help counter the vested 
     interests opposed to reform.

  They go on to say:

       This taxation of consumers and protection of producers is 
     highest in Japan, Western Europe and the United States.

  We are the leading proponent of free and open trade. The United 
States has an enviable record, whether it be the North American Free 
Trade Agreement. Whether it be expansion of economic trade relations 
with China through Democrat and Republican administrations, we have 
been in pursuit of free trade. Clearly, we lose credibility when we 
stand as one of the highest protectionists for our sugar industry.

[[Page S7322]]

  I say again with respect to my friend from North Dakota and the 
opponents of this amendment that I will be glad to work with them at 
least to means test this subsidy. Why in the world should one family 
get $65 million in subsidies? That is remarkable when you think about 
it. Adding to that, they are harming the Everglades. Every objective 
study indicates that the runoff from pesticides and other pollutants in 
the Everglades is dramatically damaging the Everglades. Yes. The sugar 
companies are paying some money, but in comparison to the overall cost, 
the estimated cost of fixing the Everglades is minuscule.
  I am not without sympathy for the farmers in North Dakota. I am not 
without sympathy for the farmers in Montana, Louisiana, and Idaho. But 
when they are encouraged to grow a crop which they would not grow if it 
were not for the subsidies, and in addition in some parts of America 
they are doing damage to our environment, then it is time we said 
enough.
  Again, I strongly support a proposal to means test and to phase out 
these sugar subsidies. We phased out a large number of subsidies when 
we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. I would agree that the Freedom to 
Farm Act has had very mixed results. In fact, there are questions 
raised by many.
  We eliminated and phased out wool, butter, cheese, powdered milk, and 
other dairies. We capped cotton and reduced peanuts, wheat, and others. 
But we retain two quite remarkable products; that is, sugar and 
tobacco. I promise not to bore my colleagues with a tirade about 
tobacco. But the fact is that the sugar subsidy is one which needs to 
be eliminated. I think we all know that.
  It is my understanding that the Senator from North Dakota, Senator 
Dorgan, after his remarks, will make a motion to table. I am certainly 
in agreement with that, or if there are other speakers, I would be glad 
to join into a time agreement, whatever is agreeable, with the Senator 
from Mississippi and the Senator from Wisconsin.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to oblige the Senator from 
Arizona and set up a unanimous consent agreement to limit time, if 
there are other Senators who want to speak.
  I see the Senator from North Dakota on his feet. I assume he wants to 
speak on the amendment. I know of no other Senators who wish to speak 
who have not already spoken.
  Senator Craig indicated an interest in making a motion to table the 
McCain amendment. We are about at that point where we are ready for a 
motion to table the amendment.
  I will yield the floor if anyone wants to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of my friend for a 
unanimous consent agreement that has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. McCAIN. This allows the Commerce Committee to meet off the floor 
for the purposes of approving the nomination of Mr. Norman Mineta to be 
the Secretary of Commerce.
  Mr. COCHRAN. No objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous consent agreement--executive calendar

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask consent, notwithstanding any rule or other order, 
it be in order for the Commerce Committee to meet in executive session 
for the purpose only of reporting nominations to the Executive 
Calendar. Among those nominations is that of Mr. Norman Mineta, former 
Congressman and nominee to be Secretary of Commerce, immediately 
following the next rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. In the spirit of the unanimous consent agreement, let me 
try this: I ask unanimous consent the Senate vote on or in relation to 
the McCain amendment at 2 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to oppose the 
amendment offered by my colleague and friend from Arizona, Senator 
McCain. I want to talk about a number of things that have been 
discussed about sugar, the sugar program, in this amendment.
  First, let me talk about ``free trade.'' There is not free trade in 
sugar around the world. It is not the case that the price that is 
described as the world price for sugar represents a free trade price. 
It is a fact that most sugar that is bought and sold around the world 
is bought and sold on contracts between countries. The quantity of 
sugar that is produced above that is sold on the dump market for dump 
market prices, but most sugar is traded or sold between countries on 
contract. So the price that is quoted as the world price for sugar is 
not the world price for sugar at all. That is a myth. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, the issue of who is getting a subsidy; is someone getting a 
large subsidy? There aren't any subsidies. This is not a program that 
has a subsidy. This is not a program in which the taxpayer is taxed and 
money comes to the Federal Government and money is given to a producer. 
There are no payments to producers. There are no subsidies. That is the 
second point.
  There are forces that have wanted to abolish the sugar program for 
some long while. The sugar program is not a program that gives a 
payment to a producer. It does create a circumstance of balance between 
production and imports in order to achieve a domestic price that 
provides stability for consumers and stability for producers. Some 
don't like that. Who are they? Well, they call themselves the Coalition 
for Sugar Reform. Who or what is the Coalition for Sugar Reform? Anyone 
can guess that. The American Bakers Association, the National 
Confectioners Association, the Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers 
Association, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, the Independent 
Bakers Association.
  Let's look at these groups. The price of sugar has dropped 30 percent 
since last summer, to a 22-year low. The price of sugar has dropped by 
a third. Anyone who listens to me should ask themselves, have I 
purchased a candy bar lately? If so, did I see a reduction in the cost 
of the candy bar? Did I buy a can of soda? If so, was it cheaper than 
it used to be? The answer, clearly, is no. Sugar prices have dropped by 
30 percent. Chocolate and candy prices are up by 6 percent. Cookies, 
cakes, and other bakery products are up by 7 to 8 percent. Cereal and 
ice cream prices are up by 9 percent. Buy just a bag of sugar at the 
store and see whether it costs 30 percent less.
  Let's figure out where sugar comes from. It comes from a family farm 
in the Red River Valley of North Dakota. This family raises sugar 
beets. They buy a tractor, they buy other equipment with which to plant 
the seeds; then they buy fuel, they buy fertilizer, they get up in the 
mornings and gas up the tractor and go break the ground. They do the 
things farmers do. They take all the risks. They do all the work. And 
then they hope. They hope something doesn't happen to the crop. They 
hope it doesn't get burned out, flooded out, or have disease. If all of 
those hopes are realized, maybe at the end of the year they get a 
crop--maybe.
  After risking all their money and working all year, if they get a 
crop, then maybe they get a crop that has a price above the cost of 
production. But maybe not.
  Some say: It doesn't matter who is producing these things; we really 
don't care--talking about the organizations, the Coalition for Sugar 
Reform--we don't care where it comes from; we just want to get the 
world price for sugar, the dump price for sugar.
  What is the result of that? The result means devastation of family 
farms in many parts of this country--those families who are out there 
trying to earn a living as best they can, whose fortune, whose future 
is based on events around the globe over which they have no control and 
whom these organizations would like to link to the world dump price for 
sugar. They can't make it. They wouldn't make it.

  We have to ask the question, Is it reasonable for us in this country 
to decide we want to do a couple of things at once? One, provide stable 
prices for sugar for the American consumer. We

[[Page S7323]]

have done that. U.S. retail prices for sugar are virtually unchanged 
for more than a decade. How many prices exist on the grocery store 
shelf where we can say that price is largely unchanged for an entire 
decade? Not very many. Sugar, we can.
  Why is it we have price stability for consumers? It has not always 
been that way. We have seen times when the price of sugar has spiked 
up, up, way up. The sugar program has provided stability of price for 
the consumer. At the same time, it has tried to provide some basic 
stability of price for the producer that takes the risk of producing. 
Some don't like that. They say producers don't matter much here. They 
do matter. They are part of the economic backbone of this country. They 
are the salt of the Earth. The folks who are out there trying to make a 
living on America's family farmers--and yes, I say to those questions, 
yes, they are family farmers. If you doubt it, come with me and I will 
take you to a few. We will drive in the yard, see the equipment, talk 
to the family. These are family farmers producing sugar beets.
  On another point about how well they do, the cost of production for 
sugar in this country is well below the cost of production in the world 
average. In fact, we have the lowest cost of beet sugar producers in 
the world. Yet they couldn't compete against dumped sugar at dump sugar 
prices. Should they have to compete in a global economy against dump 
sugar prices? The answer is no, of course not.
  We ought to be willing to stand up for this country's producers. I am 
not at all embarrassed, and I will never be embarrassed, for standing 
up for the economic interests of America's producers, to say to them, 
you deserve an opportunity to have a fair return. That is what this 
program is all about. In my judgment, this amendment ought to be tabled 
by this Senate. I believe it will be tabled. I have a series of charts, 
but I think my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and Senator 
Breaux and Senator Craig and others have used the charts. They show 
prices. They show what has happened to our producers--a devastating 
price collapse.

  Let me make one other parenthetical point. It seems to me, if you are 
going to start dealing with farm issues, the last thing you would want 
to do is go to one part of the farm program that historically has 
worked pretty well. We have had some problems with it in recent months 
for a number of reasons. Historically, this program has been the one 
part of the farm program that has worked. It seems to me you would not 
go to that one and take that apart. Make the rest of them work as well. 
But I think it is interesting that the same people who are the 
Coalition for Sugar Reform, they have one common ingredient in the 
things they produce--grains, oilseed, dairy and sugar. In every 
circumstance, the return for these commodities to the people who 
produce them--the people who get up in the morning, do all the work, do 
the chores, spend the day in the field, harvest the crops, and take all 
the risks--in every circumstance, we have seen a substantial decline: 
Wheat, corn, soybean prices less than half what they were 4 years ago; 
milk prices a little more than half what they were a year ago; sugar 
prices down by a third.
  That is not, in my judgment, what this Congress, what this Senate 
ought to be expecting to have happen for our producers. I hope we will 
decide today, by an overwhelming margin, to table this amendment.
  Let me end as I began. I have great respect for the Senator from 
Arizona and others who may feel the way he does. I do not in any way 
suggest what he is doing is something he does not believe passionately 
about. But I believe very strongly this amendment ought to be tabled. 
This Congress ought to be about the business of strengthening the sugar 
program and making that sugar program work as it has worked for so many 
years, not taking it apart. This is not a circumstance where our 
farmers are competing in free trade. There is not free trade in sugar. 
It is not a circumstance where farmers are getting a subsidy. There is 
no subsidy paid to sugar producers. It is a circumstance where this is 
a program that deserves the support of the Senate this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have a unanimous 
consent agreement to hold a vote on or about the McCain amendment at 2 
o'clock, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. With that in mind, Mr. President, I move to table the 
McCain amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold? I would like to have another 
chance to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is not to occur until 2 o'clock.
  Mr. CRAIG. Can I not register that at this time, with the intent that 
it occur at 2 o'clock? That is my intent, not to shut off debate but 
simply to register a motion to table at this time.
  I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, does that allow debate to continue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does.
  Mr. CRAIG. It would allow debate to continue.
  Mr. DORGAN. I was intending to offer the motion to table. I 
understood the Senator from North Dakota wished to speak. I think, if 
the Senator from Idaho is offering the motion to table, as long as 
there is debate time remaining, I support that.
  Mr. CRAIG. There is time remaining for this or other amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
introduced by the Senator from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to strike 
funding for the sugar program. I cannot stress enough how important 
this program is to the sugar beet growers in my state of Wyoming and 
agricultural communities throughout the nation.
  The sugarbeet farmers in Wyoming are already facing hard times. 
Almost one sixth of the sugar acreage in my State was just ravaged by a 
hailstorm and some fields are facing a complete loss. Since last 
summer, there has been a 30 percent drop in sugar prices to 
approximately $0.19 per pound--a 22 year low. And this October, Mexico 
is scheduled to increase its sugar exports to the American market 
tenfold, to 250,000 metric tons. And now we are considering dropping 
the sugar program. This amendment simply kicks these farmers while they 
are down, taking away what little price stability there is in their 
business.
  I would like to share with you a letter I just received from Wade 
Steiger, a sugar beet farmer in Frannie, Wyoming. Mr. Steiger writes 
``Dear Senator, I am currently in the sugar production business in the 
state of Wyoming and am wondering if I should remain in the business. 
What I need from you is your best assessment of the current mood in the 
body politic as to the direction of U.S. sugar policy * * * With the 
deck stacked against me like this, it would seem foolish to remain in 
the sugar business.''
  Frankly, I'm not sure what to tell him. I know what I would like to 
tell him. I would like to tell him that we in Congress are committed to 
making sure that he will be able to get a fair price for his product 
and that we understand the cyclical nature of his business and that 
there is a need for a progrma--a no-cost program--that offers a little 
stability to sugar prices. If this amendment passes, I will have to 
tell him otherwise.
  The sugar program has operated at no cost to the federal government 
since 1996 and the sugar purchase is not an outright payment to 
producers. This program covers the cost of purchasing surplus sugar 
which the government can then turn around and sell at a later date to 
recoup what is sometimes a large part of the up-front cost. Moreover, 
the sugar industry has already more than covered the cost of these 
purchases, with over $279 million paid into the U.S. Treasury during 
the 1990's in a special sugar marketing tax.
  Without this program, year-to-year supply changes caused by natural 
factors will lead to such price fluctuation that the profitability of 
sugar production would be too volatile for most farmers to stay in 
business. I believe that the government has a role to play in 
stabilizing commodity prices, especially when the program operates at 
no

[[Page S7324]]

net cost to the taxpayers, as is the case with this program.
  The U.S. produces beet sugar more efficiently and at a lower cost 
than any other country in the world, but currently these producers are 
at a disadvantage on the artificial world market. If every government 
around the world stayed out of the sugar production business, we 
wouldn't need a program to keep our farmers competitive. But the fact 
is that world sugar production is heavily subsidized, and it simply 
does not make sense for us to send U.S. jobs overseas by destroying our 
own sugar program.
  I have the utmost faith in my farmers back in Wyoming, that in a 
truly free market they could grow sugar more efficiently and profitably 
than anyone else in the world. But because of subsidies paid to protect 
less efficient farmers in the European Union, Brazil and other 
countries, the world dump market prices have averaged only about half 
of the price it would be in the absence of subsidies.
  The E.U. remains committed to pouring money into a sugar support 
program that holds its prices at approximately $.31 per pound.
  Brazil's sugar production exploded in the past twenty years in the 
wake of its subsidy to produce ethanol from cane sugar. As Brazil has 
cut back its ethanol subsidy, the cane has been used to produce sugar 
and since the mid-1990's, it sugar production has doubled and its 
exports have tripled--all through its generous subsidies.
  In their race to produce subsidized sugar, Brazilian farmers have 
also had the benefit of far lower labor and environmental standards 
than American sugar farmers. Brazil's cane industry turned valuable 
forest land into farmland and continues to employ tens of thousands of 
children in the dangerous work of cutting cane.
  I believe the time has come to draw the line in this constant attack 
on rural America. This is not about farm welfare. This is not about 
protectionism. This is about giving our family farmers like Mr. Steiger 
a fair shake. I urge my colleagues to support a no-cost program that 
benefits these farmers and oppose this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Steiger's letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Wade Steiger,

                                        Frannie, WY, July 3, 2000.
       Dear Senator: I am currently in the sugar production 
     business in the state of Wyoming and am wondering if I should 
     remain in the business. What I need from you is your best 
     assessment of the current mood in the body politic as to the 
     direction of U.S. sugar policy. As I read the current policy, 
     the Mexicans will have free access to the U.S. market in the 
     near future, and the Mexicans have just signed a NAFTA-like 
     deal with the E.U. Under this arrangement the E.U. will have 
     access to a U.S. taxpayer supported U.S. sugar market and 
     would therefore effectively be getting a subsidy from both 
     their own government as well as ours. With the deck stacked 
     against me like this, it would seem foolish to remain in the 
     sugar business.
       My read on the political mood is that the sugar industry 
     has been laid on the altar of free trade and, if politically 
     expedient, will be sacrificed. I need to know if you or any 
     of your colleagues intend to do anything to change the 
     current situation before I decide whether or not to continue 
     in this business. I understand that giving a straight answer 
     to this question is politically risky, but I would appreciate 
     an answer with a minimum of political ``cover your ass''. I 
     am willing to take an answer in a non-recordable fashion, but 
     I prefer that you take a clear stand on the issue.
       Sincerely,
                                                     Wade Steiger.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we are again debating the amendment by the 
Senator from Arizona. My colleagues may recall that this body rejected 
an identical amendment last year by a vote of 66-33.
  As I mentioned on the floor last August, the sugar program remains a 
great bargain for the American consumer. It's also one of the least 
expensive food items you will find in an American kitchen. Sugar is 
probably the best bargain you can find at the grocery store today. 
American sugar farmers and the U.S. sugar program help make sugar 
affordable.
  Consumers elsewhere around the globe do not enjoy the low prices we 
have in America. If you visit a grocery store in other industrialized 
nations you will get ``sticker shock'' when you pass the sugar display. 
Thanks to a farm program that assures stable supplies at reasonable 
prices, sugar is a remarkable value for American consumers. U.S. 
consumers pay an average of 17 cents less per pound of sugar than their 
counterparts in other industrialized nations. Low U.S. prices save 
consumers more than a billion dollars annually. That's why I say that 
the sugar program is a great deal for American consumers. Thanks to the 
sugar program, U.S. consumers enjoy a plentiful supply of sugar at 
bargain prices.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. If Congress terminates 
the sugar program, not only will a dynamic part of the economy 
disappear from many rural areas, but consumers will also lose a 
reliable supply of high-quality, low-price sugar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will go back to some of the things that 
were said here so the Record is crystal clear. When the Senator from 
Arizona says there are massive subsidies being paid to sugar producers, 
it is just wrong. That is not the way the sugar program works. There is 
not one nickel of payment made by the Federal Government to sugar 
producers--not one, not a penny. It is not a subsidy program here. That 
is not the way it works.
  That is part of the problem we have. We have people who do not know 
the program--really do not know the economics of world agriculture, 
really know nothing about the sugar industry and the sugar program--out 
here trying to pass laws that would have draconian, dramatic effects. 
They really are ill-informed. I don't know a nicer way to say it.
  When they say the world price of sugar is 8 cents, it is an 
absurdity. It costs 16 cents to 18 cents to produce sugar. How could 
the world price of sugar be 8 cents? It is not the world price of 
sugar, as has been said on the floor. The vast majority of sugar in the 
world sells under contract and those contract prices are not part of 
the calculation of what the Senator from Arizona calls the world price 
of sugar. That is excluded from those calculations. So when they talk 
about a world price of sugar, that is not the world price; it is a dump 
price. It is that sugar which is left over which is a small part of the 
world sugar supply that sells that was not part of a contract. It is 
not a world price. That is a misnomer. It is factually incorrect.
  Now let's go to the underlying assumption. The underlying assumption 
is that somehow the rest of the world is engaged in free market 
economics with respect to agriculture production. False. That is not 
even close to being right. Our major competitors, the Europeans, are 
spending about $50 billion a year to support their producers--$50 
billion. Here are the comparisons. This is from the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development. They are the ones who are in 
charge of keeping score on the question of who supports their producers 
at what level. Here is the European Union, our major competitor. They 
are supporting their producers on average $324 an acre. Here we are: 
$34 an acre. They are outgunning us 10 to 1.
  What the Senator from Arizona says to us is we ought to cut this some 
more. We ought to cut our level of support even further. Let's engage 
in total unilateral disarmament in this world battle over agriculture 
markets.
  What sense does that make? We tried that in the last farm bill. In 
the last farm bill, we cut our support for producers on average from 
$10 billion to $5 billion. We cut it in half on the theory that was 
going to be a good example for the Europeans and they would similarly 
reduce their support.
  What happened? They did not cut their support by a nickel. Instead, 
they stayed steady on course, buying up world market after world 
market. The USDA tells us they are going to surpass the United States 
in world market share for the first time in anyone's memory. That is 
where we are headed. We are headed for a circumstance in which America, 
which has dominated world agricultural trade, is headed for the No. 2 
position. And the Europeans believe, as they have told me, we are so 
prosperous that we will not fight back and, in fact, we will give up 
these markets.

[[Page S7325]]

  I say to the Senator from Arizona, he would never engage in 
unilateral disarmament in a military confrontation. Why is he insisting 
on it in an agricultural market confrontation? It makes no sense. Here 
we are, outgunned 10 to 1, and he wants to make it an even greater 
disparity; to say to our producers: We abandon you. We wave the white 
flag of surrender; we want the Europeans to take over these world 
agricultural markets that have long been ours.
  We have to quit being naive on what is going on in world trade. It is 
not free market. It is not free trade. It is managed trade; it is 
managed markets; it is a heavily subsidized battle over world market 
share. That is what is going on. We can choose to give up and run to 
the sidelines and give in or we can fight back. I hope the United 
States decides to fight back. I hope we decide we are not going to 
abandon our producers and allow our major competitors, the Europeans, 
to dominate world agricultural trade. In the long term, that would be 
an economic disaster for this country and certainly for the tens of 
thousands of farmers all across America who are dependent on the wisdom 
of this body to recognize what is happening, and to stand by their side 
and be ready to fight because I can assure you, that is what the 
Europeans are doing. They are fighting for world market share.

  As one of the top Europeans described to me: Senator, we believe we 
are in an agriculture trade war with the United States. We believe that 
at some point there will be a cease-fire in this trade war, and we 
believe that whoever occupies the high ground will be the winner.
  The high ground is world market share. They have told me at some 
point they think there is going to be a cease-fire, and whoever 
occupies the high ground will be the winner, and the high ground is 
world market share. That is what this is all about. The Europeans are 
aggressively spending to gain world market share to be in a position of 
world dominance in agriculture, and that strategy and that plan is 
working.
  If one looks at the trend lines over the last 20 years, one will find 
the Europeans have gone from being the major importing region in the 
world to the major exporting region today. They have done it in 20 
years. They have done it by discipline. They have done it by a plan. 
They have done it by a strategy. They are counting on us not to be 
paying attention. They are counting on us to give up. They are counting 
on us to give in. They are counting on us to wave the white flag of 
surrender.
  I pray this body does not go any further down this road of unilateral 
surrender in world agriculture because we have already given up too 
much. The Europeans support their producers $324 an acre. The United 
States supports its producers $34 an acre.
  The Senator from Arizona said: Let's make this disparity even 
greater. That is a disaster. That is a disaster, and we have the chance 
to stop it by this vote at 2 o'clock. I hope we take the opportunity.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside for the purpose of Senator Wellstone offering an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 3922

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3922.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself, 
     Mr. Harkin, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Feingold, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3922.

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

   (Purpose: To provide increased funding for the Grain Inspection, 
      Packers and Stockyards Administration for investigations of 
   anticompetitive behavior, rapid response teams, the Hog Contract 
   Library, examinations of the competitive structure of the poultry 
   industry, civil rights activities, and information staff, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 9, line 6, strike ``$67,038,000'' and insert 
     ``$63,088,000, of which not less than $12,195,000 shall be 
     used for food assistance program studies and evaluations''.
       On page 23, line 21, strike ``$27,269,000: Provided,'' and 
     insert ``$31,219,000: Provided, That not less than $3,950,000 
     shall be used for investigations of anticompetitive behavior, 
     rapid response teams, the Hog Contract Library, examination 
     of the competitive structure of the poultry industry, civil 
     rights activities, and information staff: Provided 
     further,''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Harkin, Daschle, and Feingold be added as original cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before proceeding, I say to the Senator 
from Nevada, the Democratic whip, if we have a vote at 2, I believe I 
can finish with my presentation on this amendment and I will be pleased 
to go to another amendment right after the vote if my colleague wants 
me to move this along.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Minnesota --Senator 
Cochran is not here--we have been alternating back and forth. We 
appreciate the cooperation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I will do 
this amendment and if there is a Republican amendment next, I will then 
follow that next Republican amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment, again, 
with Senators Harkin, Daschle, and Feingold, about competitive markets. 
I am hoping there will be a strong, if you will, free enterprise, pro-
competition vote for this amendment, especially when it comes to 
looking out for the interests of our producers, in particular our 
Nation's livestock producers.
  This amendment will fully fund the President's budget request for the 
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration, called GIPSA, 
funding they need to look at market concentration.
  What we see right now--and it is a disturbing trend in our economy 
and certainly a disturbing trend in the food industry--is an increasing 
concentration of power. We see inadequate price information both for 
producers and consumers. We see lack of competition. We see 
anticompetitive practices. Consequently, GIPSA has been asked to assume 
a more prominent role, as they should, in ensuring competitiveness--
that is all this amendment is about--and fairness in the livestock 
industry. GIPSA is conducting a growing number of investigations on 
market concentration in agriculture, and they should be doing just this 
work. The point is, they should be adequately funded to do the job.
  What this amendment does is ensure GIPSA has the resources to meet 
these additional responsibilities, and it increases funding for GIPSA--
I say to Senators and staff, Democrats and Republicans, who are 
listening--by a total of $3.95 million to fund these essential 
programs. I am going to list these programs in a moment.
  I recall a gathering I attended in Iowa. Senator Harkin I believe was 
there. Senator Grassley was there. At this gathering, we had one family 
farmer after another basically saying: Where is the Packers and 
Stockyard Administration? Why are they not involved in representing us? 
Where are they as we see more and more of these conglomerates taking 
over more and more of the market and we do not have the opportunity to 
compete? They should be doing their job.
  What we heard in return from Mike Dunn was: We will do the job, but 
we need the resources.
  That is what this amendment is about: making sure they have the 
resources to do the job they are supposed to do by virtue of the law of 
the land.

  What will the amendment do? It will add $1.2 million for 
anticompetitive behavior investigations. This is to look at what is 
going on in the industry and aggressively pursue especially 
investigations into anticompetitive activity in the livestock industry.
  There will be $1.3 million for rapid response teams. This will 
enhance GIPSA's effectiveness in addressing

[[Page S7326]]

major investigative issues of immediate concern when it comes to 
anticompetitive practices or trade practice issues.
  It will allow for $200,000 for the hog contract library. This will be 
used to comply with section 22 of the fiscal year 2000 Ag 
appropriations bill. This is the mandatory price reporting.
  There will be $800,000 to examine the competitive structure of the 
poultry industry which will permit GIPSA to expand its activity in the 
poultry market to take a close look at characteristics of markets for 
poultry grower services.
  There will be $100,000 for civil rights activities which will allow 
GIPSA to resolve its backlog of EEO complaints and to increase emphasis 
on proactive efforts to maintain EEO goals and objectives. All of us 
are familiar with the grievances and the just cause of many African 
American farmers in our country.
  There will be $350,000 for information staff at GIPSA that will 
enable them to develop new educational programs which will be targeted 
to small and socially disadvantaged farmers and improve relations with 
producers.
  This is a modest amendment. There should be strong support for this 
amendment. It is all about putting some free enterprise back into the 
free enterprise system. It is all about being on the side of our 
producers.
  It simply says: Let's get the funding up to the administration's 
request. I think we should be doing much more than this, and I hope 
that by the end of this Congress--in fact, I do not hope, it absolutely 
has to happen--we will pass the Farmers and Ranchers Fair Competition 
Act which has been introduced by Senators Daschle and Leahy, and a 
number of others of us who have worked on this as well. Really, what we 
ought to be talking about is some legislation that makes antitrust 
action a reality in this country. In the food industry we need it.

  When I travel in the countryside--and I do quite often--the one issue 
on which farm organizations agree--they don't agree on many--the one 
issue that brings farmers and rural people together is that we need to 
have more competition. We need to have some antitrust action. These 
conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table, and they are 
forcing us out.
  I do not know why we are so slow to take up this cause.
  Let me give this amendment a little bit of context.
  In the past decade and a half, we have seen an explosion of mergers 
and acquisitions and anticompetitive practices with record 
concentration in American agriculture.
  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.
  The market share of the top four soybean crushers has jumped from 54 
percent to 80 percent.
  Forty-nine percent of all chicken broilers are now slaughtered by the 
largest four firms.
  The list goes on and on.
  The four largest grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of the 
elevator facilities in the country.
  The result of this is that you have had this surge of concentration. 
You have these conglomerates which have a tremendous amount of power, 
you have GIPSA which does not have the resources to do the job, and you 
have the Senate that has not passed a strong piece of legislation that 
calls for antitrust action. As a result of that, the farmers, 
everywhere they turn, don't get a fair shake. When they look to whom 
they buy from, it is a few large firms that dominate the market. When 
they look to whom they sell to, it is a few large firms that dominate 
the market.
  Everybody in this Chamber knows that if you are at an auction, you 
are more likely to get a good price when there are a lot of bidders. I 
think all of us are for competition. We need to have more competition, 
but we need to have a level playing field for our producers.
  I want to report on both the horizontal concentration, that was 
reflected in the statistics I mentioned, but also the ways in which we 
have the vertical integration.
  Take the pork industry. Pork packers are buying up what is called 
captive supply--hogs that they own or have contracted under marketing 
agreements. If this trend continues, you are going to see grain, 
soybean production--it will be basically from the very beginning, from 
the very point level of production, all the way to the supermarket.
  The problem with this kind of vertical concentration is it destroys 
competitive markets. Potential competitors often don't know the sale 
price for the goods at any point in the process. There is no price 
discovery--essentially no effective competition. If it continues at the 
current pace, we are going to basically have all the industry dominated 
this way.
  Moreover, the vertical integration stacks the deck against the 
farmers.
  In April 1999, there was a report from the Minnesota Land Stewardship 
Project that found: Packers' practice of acquiring captive supplies 
through contracts and direct ownership is reducing the number of 
opportunities for small- and medium-sized farmers to sell their hogs. 
With fewer buyers, and more captive supply, there is less competition 
for our independent producers.

  I want to make sure we can at least get this additional $3.95 million 
to GIPSA so they can do the job of being there on the side of 
producers, so they can do the job of investigating potential or real 
anticompetitive practices.
  It is a modest amendment, but it is hugely important to family 
farmers.
  Leland Swensen, president of the National Farmers Union, recently 
testified--he is right--

       The increasing level of market concentration, with the 
     resulting lack of competition in the marketplace, is one of 
     the top concerns of [American] farmers and ranchers. At most 
     farm and ranch meetings, market concentration ranks as either 
     the first or second in priority of issues of concern. Farmers 
     and ranchers believe that lack of competition is a key factor 
     in the low commodity prices they are receiving.

  Some of these big packers are raking in record profits while our 
livestock producers are facing extinction. The farm/retail spread, as 
every Senator from every agriculture State knows, is growing wider and 
wider and wider, between what our producers get paid for what they 
produce and what consumers pay. There is a whole lot of money and a 
whole lot of profit that is made in the middle. I do not mind that, but 
I would like to see the livestock producers and our other producers in 
our farm States get a fair shake.
  If there is one thing farmers ask for more than anything else, it is 
a level playing field. If there is one thing they are worried about, it 
is this increasing concentration. We ought to be able to get this 
additional money to GIPSA.
  The vote on this amendment is all about whether or not we are willing 
to be there on the side of these family farmers, whether we are on the 
side of making sure we deal with anticompetitive practices, and whether 
we take their concerns seriously.
  One of the reasons I bring this amendment to the floor--yes, the 
administration asked for this additional $3.95 million. I remember the 
meeting in Iowa with Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin. And I 
remember Mike Dunn saying: Give us the money to do the job. That is 
true.
  As I have said, these conglomerates have muscled their way to the 
dinner table, and they have pushed our producers out. We have too few 
firms that dominate too much of the market, and we do not have enough 
competition. That is what this is about. I have said that.
  But I also want all Senators to understand that this amendment is 
also offered in the context of the record low prices and the record low 
income. To tell you the truth, the AMTA payments are the only reason 
some of our producers are able to continue, although those payments all 
too often amount to a subsidy in an inverse relationship to need, and 
farmers are still demanding a decent price.
  But the whole issue of price, the whole issue of producers getting a 
fair price, is highly correlated to whether or not there is going to be 
some competition. It is highly correlated to whether or not we are 
going to take antitrust action seriously.

  There is a reason we passed the Sherman Act in the late 1800s. There 
is a reason we passed the Clayton Act in the early 1900s. The reason 
is, to be there on the side of our producers.

[[Page S7327]]

  This amendment is a small amendment. It is a modest amendment. But I 
think it puts Senators on record as to whether or not we are serious 
about antitrust action.
  The health and the vitality of rural America, our communities--I say 
to the Presiding Officer, who knows quite a bit about agriculture, 
coming from the State of Illinois--is not based upon the number of 
acres of land that someone farms; it is not based upon the number of 
animals someone owns. The health and the vitality of rural America is 
based upon the number of family farmers who live in the community, 
because when family farmers live in a community, somebody is going to 
own the land; no question about it.
  We will always have an agriculture industry. We are always going to 
have a food industry. What is a more precious commodity than food? It 
is more precious than oil. The question is, How many farmers are going 
to live in the community that supports the schools, that supports the 
churches, that supports the synagogues, that supports small businesses? 
The farm dollar, if you are talking about a family farm, multiplies in 
the community where people live, where they buy--a community they care 
about. When you move to these conglomerates basically being in control 
and absentee investment, absentee ownership, when they make a profit, 
they don't invest it back into the community.
  John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs sums it up this way:

       Replacing mid-size farms with big farms reduces middle-
     class entrepreneurial opportunities in farm communities, at 
     best replacing them with wage labor.

  He goes on to say:

       A system of economically viable, owner-operated family 
     farms contributed more to communities than systems 
     characterized by inequality and large numbers of farm 
     laborers with below-average incomes and little ownership or 
     control of productive assets.

  Can't we get at least a little additional funding to GIPSA so they 
can do the job, so they can be there on the side of our producers, so 
they can investigate whether or not we have monopoly practices, so they 
can investigate whether or not family farmers are getting a decent 
price, so they can investigate whether or not we have a few packers who 
are in collusion, who are involved in anticompetitive practices? I 
think we can.
  To provide a little more context, we are living in a time of merger 
mania. Joel Klein, who is doing a great job, head of the Justice 
Department's antitrust division, has pointed out that the value of last 
year's mergers equaled the combined value of all mergers from 1990 to 
1996.
  I heard Senator McCain make part of his argument. I am not sure I 
agreed with all of his argument, but one of the things Senator McCain 
focuses on, which is fair enough, is the whole issue of money and 
politics. I would argue that here we have a perfect example. Pick your 
industry. In agriculture, I am talking about the way in which these 
conglomerates have controlled the market. How about the airline 
industry? In my State of Minnesota, we are reading every other day that 
Northwest might merge with American Airlines. We have already heard 
about U.S. Air and United. We only have about six airlines now. We 
might get down to three megacompanies. The question is, What is the 
impact on consumers and what is the impact on the employees? What is 
the impact on the State?

  I could talk about banking. I could talk about energy. I could talk 
about health insurance. I could talk about any number of sectors of the 
economy. I could talk about telecommunications. Look at what has 
happened since we passed that bill. Where is the protection for 
consumers? And with all due respect, when we talk about a key issue, 
the flow of information in a democracy, we don't want to have a few 
media conglomerates controlling almost all of the flow of information 
in a democracy.
  I am speaking about the food industry, this very modest amendment. We 
make policy choices. We paved the way for family farming with the 
Homestead Act. It was a good thing to do. We enacted parity legislation 
which was all about better prices, fair prices for family farmers in 
the 1940s. It was a good thing to do. Then we cut loan rates in the 
1950s and 1960s. We passed the ``freedom to fail'' bill--I call it the 
``freedom to fail'' bill--a few short years ago. It dramatically 
reduced prices farmers got in the marketplace. I don't think it was a 
very wise thing to do. Above and beyond all of that, today, what I am 
saying is, let's at least vote for this modest amendment.
  Going back to Lee Swenson's testimony, of the National Farmers Union:

       The remaining firms are increasing market share and 
     political power to the point of controlling the governments 
     that once regulated the firms. Some of the biggest 
     corporations have gotten tax breaks or other government 
     incentives. . . . Corporate interests have also called on the 
     government to weaken environmental standards and immigrant 
     labor protections in order to allow them to reduce production 
     costs.

  The bigger these agribusinesses get, the more influence they have 
over our policy choices. The bigger they get, the more money they can 
spend on political campaigns. The bigger they get, the more lobbyists 
they can hire. The bigger they get, the more likely they are to be 
named special U.S. trade representatives, as is the case with the CEO 
of Monsanto. The bigger they get, the more likely public officials will 
be to confuse their interests with the public interest, even if they 
don't already do that. And the bigger they get, the more weight they 
will pull in the media. It is a vicious cycle. These conglomerates have 
entirely too much political power. Their overwhelming size makes it too 
easy for them to dictate policies and to get even bigger.
  There is something we can do in the short term. That is what this 
amendment is about. We can provide GIPSA with adequate funding to 
conduct on-the-ground investigations of market concentration.
  This is a modest amendment. We ought to have 100 votes for this 
amendment. Over the longer term, we ought to do more. We ought to focus 
on how we can enhance the bargaining power of our producers. We ought 
to figure out how we can be there on the side of producers, on the side 
of farmers, on the side of ranchers, on the side of rural America, and 
on the side of consumers. I look forward to bringing a significant 
piece of antitrust legislation that Senator Daschle has introduced to 
the floor of the Senate and having a major debate about what kind of 
antitrust action makes sense.

  Referring to the minimum wage, in many ways that is what family 
farmers are saying, too. We have families in the country who are 
saying: We want to be able to make enough of a wage that we can support 
our families. We have family farmers who are saying: We want to be able 
to get at least a decent price so that we can afford to support our 
families.
  We should be sensitive to that concern. We should do no less than to 
at least pass this very modest amendment. This amendment would increase 
the fund for GIPSA by $3.95 billion to fund essential programs. The 
offset comes out of ERS.
  I think this vote is a vote that is critically important in farm 
country. It is also a critically important vote for Senators who are on 
the side of consumers. I hope we will have strong support for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to my understanding, the Senator from 
Mississippi, the manager of the bill, wishes to make a motion to table. 
If that is the case, I would like to enter into a unanimous consent 
request that the vote occur following the vote on the motion to table 
on the sugar amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it was my 
intention to move to table the Wellstone amendment, but I understand 
there may be other Senators who want to speak on that amendment. I do 
not want to cut off anybody. I do not intend to move to table at this 
time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the Senate will 
seriously consider the proposal the Senator from Minnesota made. 
Senator Wellstone offered an amendment to actually cut the Economic 
Research Service funding provided in this bill and add the money to the 
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration for some 
investigations. He lists the investigations that ought to be 
undertaken,

[[Page S7328]]

which would be funded by this additional money. The fact is, any amount 
of money could be spent investigating these subjects. He lists these: 
investigations of anticompetitive behavior; rapid response teams; the 
hog contract library; examinations of the competitive structure of the 
poultry industry, civil rights activities, and informational staff.
  What I am saying is that I would hate for the Senate to be put into a 
position of having to analyze this and trying to figure out if we have 
enough money for the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards 
Administration and all of the responsibilities they have. We have tried 
to go through the President's budget request, analyze it carefully, and 
then present to the Senate an allocation of limited funds, and suggest 
that this is appropriate for the Senate to pass. We think the Economic 
Research Service, to be cut as proposed by Senator Wellstone, would be 
put in a difficult position of trying to provide accurate, reliable 
information that is helpful to farmers who are in the business of 
producing crops and commodities, who make their living at this, and who 
depend upon the Government agency that will be cut by this amendment. 
We think the funds are needed. We have checked with that agency to see 
what the impact of this offset would be on them, and they--maybe 
predictably--suggest that it would work a real hardship.
  We have had a difficult time making available funds for some of these 
agencies to accommodate pay increases, staffing requirements, and all 
of the other items of expense in the operation of the Department of 
Agriculture that would support important economic activities in our 
country. And so rather than try to figure out what to try to do with 
this amendment and how to resolve it, I really think the best thing to 
do is to move to table it and ask the Senate to support the committee's 
judgment.
  I have a lot of regard for the Senator from Minnesota and his 
enthusiasm for these subjects. I sympathize with his concerns. He has 
made a good speech. He has made a persuasive appeal to the Senate. In 
spite of that, I really think we need to stick with the committee's 
judgment on this. This bill has been developed on a bipartisan basis, 
with the full participation of Senators on the Democratic side. We have 
listened to suggestions from all Senators on both sides. So my hope is 
that the Senate will trust the committee. That is what the committee 
structure is about when it comes to questions such as this. There is no 
way for each individual Senator to look at this amendment and figure 
out all the practical consequences of it, consider the offset 
suggested, and then make a decision.
  Do you support the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota or 
do you support the committee? That is the issue. I hope the Senate will 
support the committee's judgment on this issue.
  I know now, after inquiry, that there are no other Senators who have 
asked to speak on this amendment. I move to table the Wellstone 
amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the Wellstone amendment occur immediately following the vote on the 
motion to table the McCain amendment, which is going to take place at 2 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second-
degree amendments be in order to the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3917

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know we are getting ready to vote in a 
few minutes. I wanted to thank my distinguished colleagues from 
Mississippi and Iowa for managing an important appropriations bill. It 
is so important to my State of Louisiana and to many States and 
communities in this Nation.
  I want to take 2 minutes, though, to address the sugar issue that was 
earlier debated on the floor and to submit some things for the Record. 
I listened to the debate this morning, and I know the sugar program, 
every year, seems to conjure up all sorts of images that the opponents 
of this cost-effective program try to use: ``It is a sweet deal.'' ``It 
is a candy-coated program.'' ``It leaves a sour taste in people's 
mouths.'' Don't let these quick sound bites fool you. All the sugar 
farmers and sugar beet farmers and producers in Louisiana and other 
communities who support these farmers and producers want is fairness.
  Mr. President, there is nothing sweet about fatigue. That is what 
many of our farmers in this Nation are experiencing this year--fatigue. 
They are tired. They are stressed. Prices are low. There is drought in 
many areas of our Nation. Farmers have been through a tough time, and 
sugar farmers are no exception.
  This is a program that works. This is a program to which the 
taxpayers provide very little money. This is a loan program. Actually, 
as has been said in the Record over and over again, the sugar policy 
that we now have supported overwhelmingly--good support year after 
year--doesn't cost the Government anything. It has been a revenue 
raiser of nearly $300 million during the decade of the nineties. All of 
the 300 to 400 sugar farmers in Louisiana, their suppliers, and the 
communities that support them want is fairness. They would be shocked 
to know that the program that we understand as a loan program is termed 
by some as a ``giveaway'' program because they believe they are giving 
back. They believe they are paying taxes, and they are. They believe 
they are supporting communities in Louisiana and others around the 
Nation. It is not just Louisiana; it is Florida, Texas, California, 
Wyoming, and Montana, as I can see and share from the map in front of 
me.
  This is an important industry in our Nation, and I think the 
underlying amendment would be devastating, obviously, to eliminate this 
program at a time when there is such a great need and at a time when it 
is actually a revenue raiser.
  Let me also make a point that the opponents of the sugar program 
argue that we are trying to kill all imports. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. Nearly 20 percent of all of our sugar needs are met 
from imports from 40 different nations. This program works. It is a 
loan program. It is an issue of fairness. It is a time of difficulty. 
It is not time to eliminate this program now.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the 
underlying amendment that would eliminate this program, which has been 
helpful not only to Louisiana but to many States and many communities 
around the Nation.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the McCain amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?--
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 219 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

[[Page S7329]]



                                NAYS--32

     Biden
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Collins
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hutchinson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bunning
     Rockefeller
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 3922

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 3922. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 220 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Burns
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bunning
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to 
table was agreed to.
  Mr. KOHL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, could I just offer a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield without losing my right to the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                       Explanation For Not Voting

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 219 I was 
unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would 
have voted for the motion to table the McCain amendment. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be so recorded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record will reflect the Senator's 
decision.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator Durbin and I wanted to take this 
opportunity to urge support for our amendment which is intended to 
speed up generic drug reviews at the Food and Drug Administration. We 
are pleased to announce that the Hatch-Durbin amendment is cosponsored 
by Senators DeWine, Leahy, Wyden, Feinstein, Graham of Florida and 
Voinovich.
  Specifically, our amendment increases funding for FDA's Center for 
Drug Evaluation and Review by $2.0 million over the Committee-
recommended amount.
  We intend these funds to be used to provide much-needed additional 
resources, that is, appropriately-equipped staff, to the Office of 
Generic Drugs. This will help them reduce review times for generic 
alternatives to brand-name pharmaceuticals, a considerable benefit to 
the consumer.
  One way they can do this is by establishing an additional chemistry 
division which will allow OGD to increase its efficiency thus 
permitting applications for new generic drugs to be considered and 
approved much more rapidly, giving patients access to these products 
much more quickly.
  Mr. President, when I travel throughout my home state of Utah, I am 
besieged by constituents who raise very valid complaints about the need 
to improve drug coverage for the elderly and others who cannot afford 
needed medicines. I am very sympathetic to those concerns, and have 
made this a high legislative priority.
  But while we are in the midst of devising a program to improve 
Medicare coverage of pharmaceuticals, it is important to remember that 
generic drugs offer a less-costly, safe alternative to brand-name 
medicines for seniors and others who cannot always afford prescription 
drugs.
  Our amendment will help offer those who are struggling to make ends 
meet a viable alternative. It will help get less expensive and more 
affordable prescription drugs on the market more quickly so that 
seniors will have additional choice when it comes to purchasing their 
medications.
  None of us wants these vulnerable citizens to be faced with the 
Hobson's choice of whether to purchase food or needed medications. The 
American public, especially our seniors, can only benefit from having 
more generic drug products available to them.
  The problem we face is that the level of FDA resources devoted toward 
the review and approval of generic drugs can be termed ``modest'' at 
best.
  The Office of Generic Drugs is currently funded at $37.8 million and 
was flat-lined in the Administration's FY 2001 budget request.
  In contrast to this relatively modest sum available for generic drug 
review, I would point out that the overall budget for human drug review 
at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is $308 million. 
This represents a total of 2,554 full time equivalents.
  So the amount devoted to generic drug barely exceeds 10 per cent of 
the human drug review budget.
  Hiring additional professional review personnel, together with the 
necessary computer equipment, at OGD would cost about $100,000 per 
reviewer. So our amendment will translate into about 20 additional 
staff members and the computer equipment they need which would 
certainly be adequate to fund a new chemistry division.
  The FDA generic drug program currently utilizes about 370 staff 
members. This amendment, coupled with the $1.2 million, already in the 
Senate bill will give the generic drug unit at FDA a needed shot in the 
arm.
  As a principal author of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term 
Restoration Act of 1984, I have long been interested in how we can 
provide better access to pharmaceuticals, which can do so much to 
improve the health of the American public. Our nation needs both 
innovative new drugs and affordable generic drugs.
  I am particularly pleased that today about 40 percent of all U.S. 
prescriptions are written for generic products--most of which were made 
available for generic competition under the 1984 law.
  These generic drugs save consumers about $8 billion to $10 billion 
each year. And that's according to a CBO estimate based on 1994 data, 
so it seems reasonable to project that today's savings must be even 
higher than the old $8 billion to $10 billion annual savings estimate.
  Many of us have been pleased to learn that, since 1994, generic drug 
approval times have generally decreased: the median approval time was 
26.9 months in 1994; 27.0 months in 1995; 23 months in 1996; 19.3 
months in 1997; and, 18 months in 1998.
  Unfortunately, this five year downward trend was reversed in 1999. 
The approval time rose to 18.6 months. This was in a year when the 
number of products approved actually fell from 225 drugs to 186 drugs. 
So the time per completed review grew for the first time in 5 years and 
it is now growing at

[[Page S7330]]

a time when many important drug products will be coming off patent.
  We cannot afford to let this continue.
  The data on the monthly averages rending applications are also 
troublesome. Under the law, FDA has 180 days to act on a generic drug 
application.
  Let's look at what is happening with the number of generic drug 
applications that are overdue--that is at FDA for more than 6 months. 
In 1995 the monthly average of backlogged generic drug applications was 
46 applications.
  This number increased to 59 in 1996.
  It jumped to 109 in 1997.
  In 1998, it rose to 127 overdue applications.
  And last year, the average monthly number of overdue generic 
applications rose again to 147 overdue applications.
  So the number of overdue generic drug applications has grown by more 
than 300 percent since 1995.
  Clearly, this trend needs to be reversed.
  It seems obvious to me that we want FDA to have sufficient resources 
to efficiently evaluate generic drug applications. The funds the Hatch-
Durbin amendment provides would be sufficient to fund about 20 full-
time equivalents (or ``FTEs'') in the Office of Generic Drugs.
  Given the fact that so many important medications are about to lose 
their patent status, it is imperative that FDA has the necessary 
skilled personnel and computer equipment to do the job of assuring the 
American public that generic drug products come on the market as soon 
as possible.
  We need to make sure that FDA's Office of Generic Drugs has 
sufficient resources to conduct timely reviews of generic drug 
applications. That's what this amendment accomplishes, and that is why 
Senator Durbin and I have joined together in a bi-partisan manner to 
work to see that the promise of more affordable generic drug products 
reach the American public.
  Mr. President, this is an important amendment. I am pleased that the 
managers are willing to put it into the bill. I think it is something 
that will benefit everybody in this country. Hopefully, we can resolve 
some of these conflicts with regard to generic drugs and help bring the 
price of drugs down, as the Hatch-Waxman bill has done for the last 16 
years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, the Senator from 
Utah, Mr. Hatch, in offering this amendment for consideration by the 
Senate.
  This is an amendment which will provide $2 million more for the 
processing of approvals of generic drugs.
  We are all familiar with the issue of prescription drug prices. We 
certainly understand that Congress should do as much as possible to 
help reduce the high cost of these prescription drugs, particularly for 
the elderly and disabled.
  One of the things we are doing with this bipartisan amendment is 
providing more money to the Food and Drug Administration for generic 
drug approvals. The high prices of drugs can be significantly reduced 
by putting more generic drugs on the market. Generic drugs typically 
enter the market 25 to 30 percent below the cost of brand name drugs 
and within 2 years are 60 to 70 percent cheaper than brand name drugs. 
Increasing the development of safe and effective generic drugs, is good 
for American consumers.
  Key to increasing access to such drugs, is making sure that the 
approval process is as efficient as possible. This chart illustrates 
the number of applications pending more than 180 days before the Food 
and Drug Administration for generic drugs. As we can see, the numbers 
have continued to increase. This is because the numbers that the Food 
and Drug Administration is being asked to approve has increased over 
the past few years.
  In fact, the median approval time for generics has steadily decreased 
from 19.6 months in 1997 to a little over 18 months in 1998 and 17.3 
months in 1999. But under the present budget, according to the Food and 
Drug Administration, they are estimated to go up again in 2000 and 
2001, and we are going to see a slowdown in the approval of generics.
  Senator Hatch and I have offered this amendment to provide $2 million 
to the Office of Generic Drugs. It is on top of the increase which the 
bill already puts in place of $1.2 million. This money will allow them 
to hire the professional people to approve the drugs, to put the 
computers and technology in place so that they can move forward with 
new ways to assess the drugs on a more timely basis, and to make 
certain that these drugs are available for American consumers as 
quickly as possible.
  Very soon some of the blockbuster patent drugs are going to come off 
patent. Let me give some examples: Mevacor for high cholesterol, 
Vasotec and Zestril for high blood pressure, Glucophage for diabetics, 
Accutane for cystic acne, Lovenox to prevent blood clotting and 
Prilosec for those with stomach acid, heartburn or ulcers. These brand 
name drugs have sales of billions of dollars. Prilosec alone has sales 
of over $2.8 billion annually. Together, these drugs represented over 
$8 billion in sales in 1997. This year, their sales are certainly far 
more than this.
  If we want to make certain these drugs move from brand name to 
generic so consumers across America can afford them, then the 
investment in the Food and Drug Administration which Senator Hatch and 
I propose is money well spent. I am happy to join Senator Hatch in this 
effort. I hope the Senate will approve this amendment and make it part 
of this appropriation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I ask exactly how we are proceeding 
here?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think what the manager of the bill wanted 
to do was to have the Harkin amendment disposed of at this stage.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the pending 
business is the Cochran amendment to the Harkin amendment. It would be 
helpful, just as a coherent way of proceeding with the bill, if we 
would proceed in regular order.
  Mr. REID. Senator Harkin is here.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is my hope we could proceed to dispose of that 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Momentarily, we should.
  Mr. COCHRAN. As I suggested earlier, if the Senator will yield 
further, it would suit me if we adopted both the Cochran amendment and 
the Harkin amendment on a voice vote to try to resolve the issue in 
conference with the House. I made that suggestion earlier.
  Mr. REID. I suggested that to Senator Harkin and when I spoke to him 
earlier today, he was not willing to do that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask both Senators, the Senator from 
Mississippi or the Senator from Nevada, after we make a decision as to 
how we will proceed with the Harkin amendment and the Cochran 
amendment, am I in order next or do we go to an amendment on the other 
side? Just so I know whether I should need to be here. I am trying to 
move things forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Mississippi 
is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate that spirit of cooperation 
very much. I hope we can move on and complete action on the bill 
sometime this afternoon. To do that, we are going to have to act on the 
amendments we have that are going to be offered. It doesn't matter, in 
my view, who goes next. I don't really care. I am anxious that we 
proceed and move along and make good progress on the bill. Some 
Senators have already indicated that the list of amendments we have in 
order to be offered to the bill will not all be offered. That is good 
news. We have had some Senators suggest that they are willing to forgo 
offering their amendments.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may reclaim the floor, the two leaders 
have instructed the managers of the bill, as I understand it, that they 
want to finish this bill today. Is that the manager's understanding?
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as soon as 
we make a decision on the Harkin amendment, I be allowed to offer an 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I think there is already a unanimous consent agreement that 
following the amendment by the majority, the Senator from Minnesota 
will be next in line.

[[Page S7331]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3938

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the regular 
order right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on the Cochran 
amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Thank you.
  Mr. President, let's go back to where we were a few hours ago when I 
first offered an amendment this morning. That amendment would state 
clearly that the Department of Agriculture--the Secretary of 
Agriculture--had the authority to set standards for pathogen reduction 
in meat and poultry inspection. Again, the amendment was carefully 
drafted not to set the standard. That should not be our business.
  The reason for the amendment was precipitated by a court case in 
Texas in May in which a Federal district court judge found that the 
Department of Agriculture--the Secretary of Agriculture--lacked the 
statutory authority to set and enforce pathogen reductions in meat and 
poultry inspection.
  When the Department established its new inspection rules in 1996, the 
USDA adopted a new food safety system based on hazard analysis, 
critical control points, and pathogen reduction standards, otherwise 
known now as HACCP. The system was designed to protect human health by 
reducing the levels of bacteria contamination in meat and poultry 
products. It has been in existence now for 4 years.
  What then happened was we had this plant in Texas, Supreme Beef. 
Three times they were warned by the inspectors that they were not 
meeting the salmonella reduction standards. Three times they failed. It 
is not that they weren't warned adequately; they were. On the third 
time when they failed it, the USDA did the only thing they could do 
under the authority they have, and that was to withdraw inspection from 
the plant, and, in effect, by withdrawing inspection from the plant, 
the plant had to shut down.
  The plant hired attorneys and took the case to district court and got 
an injunction. They got an injunction against the USDA so that they 
could keep operating, and they did. Then the judge decided, after a 
hearing, that the USDA lacked the legislative and statutory authority 
to both implement the rule and to enforce it. That is why we are here 
today with this amendment.
  We have worked long and hard on this. This is not something new. 
During the 1980s and 1990s, both the House and the Senate Agriculture 
Committees had numerous hearings. The Department of Agriculture, under 
both Republican and Democratic Presidents, had numerous field hearings 
and rulemaking procedures. They eventually came up with this new 
program that blended the old inspection program with new flexibility 
for industry and new standards for pathogen reduction.
  Why was this necessary? Because we have bigger plants now, faster 
assembly lines, meat and poultry go through the system faster; and we 
also found increases, according to the Centers for Disease Control, in 
a number of foodborne illnesses that we had not seen before in our 
country. So we wanted to have a system whereby we could assure 
consumers of the highest level of confidence that once that meat left 
the slaughterhouse, once it left the processor, it would be as safe as 
possible.
  Here again are CDC's statistics on foodborne illness. I had this 
chart this morning. It indicates that there are 76 million illnesses 
every year because of foodborne pathogens, 325,000 hospitalizations, 
and 5,000 deaths.
  Now, since we established the rule in 1996, salmonella rates in 
ground beef have dropped 43 percent for small plants and 23 percent for 
large plants.
  Since these performance standards were issued in 1996, we have had 
this big drop in salmonella in ground beef. The standard is working. 
But now a district court has said USDA lacks the statutory authority to 
enforce that standard. That was why I offered my amendment this 
morning. Not to set a standard but only to say USDA has the statutory 
authority to enforce a standard once it has been set. Adoption of my 
amendment doesn't mean that a packing plant or a processing plant 
couldn't still go to court and say: Your rule is arbitrary or it is 
onerous or it is inapplicable. But we never got to that in the Supreme 
Beef case. The Court just said they lacked the authority to set the 
rule.
  So they have thrown overboard years and years of work by the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture, the House Committee on Agriculture, and the 
Department of Agriculture under both Republicans and Democrats, and 
Republican and Democratic Secretaries of Agriculture to make progress 
in improving food safety.
  This morning, I tried to give statutory authority to the Secretary of 
Agriculture because without authority to enforce food safety standards, 
consumers are left exposed in this country. All we are trying to do is 
give them that authority.
  There was a motion to table the amendment made by the Senator from 
Mississippi. The motion to table lost on a tie vote. The Senator from 
Mississippi then put a second-degree amendment on my amendment. We were 
taking a look at it trying to figure out exactly what it did. It only 
changes a few words in my amendment. My amendment says at the end, 
standards ``established by the Secretary''--not our standard but 
standards set by the Secretary. The amendment by the Senator from 
Mississippi strikes that ``established by the Secretary'' and says 
``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 
Microbiological Criteria for Foods.'' The key part of his amendment is 
``and that are shown to be adulterated.''
  What do those words mean?
  First of all, when they say ``promulgated with the advice of the 
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods,'' 
the committee was were there when they first came up with the 
standards. They had input on the standards when they were established 
in 1996. There may be debate about the extent of consultation, but they 
were consulted. But the key words of the amendment by the Senator from 
Mississippi are these: ``that are shown to be adulterated.''
  What does that mean? If the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi 
is adopted, it will mean that the Department of Agriculture will have 
to go all the way back and again go through rulemaking to develop new 
performance standards. We, under the amendment of the Senator from 
Mississippi, are codifying a standard.
  The Senator from Mississippi, this morning, was saying the amendment 
that I offered was codifying the standard. I challenged him to show 
where that was so. It is not so. We do not codify a standard. Yet the 
amendment of the Senator from Mississippi codifies a standard. What is 
that standard shown to be? Adulteration; that is the standard.
  What does that mean? It means that USDA now can't just go into a 
plant and test for pathogen reduction and for salmonella and say they 
are not meeting the standard on salmonella--that they are failing to 
reduce pathogens. They now have to show that the meat is adulterated. 
That is what we have been doing for 70 years. A USDA inspector in a 
plant has had that authority for all of my lifetime, and for all of the 
lifetime of the Presiding Officer. They have the authority to go into a 
plant and withdraw inspection on the basis of adulteration. That is the 
old standard.
  The Senator from Mississippi would turn the clock back to where we 
were before 1996. No longer will we be able to say to parents: Your 
kids can have school lunches and not worry about pathogens because we 
have a pathogen reduction standard that is being enforced. No, we will 
have a gaping hole there because USDA will now have to show that the 
food is adulterated. It will have to show that the plant is unsanitary. 
That is what we tried to get beyond in 1996.

  The key part of the amendment by the Senator from Mississippi is that 
it codifies the adulteration standard as the essential element of 
pathogen reduction standards. Yet the Senator

[[Page S7332]]

from Mississippi went after this Senator, just this morning, claiming 
that I was trying to codify a standard, which I wasn't. The judge in 
the Supreme Beef case said that for the USDA to take action, it had to 
show adulteration. That was the key part of the case. The judge said 
under the statutory law that exists, the only way the USDA can shut 
down an inspection line is if they show that it is adulterated--not 
that they didn't meet a salmonella reduction standard, not that they 
had pathogens in their food. They have to show that it is adulterated, 
that there are unsanitary conditions in the plant.
  Based on that holding, the judge said the USDA lacked the authority 
to enforce the existing salmonella standards. This amendment takes the 
holding in the Supreme Beef case, and makes it the law of the land. It 
makes the standard ``adulteration''. This amendment would make it the 
law of the land--not just in Texas but all over the country. Why would 
we want to do that? If we have to go back to ``promulgate with the 
advice,'' we will be another 2, 3, or 4 years waiting for pathogen 
reduction standards.
  What do we tell our consumers in the meantime? There is no standard. 
We go right back to where we were before. What do we tell the 325,000 
Americans hospitalized every year because of foodborne illnesses? What 
do we tell the parents of kids eating school lunches? This amendment by 
the Senator from Mississippi would throw all of our meat inspection 
into a huge morass. It would basically say we are back now where we 
were 30 years--poke and sniff and have to prove that it is adulterated, 
or have to prove it is unsanitary.
  What does that mean? Salmonella can enter meat, for example, 
anywhere. It can enter it in the livestock yards, slaughterhouses, 
transportation, processing facilities. The point is not to lay blame on 
anyone. It is not to have the processor say: Our plant is clean, it is 
sanitary, and if there is salmonella there, we are not to blame, go 
blame somebody else.
  I don't care who is to blame. I want to stop it. We want to stop it. 
We want to make sure that there is a system in place so that if there 
are pathogens in meat and poultry, we find out where they are coming 
from and stop them. That is what HACCP is all about. But under the 
amendment by the Senator from Mississippi, USDA could go right back to 
Supreme Beef, and they could say: Guess what. You are not meeting the 
salmonella pathogen reduction standard we set, you have failed too many 
tests. Supreme Beef could say: We don't care what you think because you 
don't have the authority to do anything about it. Is that the kind of 
message we want to send to our consumers?

  I don't have any letters in my office, but someone told me there are 
some papers circulating that the American Meat Institute is opposed to 
my amendment and supporting the amendment by the Senator from 
Mississippi. I have worked many years for the American Meat Institute. 
I have a high regard for them. I have a lot of livestock production in 
my home State. I have slaughtering facilities and processing facilities 
in my home State. If it is true the American Meat Institute is taking 
the position that the USDA can only have a pathogen reduction standard 
based on adulteration, they are doing a disservice to my livestock 
providers, they are doing a disservice to my packers, and they are 
doing a disservice to my processors.
  Why? Because the word will be out on the street, and it will be in 
every consumer report. It will be in every newsletter that goes out 
that you can't trust the meat and poultry products that are coming from 
our processors and our packers because we no longer have a pathogen 
reduction standard.
  Let me be very clear. If the Cochran amendment is adopted, new 
rulemaking will be mandatory. It will take at least 2 or 3 years to set 
the rules because they will have to have hearings and public comment. 
They went through all that less than 6 years ago. The Cochran amendment 
means they have to go through it again.
  What happens during the next 2 to 3 years while the rulemaking is in 
effect? There will be no standards in effect, no pathogen reduction 
standards in effect. I hope Senators who are here, who are listening in 
their offices, and staffs who are listening, understand this. The 
Cochran amendment will necessitate new rulemaking. It will take a long 
time, and during that period of time, there will be no pathogen 
reduction standards enforceable by the USDA.
  If the Senator wanted to amend his amendment and just say that would 
be issued ``with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 
Microbiological Criteria for Foods, period,'' that would be acceptable.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.


                    Amendment No. 3955, as modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment to the Harkin 
amendment be modified as suggested by the Senator; that the last phrase 
be stricken--``and that are shown to be a adulterated''--so the 
amendment to the amendment reads:

       Strike ``established by the Secretary'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof: ``promulgated with the advice of the National 
     Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 2 of the amendment: Strike ``established by the 
     Secretary'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``promulgated with 
     the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 
     Microbiological Criteria for Foods.''

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Mississippi if I 
can engage in a colloquy.
  The Senator's amendment now reads ``promulgated with the advice of 
the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for 
Foods.''
  Mr. COCHRAN. That is correct. I have modified my amendment according 
to what the Senator has just said would be accepted. I assume the 
Senator will accept the amendment and we can adopt it.
  Mr. HARKIN. I think we may have an agreement.
  If I could ask the Senator from Mississippi, is it the Senator's 
intention to leave the existing standards in effect during the period 
of time that the committee would make recommendations?
  My problem is ``promulgated.'' I had two issues with the Senator's 
language. One, my problem with ``adulterated'', has been taken care of; 
the other, what does ``promulgated,'' mean remains. If USDA promulgates 
new standards and in the meantime can't enforce the existing standards, 
we are going to have a 2- or 3-year period of time where we have no 
enforceable pathogen reduction standards.
  I ask the Senator, Is it your intention that during this period of 
time we would leave the existing standards in effect?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if my amendment is accepted by the 
Senator, my amendment would amend your amendment only in one respect; 
that is, on page 2 of the amendment we would strike the words 
``established by the Secretary'' and insert the language that I quoted: 
``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on 
Microbiological Criteria for Foods.''
  That is the only respect in which my amendment would modify or change 
the amendment of the Senator from Iowa. In all other respects, the 
Senator's amendment remains as he offered it.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I understand that. But I am concerned about the 
words ``promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory Committee 
on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.'' I don't mind that. They were 
involved with the standards established in 1996.
  If it is the Senator's intention that the Department of Agriculture 
should go ahead, go back and take a look at whether or not they should 
revise those rules and those standards, I don't have any problem with 
that. That is what rulemaking is all about.
  I am worried that we will have a gap of time where we will have no 
enforceable standards. That is why I want to make sure that at least 
during the period of time when they may be revising those standards the 
existing standards remain enforceable.
  My concern, again, is if someone were to raise a question about the 
extent at which the existing standard was set with the advice of the 
committee, I want to make sure that would

[[Page S7333]]

not bar enforcement. If we had a colloquy to clear that up, that 
standards would stay in place pending any changes in rulemaking, that 
would be fine.
  I ask if that is the Senator's intention.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield again, I think 
my amendment speaks for itself. If it is unclear, then the legislative 
history and trying to determine the intent of Congress in the use of 
the words is relevant. If the language is clear on its face and the 
meaning is clear on its face, then legislative history and intent and 
our conversation is never considered by a court.
  My view is that this is about as clear as we can say anything. That 
is, that any regulations promulgated under the authority of this act to 
which the Senator's amendment applies must be done with the advice of 
the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. 
That is all my amendment seeks to do. That is all that is intended by 
my amendment. There is no intent to speak on any other subject, to 
affect the decisions of the Department of Agriculture in promulgating 
standards, promulgating regulations. My amendment is limited strictly 
to seeking the advice in the process of promulgating standards of the 
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods. I 
don't know how I can say it, how it can be said any clearer than the 
language of the amendment says it. So the Senator can ask me whether I 
intend anything else and I can assure him I don't intend anything else, 
other than the clear and precise meaning of the words that are used in 
the amendment.

  Mr. HARKIN. As the Senator and I were talking earlier, lawyers can 
argue about words and what they mean. Still, the words that are used in 
the Senator's amendment seem to indicate to me we have to go through 
rulemaking. Again, I am concerned, if that is how it is interpreted, 
then we are going to have a period of time that we may not have any 
enforceable standards. That is what I want to clarify.
  That is why I wanted to engage in the colloquy. I do not believe it 
is clear, on its face, exactly what it means.
  If it means that the standards we have now were promulgated with 
sufficient advice that we would not need new rulemaking, then that is 
okay. That is why we need some legislative history on this. That is why 
I was trying to engage in a colloquy.
  I ask the Senator from Mississippi: Does his language mean USDA will 
have to go through rulemaking again? Does this leave a gap in the 
standards? That is all I am trying to get to. Maybe if we can talk 
about it a little more, we will get to this thing. I don't know. 
Sometimes it is hard.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to assure him 
that my intent in offering the amendment is to involve the National 
Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods in the process 
by which the Secretary promulgates regulations or standards with 
respect to this act to which his amendment relates.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have no problem with that. If that is the intent, to 
say--I will repeat to make sure I do not misunderstand--that the 
Senator's intent by using the word ``promulgate'' is to say that any 
future rulemaking--I want to make sure the Senator hears my words, to 
make sure I am OK on this--that any future rulemaking done by the 
Secretary of Agriculture has to be done with the advice of the National 
Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, and that 
during any rulemaking when they are seeking that advice, the present 
standards will stay in place and be enforceable, that is fine.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, my amendment 
does not address the present standards and the effect of the decision 
of the court in Texas. The amendment of the Senator deals with that. I 
am only trying to address one small aspect of this, and that is the 
involvement of this national advisory committee so the Secretary would 
have the benefit of scientific advice and evidence and information.
  Mr. HARKIN. As I said, I----
  Mr. COCHRAN. I don't think I can satisfy the Senator's curiosity 
about the legal effect of his amendment as amended by my amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. All I want to be satisfied about is that there will be 
enforceable standards in effect.
  From what I hear, I like it. I want the committee to be involved in 
advising the Secretary. If the Senator tells me that the present rules 
that have been promulgated are still enforceable during the pendency of 
that consultation, then I have no problem. But the language says USDA 
can only enforce a standard if it is ``promulgated with advice''. I am 
wondering what this means for the standards we have right now. I want 
to clear this up.
  Can the rules we have now be enforced? Or can only rules that are 
promulgated in the future be enforced with the advice of the committee? 
That is where we are hung up over these words. Words do have meaning.
  I will say again, if the interpretation is that the standards that 
are now in effect remain enforceable, and that any future rules adopted 
by the Secretary have to be done with the advice and consultation of 
the committee, I have no problem with that. Then we don't have a gap. 
And I hope that is the meaning.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an 
observation, I accommodated the Senator's interest--I tried to--by 
modifying my amendment in a way that he said would make it acceptable.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I struck the language that he suggested bothered him. He 
read that language to be ``that is shown to be adulterated.''
  He was worried about connecting proof of contaminated food with the 
ability of the Department of Agriculture to shut down a plant. And he 
thought with the addition of those words I was adding something new, a 
new hurdle that had to be crossed by the Department of Agriculture in 
implementing the standards. So I modified the amendment to remove the 
troublesome words, to assure him the crux of the amendment was to get 
the advice and the input of the experts, the scientific experts. And I 
modified it. And that is not enough. Now the Senator wants me to 
interpret the legal status of these regulations as they are affected by 
this district court decision in Texas.
  This morning I tried to put that all in context. I know I am taking 
much too much time. I discussed the reasons for my motion to table the 
Harkin amendment. I have just about gotten worn out with explaining why 
I wanted to table the Harkin amendment, why I thought it was an 
amendment that ought not be put on this Agriculture appropriations 
bill. I have said it over and over again. The Senate voted on that, and 
the motion to table was not agreed to. The vote was tied, 49-49.
  I could have let the amendment then be voted on by the Senate without 
any further amendment but, frankly, I thought it would be helpful to 
the Senate to clarify the rule problem I had with the amendment, and 
that was why we added the language as an amendment. I proposed at that 
time that amendment, the Cochran amendment to the Harkin amendment, be 
adopted by a voice vote and then the Harkin amendment be adopted by a 
voice vote.
  Think about that. We had just had a tie vote on the whole issue. Yet 
we offered to let the amendment of the Senator that almost was tabled, 
lacking one vote to be tabled, be agreed to and go on to considering 
other issues. That was not good enough either.
  We took up other business because the Senator was not prepared to 
proceed to consider the bill further. He wanted to do something else. 
We finally, now after having taken up several other amendments, get 
back to the Harkin amendment.
  He complained and pointed out what was troubling him. We tried to 
modify it. I have done everything I can think up to satisfy the Senator 
and to give him the right to have his arguments on the floor of the 
Senate, to have this issue fully considered, and to have the Senate act 
on it.
  I have gone about as far as one can go. I am hopeful the Senator will 
agree that the Cochran amendment can be adopted on a voice vote--if he 
wants to have a record vote, be my guest--and adopt the Harkin 
amendment on a voice vote, as amended by the Cochran amendment.

[[Page S7334]]

  Otherwise, maybe I will try to renew the motion to table. Maybe 
Senators have heard enough now so they know what the facts are about 
this amendment and that it is an attempt to reverse a decision of a 
district court in Texas that can be appealed to the court of appeals if 
the Department of Agriculture wants to appeal it and if the Department 
of Justice wants to prosecute the appeal for them. That is up to the 
Department and the lawyers at the Department of Justice. I am being 
asked to interpret and sort through this and give a definitive answer 
about the effects when lawyers argued their case in Texas probably for 
a long and full time before a court there. They made a decision.
  What I am saying is, I would like to satisfy the Senator, but I do 
not think there is any way to do it. We should just move on, and let's 
vote and see how the votes turn out.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I reclaim the floor. I was hoping there 
might be a reasonable outcome. As I said, the Record will show earlier 
I said there were two problems with the amendment. One was with 
adulteration, which the Senator took care of. The other was the word 
``promulgated.''
  If the Senator will further modify his amendment to say that future 
rules must be promulgated with the advice of the National Advisory 
Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods, that would settle the 
issue once and for all.
  That means any future rulemaking done by USDA would have to be done 
with the advice of this committee, but that the existing rules 
meanwhile will stay in effect and be enforceable. If the Senator will 
do that, we are done.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield.


               Amendment No. 3955, As Modified, Withdrawn

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3938

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3938. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and 
nays on the amendment be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3938.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 221 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Bunning
     Murray
       
  The amendment (No. 3938) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3919

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3919.

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

   (Purpose: To require the use of certain funds transferred to the 
Economic Research Service to conduct a study of reasons for the decline 
   in participation in the food stamp program and any problems that 
 households with eligible children have experienced in obtaining food 
                                stamps)

       On page 48, strike lines 12 through 16 and insert the 
     following:

     ``(7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That, of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $1,500,000 shall be transferred 
     to and merged with the appropriation for ``Food and Nutrition 
     Service, Food Program Administration'' for studies and 
     evaluations: Provided further, That not more than $500,000 of 
     the amount transferred under the preceding proviso shall be 
     available to conduct, not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, a study, based on all available 
     administrative data and onsite inspections conducted by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture of local food stamp offices in each 
     State, of (1) any problems that households with eligible 
     children have experienced in obtaining food stamps, and (2) 
     reasons for the decline in participation in the food stamp 
     program, and to report the results of the study to the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading, up to $6,000,000 shall be for''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to Senators at the 
beginning of my remarks, and I say to my colleague from Mississippi, I 
am going to try to be brief; I don't intend to speak for a long period 
of time. I want to summarize this amendment for Members of the Senate, 
and I want to talk about why I think this is one of the most important 
amendments I have ever brought up and why I would like to have a vote 
on it or a commitment that this stays in conference committee.
  This amendment would provide a little additional funding, $500,000, 
to the Food and Nutrition Service. This is all from within ERS. These 
are some good people. I am calling for the Food and Nutrition Service 
to be out in the field and to do some important policy evaluation for 
us about why it is that in the last half decade or so we have seen 
about a 30-percent decline in food stamp participation. There is not a 
30-percent decline in poverty.
  As a matter of fact, I am sad to say on the floor of the Senate that 
there has actually been an increase in the poverty of the poorest 
children in homes which have poverty-level income. They can evaluate 
why it is that one out of every ten households is ``food insecure,'' 
some 36 million, 37 million, and 40 percent of them children. And with 
a major safety net program for children, we can make sure that children 
are not malnourished and don't go hungry. We have seen a dramatic 
decline in participation.
  What is going on? We are the decisionmakers. We are the policymakers. 
Let's have an honest evaluation because the background to this program 
goes something like this: In the mid and late sixties--I remember I was 
a student at the University of North Carolina when these studies first 
came out. There were a series of studies and exposes. There was a CBS 
documentary--Hunger U.S.A., I think--in 1968. We saw children with 
distended bellies. We read about and heard about children who were 
suffering with scurvy and rickets. We could not believe that in America 
we had widespread malnutrition and hunger. We don't talk about this 
enough on the floor of the Senate.

  Senator Cochran from Mississippi--I am not trying to ingratiate 
myself to him--actually is one of the Members in

[[Page S7335]]

the Senate who has been most focused on food and nutrition programs. It 
was Richard Nixon, a Republican President, who said we have to make 
some changes on this issue, and whether or not we are going to have 
some kind of safety net. It won't be Heaven on Earth. It won't be 
perfect. But we will at least make sure that we try to get some help to 
these families. We are going to make sure this is a Federal program. Do 
you want to know something, colleagues? This is public policy that has 
worked because we dramatically reduced, up until recently, the extent 
of malnutrition and hunger in the country.
  What is happening now with this program? The Food and Nutrition 
Service would go out in the field. They would study the barriers faced 
by families with limited access to the Food Stamp Program. What are the 
reasons for the dramatic decline in participation in the Food Stamp 
Program? On-site review out in the field completed within 180 days a 
report and sent it to us.
  The food stamp rolls have plummeted over the last several years. 
Since April of 1996, nearly 8.6 million people have dropped off the 
food stamp rolls and more than 1 million last year alone.
  If this was because of a reduction in poverty, I wouldn't worry about 
it. But that is not what it is.
  Of the 36 million people living in food-insecure households --I hate 
that language. They live in homes where they are either going hungry or 
they are malnourished. Of 14.5 million Americans, 40 percent are 
children.
  A study by Second Harvest, the Nation's largest domestic hunger 
relief organization, found that more than one out of every three 
persons served by food banks are children.
  By the way, in almost 40 percent of the households that rely on 
emergency food assistance, there was at least one adult who was 
employed.
  You have a lot of people in our country who are working poor people. 
They are eligible for this assistance. It makes a real difference to 
them and their children. But we have seen this dramatic decline in 
participation. I think we need to know why.
  A report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors shows similar results. It 
shows there has been a dramatic increase--can you believe it--in the 
demand for emergency food assistance in major cities across the United 
States in the last 15 years.
  Can I make that clear? We have a booming economy. We are talking 
about all of this affluence. There are people who spend $10,000 or 
$15,000 on one vacation, and the Conference of Mayors says we are 
seeing a dramatic demand in the need for emergency food assistance.
  Catholic Charities, the Nation's largest private human service, 
reported providing emergency food services to more than 5.6 million, 
more than 1 million of whom were children.
  When we are talking about food pantries, when we are talking about 
Catholic Charities, when we are talking about Second Harvest, when we 
are talking about all of these relief organizations saying there has 
been this increase in demand and saying that many of the citizens they 
help are children, something is wrong. Something is wrong with our 
priorities. No citizen in America should be hungry today. No child 
should be hungry.

  I don't have the statistics. But I am guessing. It is just intuition. 
It is what I have seen with my own eyes. There are also significant 
numbers of elderly people who are malnourished.
  The Food Research and Action Center, which I believe has done the 
very best work in this area, reports that more than 1.2 million people 
left the food stamp rolls between October 1998 and October 1999. Again, 
8.6 million people have left the Food Stamp Program since April of 
1996.
  Senators, here is the statistic that is jarring. According to the 
USDA, more than one-third of those who are eligible for the Food Stamp 
Program are not receiving benefits. We had a dramatic decline of about 
a 30-percent drop over the last 4 years, and USDA itself comes out and 
says that one-third of those who are eligible are not receiving any 
benefits at all.
  A report released by the National Campaign for Jobs and Income 
Supports, another really good organization and good coalition, found 
that the number of poor people receiving food stamps has declined by 37 
percent--more than 10 million people since 1994--although the number of 
people living in poverty has not declined anywhere close to the same 
rate.
  In 1995, for every 100 poor people in the country, 71 were using food 
stamps. In 1998, for every 100 poor people, only 54 were using food 
stamps.
  A General Accounting Office report recently released found that 
``food stamp participation has dropped faster than related economic 
indicators would predict.'' An Urban Institute report found that 
``about two-thirds of the families who left the Food Stamp Program were 
still eligible for food stamps.''
  A July 1999 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by 
Mathematica Policy Research, Incorporated, identified lack of client 
information as a barrier to participation.
  In other words, people are not being told that they are eligible. 
They are not being told that they can help their children by 
participating in this food nutrition program.
  Food stamps can mean the difference between whether or not the child 
has an adequate diet. Food stamps can make a difference between whether 
or not a child goes hungry. Food stamps can make a difference as to 
whether or not little children ages 1, 2 and 3 get adequate nutrition 
for the development of their brain. Food stamps can make a difference 
in terms of whether or not a child goes to school with an empty stomach 
and not able to learn. Food stamps can make a difference as to whether 
or not a child can do well in school and, therefore, well in life.
  I am speaking with some indignation. I know that we don't have a lot 
of debate on these issues. But this amendment is relevant to this bill. 
Food stamps can determine whether or not a child is able to concentrate 
and able to bond with other children, and whether a child can do well 
on these standardized tests that we are giving.
  We are given all these standardized tests the kids have to pass--if 
they fail, they are held back as young as age 8--but we have not made 
sure that children who could benefit from food nutrition programs so 
they do not go hungry, so they are not malnourished, are able to 
benefit.
  I just can't believe that during a thriving stock market, with record 
economic performance, with record affluence, with record wealth, with 
record surpluses, we have seen over the last half a decade a 33-percent 
or more decline in food stamp participation, and we have today in the 
United States of America 37 million Americans who are ``food 
insecure,'' 40 percent of them children.
  I told my friend, Senator Cochran, I would be relatively brief. I 
could go on and on. About a year ago, I brought this amendment to the 
floor. The Senator from Mississippi, who cares about these issues, 
accepted the amendment. It was knocked out in conference committee. It 
makes me furious. What in the world is the matter with the Congress 
that we are not even willing to let the Food and Nutrition Service make 
a policy evaluation? Why it is, with the most important safety net 
program for children in America to make sure they are not malnourished 
and make sure they do not go hungry, we are not even willing to support 
that?
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I hope there will be a strong vote for this amendment. 
I hope and I pray that we can keep this in conference because we should 
do this evaluation; we should get a report; we should know what is 
going on. This is important. This is all about whether our citizens, 
people in the country, are malnourished or not, whether they go hungry 
or not, whether children have a chance or not, whether we provide the 
help that elderly people need. We are not doing a good job. Something 
is wrong.
  I think if we get the study done--I don't know why we can't--then we 
will no longer be in a position of not knowing or not wanting to know 
and we will take some action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of the

[[Page S7336]]

Senator from Minnesota and bringing this issue to the attention of the 
Senate, frankly. More and more in the last few years, unemployment 
rates have been coming down. The economy is strong. Everybody knows 
that.
  And I kept asking, why aren't the participation rates in food stamps 
and other nutrition programs coming down? For a little while, they were 
going up, too. We had the number of people wanting work, finding work, 
going up. Incomes were going up. In my State of Mississippi, we saw 
income levels reaching new highs, but the food stamp participation was 
still going up.
  Pretty soon, though, that began to change and the food stamp 
participation rates began coming down. I thought this was an indication 
that people did not need as much nutrition assistance from these 
Federal programs as they did in the past. We hadn't changed in the last 
few years any of the eligibility or participation in the program. We 
did so back in the welfare reform days, and we all remember that 
process. There was a big push to do away with the Food Stamp Program. 
Some in the Senate pushed very hard to turn the program over to the 
States. Others resisted it. As it came out, it was preserved as a 
Federal program. It would be administered by the States, as in the 
past. By and large, it continued to exist without too many changes.
  The Senator is suggesting that because there continue to be dropoffs, 
reductions in the participation, something is wrong and we need to find 
out what it is. If there is something wrong, we need to be aware of it. 
I agree with the Senator. If the program is being administered in a way 
that denies those who are eligible under the law for benefits, we need 
to know about it. We need to try to make sure that those who need 
assistance and who are eligible for assistance get the assistance to 
which they are entitled and that there are funds here that will make 
those program benefits available to every eligible person in our 
country. That is our goal. That is my goal. That is my attitude. That 
is my view about this subject.
  I support the Senator's effort to have a study, and I will work in 
conference to see that funds are made available to do that study. I 
know the Food and Nutrition Service has been working on that issue. He 
is suggesting, as I understand the amendment, the Economic Research 
Service use some of the funds available to it to conduct a study, as 
well.
  I am prepared to take the matter to conference and to do as well as 
we can in conference with the House on this issue and the language the 
Senator has. I am told by my staff there are some suggested 
improvements--and I hope the Senator will agree they are improvements 
in the language of the amendment--that will strengthen the amendment in 
conference, and, if so, that the Senator will understand and be 
supportive of our efforts to see that the study achieves the goals the 
Senator intends.
  One aside: When the Senator made the point about amendments adopted 
here that are not accepted in conference, and it makes him furious, I 
was reminded of a story.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Before my colleague goes further, I was referring to 
this specific topic.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I see.
  I am reminded of a story my colleague from Mississippi, with whom I 
served in the body for 10 years before he retired--Senator John 
Stennis--told about a conference; I have forgotten which committee, but 
it was appropriations. He was chairman of the full Committee on 
Appropriations at the time he retired from the Senate.
  An amendment had been adopted in the Senate, and it was dropped in 
conference. The Senator who was managing the conference was explaining 
the provisions of the bill and what had been agreed to by the House and 
what had been rejected by the House. The author of an amendment got up 
and asked: Why wasn't my amendment accepted by the House? The manager 
said: We discussed it fully, and there was a lot of discussion, but it 
was not accepted by the House. He said: I want to know why; what did 
they say? The manager said: They didn't say.
  It is an indication that sometimes the House rejects an amendment. 
They don't feel obliged to tell you why they rejected it. They just 
say: We are not going to accept it. I have seen that happen. I have 
seen the chairman of the full committee on the Senate Appropriations 
Committee have to personally go to a conference and almost beg the 
conferees on the part of the House to accommodate an interest in his 
State that he thought deserved the support of the conference.
  It was almost a humiliating experience. I will never forget it. But 
it was an illustration of the fact that the other body takes their 
prerogatives very seriously, particularly on appropriations. I am 
reminded every year how difficult it is to get our way in conference in 
negotiations with the House. It is a tough challenge. Ultimately it 
gets the work out, but in the process there are Senate provisions that 
are dropped in conference, that are not agreed to by the House, in 
spite of the very best efforts that are made by the Senate to have 
their way in those negotiations.
  All I can say in respect to the Senator's insistence that this 
amendment be kept in conference is, we will do our best.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Wellstone's 
amendment. We need to do all we can to understand why food stamp 
participation has declined so sharply. We know that poverty among 
working families is growing, not declining, even in this time of 
prosperity, and we need to find better answers to this problem.
  The Conference Board is a global business membership organization 
that has enabled senior executives to exchange ideas on business policy 
and practices for nearly a century. The most recent Conference Board 
study is entitled ``Does a Rising Tide Lift All Boats? America's Full-
Time Working Poor Reap Limited Gains in the New Economy.'' The 
conclusions of this pro-business group are surprising. The Conference 
Board found that the number of full-time workers classified as poor 
increased between 1997 and 1998, the last year for which data is 
available. And despite the strongest economic growth in three decades, 
the poverty rate among full-time workers is higher now than it was 
during the last recession.
  The Congressional General Accounting Office also studied this issue 
of declining food stamp participation, and it found that food stamp 
participation is declining much more rapidly than poverty.
  The obvious result is that millions more Americans, including 
children and working families, are going without adequate nutrition 
today than before the welfare reform law was enacted.
  In Massachusetts, Project Bread operates a statewide hunger hotline, 
where operators respond to 2,300 requests for referrals each month. 
Last month, a mother from Worcester called. She had just been released 
from the hospital after the birth of her fifth baby. Doctors had 
ordered her to stop working 3 months ago, due to complications with her 
pregnancy. Her husband drives a bus, and their single salary was barely 
enough for the family to get by. When she called the hotline, there was 
no money and no food in the house, and hotline workers characterized 
her situation as desperate.
  In many other communities, the nation's mayors have been distressed 
by the sudden sharp increases in requests for emergency food from 
working families. Too many of those in need are being turned away, 
because the resources are so inadequate. We clearly need a better 
understanding of why this alarming level of hunger persists in our 
record-breaking economy.
  We need this additional information as soon as possible. We must 
accurately determine why food stamp participation has declined. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to deal more effectively with 
this tragic problem of hunger.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                    Amendment No. 3919, As Modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent I 
may send a technical correction to the desk. A sentence was written on 
the wrong line. I ask unanimous consent I modify the amendment. This is 
technical.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:


[[Page S7337]]


       On page 9, line 7, strike ``$1,000,000'' and insert 
     $1,500,000''.
       On line 10 after ``tions'' insert: ``Provided further, That 
     not more than $500,000 of the amount transferred under the 
     preceding proviso shall be available to conduct, not later 
     than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a 
     study, based on all available administrative data and onsite 
     inspections conducted by the Secretary of Agriculture of 
     local food stamp offices in each State, of (1) any problems 
     that households with eligible children have experienced in 
     obtaining food stamps, and (2) reasons for the decline in 
     participation in the food stamp program, and to report the 
     results of the study to the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Mississippi 
that I accept what he said in very good faith about the conference 
committee, and if he can, in his wisdom and experience, strengthen this 
amendment, I am all for that. When he tells me he will do everything he 
can to advocate for this amendment, I accept his word. There is no 
question about it.
  The second point I wish to make is just to clarify, or make the 
Record clear, that my indignation is not so much that ``my'' amendment 
was taken out in conference committee. I don't really care about it 
being my amendment. What bothers me, what troubles me, I say to Senator 
Cochran, is that--and I cited about seven or eight different studies, 
good studies done by good people--we do have before us a very important 
challenge.
  We have seen this dramatic decline. We know how important this 
program can be. We are getting reports that there are a lot of families 
eligible who are not participating. We are getting the reports from all 
the religious communities that the use of the food shelves are going 
up. We are getting reports from teachers in schools telling us kids are 
coming to school malnourished.
  So I am saying I find it a little hard to understand how in 
conference last year certain folks, whoever they were, just took this 
out. They were not interested in knowing. I think we ought to care 
about this. I insist we do. I know the Senator from Mississippi does.
  I think we will get a strong vote in the Senate and that will be 
good. The Senate will be strongly on record and I hope we can carry 
this in conference. I thank the Senator for his support. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3919, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 222 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

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

                                NAYS--6

     Helms
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Kerry
     Murray
  The amendment (No. 3919), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the status of 
the Record appropriate for the calling of another amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is appropriate.


                           Amendment No. 3958

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3958 on behalf of 
Senator Kohl, Senator Santorum, Senator Moynihan, Senator Kerry of 
Massachusetts, Senator Biden, Senator Hutchison of Texas, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Schumer, Senator Warner, and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself, 
     Mr. Kohl, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Biden, 
     Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Warner, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3958.

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

  (Purpose: To correct an unintended termination of the authority of 
Amtrak to lease motor vehicles from the General Services Administration 
           that results from previously enacted legislation)

       At the end of chapter 6 of title II of division B, add the 
     following:
       Sec. 2607. Amtrak is authorized to obtain services from the 
     Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator is 
     authorized to provide services to Amtrak, under sections 
     201(b) and 211(b) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481(b) and 491(b)) for fiscal 
     year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter until the fiscal 
     year that Amtrak operates without Federal operating grant 
     funds appropriated for its benefit, as required by sections 
     24101(d) and 24104(a) of title 49, United States Code.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would restore Amtrak's 
eligibility to continue leasing vehicles from the General Services 
Administration's Interagency Fleet Management System.
  The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 inadvertently 
removed this eligibility. By way of further explanation, in the Amtrak 
Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Amtrak was removed from the list 
of ``mixed ownership and government corporations.''
  An inadvertent and unintended consequence of this change was brought 
to Amtrak's attention earlier this spring. The Federal Railroad 
Administration questioned Amtrak's eligibility to continue leasing 
automobiles from the General Services Administration's Interagency 
Fleet Management System. The Federal Railroad Administration and 
General Services Administration agreed that Amtrak was no longer 
eligible.
  As a result of this inadvertent change, there is a fleet of some 
1,650 vehicles for which Amtrak currently pays $10 million to lease 
through the General Services Administration. If Amtrak is forced to 
lease its vehicles privately, it will cost a total of $25 million 
annually.
  The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act was intended to allow Amtrak 
to transition to operating self-sufficiency.
  This legislation was not intended to put new financial burdens on the 
corporation, which is in a transition to operating self-sufficiency. 
This problem was called to my attention yesterday by Governor Tommy 
Thompson, who is Chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors. The 
operation for Amtrak has been in high gear to operate like a business 
in its goal to achieve operational self-sufficiency by fiscal year 
2003. The strategy that Governor Thompson and others have articulated, 
as provided to me, involves, one, developing high-speed rail corridors; 
two, building a market-based rail network; three, forging partnerships 
with State and local authorities and large commercial clients; and 
four, offering a new service guarantee, which is unparalleled in the 
transportation industry.

[[Page S7338]]

  These strategies are already producing very considerable results. 
Amtrak's annual revenues reached a record of $1.84 billion in fiscal 
year 1999. Just over 21 million passengers traveled on Amtrak last 
year, for a third consecutive year of ridership growth. Overall 
ridership in the last 5 months is up 8 percent over the same period of 
last year. Ridership on the high-speed regional service corridor is up 
nearly 40 percent over the trains that were replaced.
  Further information provided to me is that the development of more 
commercial partnerships has boosted mail and express revenue by 35 
percent in this calendar year. Amtrak's net worth growth strategy, 
introduced in February, will expand passenger rail service to 21 
States, based on a comprehensive economic analysis of the national rail 
system and potential market opportunities. The national growth strategy 
is expected to add as much as $229 million of revenue by the year 2003. 
New partnerships have been forged with Motorola, Dobbs, and Hertz 
Corporation, among others. Amtrak's new web site for ticketing has been 
named one of the 100 most popular bookmark sites on the Internet. For 
fiscal year 2000, sales are up 113 percent over the same period last 
year.
  Since Amtrak's announcement of its service guarantee, it has recorded 
a satisfactory rate of 99.97 percent. These results point to the 
successful turnabout Amtrak is making in its efforts to achieve 
operational self-sufficiency. A goal has been set for Amtrak, and 
Amtrak is taking the proper steps to achieve that self-sufficiency. My 
suggestion to the Senate is that we not undermine the corporation by 
forcing it to swallow some $15 million in unintended costs, while 
losing its GSA eligibility for the remainder of the glidepath.
  The General Services Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, 
and Amtrak agreed that the legislation referred to contained an 
unintended consequence and should be rectified. Amtrak must return all 
1,650 vehicles by October 1 of this year, under the existing law. This 
provision puts an undue and unwarranted burden upon the General 
Services Administration, which does not want many of these specialized 
vehicles back in their inventory because they have nobody else who 
would lease them, so it would be a loss to GSA, as well.
  This amendment would restore Amtrak's eligibility to continue leasing 
vehicles from the General Services Administration's Interagency 
Management Fleet. I am advised by staff, who have consulted with the 
staff of the General Services Administration, that both GSA and the 
Federal Railroad Administration, as well as Amtrak, support this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, it would be preferable, candidly, not to put this 
amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill. I have consulted with 
the Parliamentarian, and there is a defense of germaneness, which is an 
answer to a challenge on grounds that this is legislation on an 
appropriations bill. The provisions of H.R. 4461 that we are currently 
considering, on page 5, line 9, provides the following under 
``Payments, Including Transfers of Funds'':

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 
     1984 delegation of authority from the Administrator of the 
     General Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 
     U.S.C. 486, for programs and activities of the Department 
     which are included in this Act, and for the operation, 
     maintenance, improvement, and repair of Agriculture 
     buildings, $150,343,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

  As I say, I am advised by the Parliamentarian that this language is 
sufficient to establish germaneness, and germaneness is a defense for 
challenging this amendment as legislation on an appropriations bill.
  There is an obvious concern raised here about whether Amtrak should 
be able to have the benefit of this leasing arrangement because Amtrak 
is supposed to be self-sufficient, some might say. The reality is that 
Amtrak is under a transition period to attain self-sufficiency. We are 
looking at an additional 2-year window here. I suggest that the savings 
of $15 million to Amtrak really would not be at the expense of the 
Federal Government. These are savings which, if the leasing were not 
possible, and the GSA has nobody to lease it to, is actually a net gain 
for the Federal Government. While Amtrak would have to pay $25 million 
annually instead of $10 million to GSA, if GSA doesn't have anybody to 
lease these vehicles to, which is what has been represented to me, it 
ends up that the Federal Government loses $10 million, which it would 
get from these leases. So it is a win-win situation for the Federal 
Government to have the $10 million in lease payments, and it saves 
Amtrak some $15 million.
  What we really need to do is, obviously, put Amtrak back on its feet. 
In the course of just a few minutes today, I was able to find 10 
cosponsors of this legislation. If we had more time to survey the 
Senate, I think we would find many more Senators. I don't think this is 
necessary as a disclosure of interest, but I have an interest in 
Amtrak, besides being a Senator, in wanting Amtrak to succeed. I ride 
Amtrak every day. It is really an enviable position to be in, whereas 
some of my colleagues have to fight airplane schedules. Some of us can 
ride the metroliner, which leaves on the hour. I can tell you that the 
metroliner is good service, and the other service is excellent as well. 
Those trains are filled and they are money-makers. The new Acela train 
is about to be established, which will get from Washington to 
Philadelphia even faster.
  Amtrak has come out with a new guarantee and it is moving ahead. 
There is no reason, it seems to me, to let this technicality stand, 
which would cost Amtrak $15 million and probably cost GSA $10 million 
if, as expected, it is unable to lease out all of these vehicles, which 
would be returned on October 1 of this year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in objection to the amendment. 
Bismarck said there are two things you never want to see made, and that 
is laws and sausages. This really is another one of these wonderful 
sausages.
  If a government student from a college or high school or university 
from around the country came here and was sitting in the galleries 
observing this, and someone told them we are now addressing the 
agricultural appropriations bill, one would then assume that it has to 
do with agriculture and farmers, the agricultural section of this 
country, and that it would probably have some very worthy aspects of 
it.
  Then this student observes the Senator from Pennsylvania stand up and 
say: We are going to get the GSA to lease automobiles for Amtrak. 
Excuse me? That is a railroad.
  For the benefit of those students who observe these things, I would 
like to tell you how we got here.
  Amtrak first came to my committee--which happens to be, although it 
is routinely ignored lately, the authorizing committee particularly as 
we go through the appropriations process. They came to the Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation Committee and said: We would like to have 
this done--although interestingly stated by the Senator from 
Pennsylvania--because basically they do not want to have to pay to 
lease automobiles to have their operations go forward. They wanted us 
to put it in as part of the National Transportation Safety Board 
reauthorization.
  After examining their proposal, and knowing that the whole object of 
the reform of Amtrak was to make them independent of the Federal 
Government, and now they want to take advantage of a situation that 
only governmental organizations can take care of --that is, General 
Services Administration leasing--we said no.
  They have some pretty highly paid lobbyists around town. They are 
pretty influential. They went to the government oversight committee, to 
Senator Thompson, and to his staff. They tried to float it by them 
because Senator Thompson's Committee on Governmental Affairs has 
oversight of the General Services Administration.
  Senator Thompson, his staff, and his committee rejected it out of 
hand--again because a nongovernment organization should not have access 
to the facilities and capabilities that a governmental organization 
does. That was rejected.
  The Amtrak lobbyists were flailing around town. Senator Thompson 
honored me with a phone call. He said: How do you explain the fact that 
the

[[Page S7339]]

whole effort of the Amtrak Reform Accountability Act, Public Law 104-
34, was intended to make Amtrak independent of the Federal Government--
which, by the way, is not too important, to revisit history.
  In 1971, Amtrak was formed for only 2 years, I say to my colleagues, 
and then to be completely independent. Of course, after being at the 
Government trough since 1971, we finally decided that they had just 
about enough when we enacted the Amtrak Reform Accountability Act.
  They finally found a willing servant and messenger in the Senator 
from Pennsylvania, and I congratulate him. So here we are with an 
amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill that has to do with 
Amtrak, which, as the Senator from Pennsylvania alluded to, he rides 
regularly. I am sure he is an avid supporter of it. But this is $15 
million. Actually, they came to us the first time and said it was a $4 
million deal. It has increased somehow magically in the last 6 weeks or 
so to $15 million. I guess that dramatized the gravity of their 
situation.
  I say to my government student who is observing this, I can tell you 
that the way we ended up with this particular sausage is that the 
Amtrak lobbyists with all of their influence could not get what they 
wanted through the committee of oversight. They couldn't get what we 
wanted through another committee of oversight; staff and those who had 
jurisdiction rejected this idiotic proposal out of hand. So now we have 
an amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  The supporters of this amendment allege its purpose is to correct an 
unintended--in the words of the Senator from Pennsylvania, unintended 
and unintentional--consequence of legislation enacted in 1997, the 
Amtrak Reform Accountability Act. Not so. Not so. The whole purpose of 
the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, of which I was a 
part, was to divorce Amtrak from the Federal Government and the largess 
and the perks and other good deals that can be had being a part of the 
Federal Government.
  Have no doubt, my friends, coming from a Senator who was intimately 
involved in the act, there was no unintended consequence. There was no 
inadvertency associated with it. This is simply an attempt on the part 
of Amtrak to save themselves $4 million, or $15 million, whatever it 
is.
  One of the main purposes of the act is to direct Amtrak to run more 
as a real for-profit business. There are other organizations, such as 
Fannie Mae, that are in exactly the same status as Amtrak. Fannie Mae 
doesn't get GSA leasing of their cars. Freddie Mac doesn't get GSA 
leasing of their cars. But we are going to do it for Amtrak.
  I guarantee you, my friends, we are going to have a hearing in 
September, I say to my colleagues, on this great reform, and all of 
this success which the Senator from Pennsylvania just trumpeted, you 
are going to find out it is not true. As far as I know, Amtrak is going 
to be feeding from the public trough for as long as any Member of this 
body is alive.
  We just had a Member of the advisory committee resign in disgust and 
anger over what has transpired since this act was passed in 1997.
  I don't expect to win. I don't expect to win this amendment. But I am 
going to make the American people aware of this bizarre situation where 
we have a railroad formed in 1971, and the commitment at that time was 
that railroad would be Government supported for 2 years. Count them: 
One, two. Since 1971, in the intervening 29 years, the billions and 
billions and billions of taxpayer dollars that have been expended on 
Amtrak stagger the imagination. Someday, somebody will write a very 
interesting treatise. In fact, several have already been written.
  In regard to the arguments of ``unintended consequences,'' let me 
assure my colleagues we have experienced a slew of unintended 
consequences since the reform law was enacted--a slew of unintended 
consequences. Let me mention a couple.
  When we all agreed to remove the former board of directors so Amtrak 
would have a clean slate with new leadership and fresh ideas, we never 
thought the board members serving at the time of enactment would then 
be appointed to the new reform board. But that is what happened.
  When we called for the creation of an 11-member Amtrak reform council 
and were specific about membership criteria and eligibility, we never 
expected the one representative of the rail industry to be a sitting 
mayor not affiliated with the industry at all. But that is what 
occurred, my friends--laws and sausages.
  When we authorized substantial capital and operating funds for the 
duration of the 5-year bill, we never expected the administration to 
request only about half of the authorized funding. But that is what 
occurred, despite the nonstop rhetoric about the administration's 
support for Amtrak.
  When we were all convinced that Amtrak would utilize the $2.2 billion 
``tax refund''--one of the more interesting sausages that were 
fashioned here in the Senate; there was a $2.2 billion tax refund on 
taxes that was never paid, one of the more interesting ones I have seen 
here--we were all convinced that Amtrak would utilize the $2.2 billion 
``tax refund'' released by enactment of the reform legislation for high 
return capital investments--the commitment of the $2.2 billion for high 
return capital investments. We didn't expect Amtrak to use that money 
to pay for gym membership, movie tickets, and for some of its labor 
force. But that is what occurred.
  I can understand Amtrak's desire to undo parts of the 1997 law it no 
longer likes. I am certain a number of Members would like to change 
certain things about the law here and there, particularly as we are 
getting closer to the operational self-sufficiency deadline in 2 years.
  By the way, there is no outside expert who believes we will reach 
that operational self-sufficiency deadline, which we will carefully 
examine as the committee of oversight, as the committee that is 
responsible for the authorizing--not the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee. We will examine it. But I believe an agreement is an 
agreement. And this bill was adopted unanimously.

  I think Amtrak should be relieved we are not instead requiring it to 
repay the Treasury for the money it saved by participating illegally in 
the program for nearly 3 years. Amtrak has been participating in this 
program, as judged by outside observers, illegally. It should have been 
halted.
  It is true not all Members share the same perspective concerning the 
obligation imposed upon the American taxpayers to fund Amtrak for its 
29 years of subsidization, even though Amtrak was to have been free of 
all Federal assistance 2 years after it was established in 1971. 
However, we did work together and support enactment of reform 
legislation with the intent to give Amtrak the tools it said it needed 
to become operationally self-sufficient.
  I have not acted to alter the agreement reached as part of the reform 
legislation, and I find it a breech of that agreement that Amtrak and 
others are routinely seeking changes through the appropriations process 
to allow it to do things not approved by the authorizing committee of 
jurisdiction. Be assured, I say to my colleagues now, we have a little 
dust up here. But when Amtrak tries to obtain a $10 billion funding 
scheme, there is going to be a big fight about that one, my friends. I 
know it is coming. It hasn't fulfilled the first and quite substantial 
statutory obligation to operate free of taxpayer expense.
  Amtrak asked for legislation that allowed it to operate more as a 
private business, and we enacted such legislation. As other former 
Government-controlled agencies have moved toward privatization, they 
didn't enjoy the freedom to pick and choose what governmental support 
programs they could use to their advantage. When Congress set up other 
corporations such as Freddie Mac, COMSAT, and Fannie Mae, they did not 
and do not participate in GSA leasing. The fact is, nongovernmental 
entities do not participate in the GSA vehicle leasing program. Amtrak 
can't have it both ways, although they probably will.
  Finally, I find it very strange that since this issue was brought to 
my attention in March, Amtrak has said the GSA leasing eligibility 
saves $4 million annually--probably a lot of money to a company that 
lost more than $900 million last year; $900 million was all they lost 
last year. Yet now that an amendment is being offered on the floor, 
Amtrak has raised the bar and this week

[[Page S7340]]

Amtrak is telling me the provision would save some $15 million 
annually. Which of Amtrak's numbers should we believe? At a minimum, 
the authorizing committee should have an opportunity to explore this 
new figure before we are asked to adopt any changes in existing law.
  As I said, we will be having a hearing on Amtrak, as is our 
responsibility as the authorizing committee, in early September to 
carefully explore this and many other critical issues. Until this issue 
has been looked at by the committee of jurisdiction, I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  We find ourselves, a week before leaving, with an amendment that was 
first sought to be addressed by the committee of authorization, the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. We refused to do so 
because it was clearly not in keeping with the law. Then they went to 
another committee of authorization. They wouldn't do it. So now what 
does the Senator from Pennsylvania do? Something to do with Amtrak, a 
train, is on the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  Another example of laws and sausages. To all those students of 
government who may be watching and observing this bizarre process, my 
friends, it is an argument for reform of the way we do business in this 
body. The authorizing committees are becoming more and more irrelevant 
as each legislative day goes by. I am close to the point where we 
either do away with the Appropriations Committee or we do away with the 
authorizing committees. To come on this floor and have a clear 
legislative change, even though it may not meet the exact parameters of 
germaneness in rule XVI, and make a clear elective change on a bill 
that has nothing to do, first of all as an appropriations bill, and 
second of all has no relation to Amtrak, I find offensive.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support the Specter 
amendment. I hope it will prevail for reasons that I don't think have 
been discussed thus far.
  One thing that we are not talking about is whether or not, since 
legislation was passed some time ago that might be more restrictive to 
Amtrak, the conditions have changed. One need not be a transportation 
engineer to know you can't get off the ground at airports. I waited the 
other day 5 hours for a flight to go to New Jersey from here. We were 
on the ground 5 hours.
  There are almost no airports of any size that aren't constantly late. 
There aren't places that one can travel by car or by bus that you can 
get where you want to be in a reliable period of time. We saw the front 
page news on the Washington Post 2 days ago about the disappearance of 
mountaintops, surrounded by smog, because the country is being 
overwhelmed by transportation and environmental problems. Conditions 
have changed.
  When we want to make comparisons between Amtrak and private 
businesses, we have to recognize there is no place in this world, no 
place, where there isn't a subsidy provided for rail service so people 
can travel from place to place--such as the subsidy we offer when we 
build airports and we provide and charge the passengers a tax to ride 
in an airplane. We have a passenger facility charge. Or that if one 
wants to buy gas at a gas station, we have a Federal tax; we have State 
taxes. Amtrak doesn't have that ability. Amtrak is the poor stepchild. 
It offers a service to lots and lots of people who can't find any 
alternative that is satisfactory or available to them.
  I don't like spending money. I happen to come from a strong business 
background. I know the difference between business and government. 
Amtrak is not a business like other businesses. It requires help. What 
we said in the commitment that was made for Amtrak was that we would 
not require that they meet operating needs out of the fare box. That is 
what we said would happen. Capital costs--and those are the things we 
are talking about--are part of the operating budget. We are forced at 
times to use operating funds for capital costs. The thing is all 
backwards. We are similiar to a Third World country in a process that 
has us asking passenger railroads to do things that no other country 
does.
  Germany has advanced their transportation systems, investing $10 
billion a year in developing rapid rail transportation. In France, you 
can travel from Brussels to Paris in an hour and 25 minutes; the 
distance is 200 miles. That is what we ought to be talking about.
  Take the pressure out of the skies. There is no more room for 
airplanes in the skies. There is no latitude. We can build more 
airplanes but you still won't be able to fly the planes. We have broken 
the rules. We expanded the number of slots at Reagan National because 
of requests from some of the people here, Senators who wanted to have 
particular access. Break the rules. Give us access. What do we care 
about the rules, about the number of flights that can come in and go, 
from whatever distances. Break the rules.
  We are not talking about breaking the rules. We are talking about 
extending an opportunity for many in the American public to be able to 
travel and get to their destinations on time with a degree of comfort 
that permits them to arrive at their destination and be able to conduct 
their business or see their families or get to school or whatever else 
they have to do.
  It is a fairly simple equation. I hope we will support the Specter 
amendment.
  I think what it does do is it says to people who need passageway, who 
need an opportunity to get from place to place that is not otherwise 
ordinarily available, and that is to permit these leases to be 
supported by GSA. To save Amtrak? No, not to save Amtrak; to save the 
passengers, to save the rail riders $15 million a year. That is what we 
are talking about saving.
  Amtrak is not the issue. The issue is whether or not we can transport 
the people who inhabit this country in a way that is reasonable without 
continuing to foul the air or delay them interminably.
  I hope we can conclude this vote and get the issue resolved. I do not 
like disagreeing with the chairman of the Commerce Committee. They have 
jurisdiction. But in this case I happen to think the perspective is 
wrong; that there is not recognition of what our country's needs are. 
They have changed so radically in the past few years. Look at airline 
passenger traffic. See how much it has grown. See how much more the 
highways are used now than only a few short years ago. The situation 
has changed. Are we going to continue to take an attitude that it 
doesn't matter what we are doing to the environment; it doesn't matter 
how late the airplanes are; it doesn't matter how costly rides are; 
regardless of that, we are not going to permit it to happen?
  I hope we will extend this extra opportunity for Amtrak and for its 
passengers to continue to operate and get us to the point, when we get 
high-speed rail in there, we can meet our operating costs and we can 
provide the kinds of service one would expect in a country such as 
ours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
which I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Pennsylvania. As you 
know, this amendment will allow Amtrak to continue leasing vehicles 
from GSA through 2003. We are all eager to see Amtrak continue 
progressing toward self-sufficiency. Without this amendment, we will be 
jeopardizing their ability to achieve that goal.
  In my own State, half a million people from Wisconsin ride Amtrak 
every year. It is very important not only to Wisconsin but to every 
State that Amtrak continue its progress toward viability. We must 
continue to allow Amtrak to transition to self-sufficiency by 2003.
  This amendment is very crucial to that effort. I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I welcome an opportunity to present these 
issues to students. Anyone in the balcony observing this debate, 
students, and as the Senator from Arizona alludes to students, perhaps 
a more elite audience, wanting to know the theory, the philosophy, the 
approach, the ethics of the proposition, I welcome addressing students 
on this subject as I

[[Page S7341]]

spend a good bit of my time addressing high schools, colleges, junior 
high schools, and even grade schools taking the message to the students 
about what government ought to be doing.
  It is a fairly common reference--not too humorous anymore--to 
analogize making sausage to the making of legislation. But the making 
of legislation is a very complicated matter. It has to take into 
account the accommodation of 260 million Americans and many contrary 
issues and many contrary differences.
  When the argument is raised about this is a matter turned down by the 
authorizing committee, the Commerce Committee, and turned down by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee--they are not the last word. The 
chairman of the Commerce Committee does not have the last word. He may 
have it as the Commerce Committee is organized, directed, and run. And 
the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee may have the last 
word as to how that committee is run. But the Senate has the last word.
  There are 100 of us and each Senator has rights under the rules of 
the Senate. When this Senator offers an amendment, this Senator is 
offering an amendment within his rights. Even if the full Commerce 
Committee backs the chairman, or even if the full Governmental Affairs 
Committee backs the chairman, those committees are not the last word. 
The last word is the Senate, the 100 Members who constitute the Senate.
  In offering this amendment, this Senator is functioning within the 
rules. When the Senator from Arizona says that this amendment has 
nothing to do with agriculture and he finds the amendment offensive, I 
take a little offense at that. I set forth the germaneness, which 
entitles this amendment to be offered on this bill.
  It is not an unusual occurrence in the Senate to offer legislation on 
an appropriations bill. That rule has been breached so often that it is 
hardly referenced anymore. We are trying to come back to a standard of 
not legislating on an appropriations bill, but the rules of the Senate 
govern that, and I cited the provisions of the bill we are considering 
from the House of Representatives which makes this germane.
  That is the advice I received from the Parliamentarian. That is not 
my own peculiar, personal opinion. If someone wants to challenge the 
amendment, there are ways to do so if someone says this violates the 
rules. But I do not think it does, and the Parliamentarian does not 
think it does.
  When there are references to illegal activities by Amtrak, if there 
are illegal activities, let's refer it to the Department of Justice. 
Some might say a reference to the Department of Justice doesn't do much 
good in the United States of America today, and I would not want to 
argue that point too vociferously, but let's give them a chance. Has it 
been referred to the Department of Justice?

  I attended a hearing of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation where Governor Thompson appeared last year. But we met 
yesterday on another matter. He called this issue to my attention.
  This is not exactly my purview, to take up this issue. It doesn't 
come within any of my committee responsibilities. But no high-priced 
lobbyist came to me to talk about this issue, a high-priced lobbyist 
who might be fundraising for me. Nobody came to talk to me about it. In 
fact, not even a low-priced lobbyist came to me to talk about it. But 
Governor Thompson, a very distinguished American and very distinguished 
public servant, did. I told him I was concerned about it. Before the 
afternoon, I had a flood of telephone calls from Amtrak, asking me to 
look into it, to check it out.
  This morning I called Senator Kohl who had been working on the 
matter. Then I started to canvas a few Senators and got 10 cosponsors 
very promptly. Senator Jeffords--I ask unanimous consent he be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. There is a reference here to ``idiotic.'' I take more 
than umbrage at that, and would cite rule XIX which says:

       No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any 
     form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators 
     any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

  I can't represent whether I was called an idiot, or whether I was 
said to have offered an idiotic amendment. But either way, offering an 
idiotic amendment is not becoming conduct for a Senator. And I 
consulted with the Parliamentarian. The rule is that a Senator may 
challenge another Senator who violates rule XIX by standing and saying: 
I call the Senator to order.
  I choose not to do that. I don't want to make a Federal case of it. 
But, also, I choose not to ignore it, and I think it is unbecoming 
conduct for a Senator to offer an idiotic amendment. But I don't think 
this amendment is idiotic. But I will let the body decide that on a 
vote, either on a challenge on procedural grounds or on a vote on the 
merits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if there has been any offense taken by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, it was not intended, and I would hope he 
would accept my apologies if he took offense. I think this amendment is 
wrong.
  It is inappropriate, and it is dead wrong, and the facts, as I stated 
as to how this amendment got on an Agriculture appropriations bill, are 
accurate. It first went to the Commerce Committee where they tried to 
get us to do it, and we would not because we do not believe it is in 
keeping with the law.
  Then they went to the Governmental Affairs Committee and now it has 
ended up being put as an amendment on the Agriculture appropriations 
bill. That is wrong. I did not challenge the parliamentary right of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania to do so. We had the same parliamentary 
reading that the Senator from Pennsylvania did.
  I think this amendment is a violation of the agreement that was made 
in 1997 in the form of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, P.L. 
105-134.
  Again, if the Senator from Pennsylvania took offense at something I 
said personally, then he has my apologies. That does not change the 
fact that this amendment is the wrong thing to do. I strongly oppose 
it, and I believe if we continue, as I said in the conclusion of my 
remarks previously, if we continue to authorize and legislate on 
appropriations bills, this practice will continue the breakdown of the 
procedures that are intended and established by the Senate.
  I stand by those words, and I again say, even though it may not be in 
violation of the strict parliamentary rules, it is wrong to put an 
amendment concerning Amtrak on Agriculture appropriations bills. I 
believe I have that right to believe that is an inappropriate way, and 
the Commerce Committee or the Governmental Affairs Committee should 
have reviewed this and did review it and should be allowed the 
jurisdiction.
  Nor did I at any time tell the Senator, or in my remarks to the body, 
that every Senator does not have their right to a proposed amendment on 
whatever issue they wish. That is why we have a Parliamentarian. Never 
at any time--certainly not this Senator--would I say that an individual 
Senator should be deprived of his or her rights since I exercise those 
with some frequency.
  I hope that clarifies the intent of my remarks which are that this 
amendment is not in keeping with the Amtrak Reform and Accountability 
Act, and I do not believe--and as a Senator I have the right to the 
view--that it is not appropriate to be placed on an Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I also rise in opposition to this 
amendment and join my colleague from Arizona in his opposition. We just 
held a number of hearings in the Housing and Transportation 
Subcommittee of the Banking Committee. I chair this subcommittee. We 
found that we even have the Federal Transit Administration subsidizing 
Amtrak. Clearly, in my mind, when I look at the 1997 accountability 
act, Congress intended to move Amtrak to self-sufficiency.
  Amtrak claims to be a private corporation, and, plainly and simply, 
private corporations are not eligible to lease Government vehicles.
  I have grown increasingly skeptical about what is going on with 
Amtrak. It

[[Page S7342]]

seems they found a way of picking up Government subsidies all over the 
place.
  Several years ago, the FTA required--I want to get back to some other 
issues that may either be directly or indirectly related to this 
amendment, but several years ago, The Federal Transit Authority 
required the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to bid out 
contracts for their commuter rail services. Four companies bid. Amtrak 
had the highest cost bid and lowest quality.
  This will cost taxpayers $75 million above the low bid. This is a $75 
million, 3-year subsidy on top of the nearly $600 million annual 
subsidy Congress grants Amtrak. Now they want the subsidy of leasing 
Government vehicles. I ask my colleagues: When are we really going to 
require Amtrak to be self-sufficient?
  For that reason, I oppose this amendment with my colleague from 
Arizona and urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of brief response to the argument 
by the Senator from Colorado, I agree with him that Amtrak needs to be 
self-sufficient, and that is the purpose of the legislation. The 
question is, How fast is that going to occur? They are looking for 
self-sufficiency under the existing legislation by the year 2003. What 
they are asking for here is an extension from October 1, 2000, to 
October 1, 2002. I went into some detail on the information provided by 
Governor Thompson, who is chairman of the Board of Amtrak, as to the 
progress which they are making.
  When the Senator from Arizona says there is no mistake here, he may 
be right about that. Maybe this is not an unintended consequence, but 
where you have a provision which reaches the extent of leasing under 
these circumstances, I doubt that anybody thought about that when the 
legislation was drafted. Maybe it is not an unintended consequence, but 
I doubt very much that it is an intended consequence. It is something 
that happened that nobody had thought about. Perhaps if nobody had 
thought about it, it is genuinely an unintended consequence.
  Considering the issues we face in this body, when you are talking 
about $15 million, although not unsubstantial, we seldom take a 
protracted period of time as we wrestle with the budget of $1.850 
trillion. I have not calculated the percent, but it is a mighty tiny 
fraction. This is symbolic as to what we are trying to do to get Amtrak 
on its feet.
  When the Senator from Arizona says it is wrong to put this amendment 
on this bill, I have to categorically disagree with that as a matter of 
fact because if the rules allow this amendment to go on this bill, it 
is not wrong to put this amendment on this bill. It may be an unwise 
amendment, it may be against public policy, but it is not a wrongful 
act to put this amendment on this bill when the advice that the Senator 
from Arizona got was the same as the advice this Senator got: that as a 
matter of parliamentary procedure, it is an appropriate matter.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3958. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), 
and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 223 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--24

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brownback
     Campbell
     Craig
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Mack
     McCain
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Thomas
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Kerry
     Murray
  The amendment (No. 3958) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I will be sending to the 
desk is on behalf of myself and Senators Conrad, Wellstone, Grams of 
Minnesota, Torricelli, Schumer, Levin, Leahy, Kennedy, Reed, Sarbanes, 
Dodd, Lieberman, Mikulski, Hollings, Baucus, and Breaux.
  The amendment would provide some emergency financial assistance for 
family farmers that have incurred disaster losses.


                           Amendment No. 3963

  (Purpose: To make emergency financial assistance available to 
producers on a farm that have incurred losses in a 2000 crop due to a 
disaster and to producers of specialty crops that incurred losses 
during the 1999 crop year due to a disaster)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I now send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Conrad, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Grams, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Levin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Hollings, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3963.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
       At the end of chapter 1 of title I of division B, add the 
     following:
       Sec. 1108. Crop Loss Assistance.--(a) In General.--The 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall use such sums as are necessary 
     of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (not to exceed 
     $900,000,000) to make emergency financial assistance 
     available to producers on a farm that have incurred losses in 
     a 2000 crop due to a disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under this section in the same manner as provided 
     under section 1102 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
     Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note; Public Law 105-
     277), including using the same loss thresholds as were used 
     in administering that section.
       (c) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section may 
     be made available for losses due to damaging weather or 
     related condition (including losses due to scab, sclerotinia, 
     aflotoxin, and other crop diseases) associated with crops 
     that are, as determined by the Secretary--
       (1) quantity losses (including quantity losses as a result 
     of quality losses);
       (2) quality losses; or
       (3) severe economic losses.
       (d) Crops Covered.--Assistance under this section shall be 
     applicable to losses for all crops, as determined by the 
     Secretary, due to disasters.
       (e) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize 
     producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (f) Livestock Indemnity Payments.--The Secretary may use 
     such sums as are necessary of funds made available under this 
     section to make livestock indemnity payments to producers on 
     a farm that have incurred losses during calendar year 2000 
     for livestock losses due to a disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (g) Hay Losses.--The Secretary may use such sums as are 
     necessary of funds made available under this section to make 
     payments to producers on a farm that have incurred losses of 
     hay stock during calendar

[[Page S7343]]

     year 2000 due to a disaster, as determined by the Secretary.
       (h) Emergency Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.
       (2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
       Sec. 1109. Specialty Crops.--(a) In General.--The Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall use such sums as are necessary of funds 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make emergency 
     financial assistance available to producers of fruits, 
     vegetables, and other specialty crops, as determined by the 
     Secretary, that incurred losses during the 1999 crop year due 
     to a disaster, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Qualifying Losses.--Assistance under this section may 
     be made available for losses due to a disaster associated 
     with specialty crops that are, as determined by the 
     Secretary--
       (1) quantity losses;
       (2) quality losses; or
       (3) severe economic losses.
       (c) Eligibility.--Assistance under this section shall be 
     applicable to losses for all specialty crops, as determined 
     by the Secretary, due to disasters.
       (d) Crop Insurance.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall not discriminate against or penalize 
     producers on a farm that have purchased crop insurance under 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       (e) Emergency Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.
       (2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am reluctant to say this, but I have 
to sooner or later. How many items are we going to keep adding and 
calling them ``emergencies''? We have already passed a lot of 
emergencies for agriculture. I believe there are emergencies in this 
bill. I just wonder how many more we can come to the floor with. 
Everybody should know that when you come here and designate it as an 
emergency under the Budget Act resolution, it means it doesn't count 
against anything. If we want to, we can be down here the rest of this 
evening adding additional items and saying they are emergencies.
  I don't know enough about this amendment. It is difficult to 
understand, even though it has been read. But we do know one thing: It 
costs $900 million.
  Obviously, there are some who do not want anybody interfering with 
people's ability to come down here and add money. But I frankly think 
what we ought to do is test this one out. I don't believe it is the 
right amendment to adopt as an emergency. I think maybe we will discuss 
it. Some will decide what it looks like and understand it. I don't 
know. But I am going to make a point of order that this amendment 
contains an emergency designation in violation of section 205 of H. 
Con. Res. 290, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution.
  I am perfectly willing to have a debate. We have the statute in front 
of us. If the Senator wants to make a case for the Senate that in fact 
he has a brand new emergency, it wasn't available to the committee. It 
wasn't available the last two times we had an agriculture 
supplemental--a number of which were emergencies for which we paid 
billions of dollars. I can recall a couple that were $7 billion. One 
was $6 billion. Then there are lesser ones now that are all 
supplementals for emergencies for agriculture. I have been told there 
is no limit so don't bother. There is no limit to those things that 
will pass as emergencies in the agricultural area.
  It is kind of difficult when it is an agricultural issue to get up 
here and say this because there are some in my State; there are some in 
other States. I am sure when we are through understanding this 
amendment, they will try to convince us that everybody should vote for 
it because it affects them. Frankly, even if it does affect them, it 
doesn't mean we have to determine that it doesn't count. It should 
count.
  I have a statute in front of me. I will yield the floor for a moment. 
Perhaps the Senator from Texas would like to read the statute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from New Mexico and 
also to the Senators from Texas and Arizona that it is my intention, 
having offered this amendment, to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment after I have had a chance to discuss exactly what the Senator 
from New Mexico just described--new events that have occurred that have 
been quite disastrous in my State and some others that are now 
occurring in a significant region of the country dealing with drought.
  My point is to say this about this amendment--and some of my 
colleagues will want to reinforce it. We have an agricultural disaster, 
not with respect to the collapse of commodity prices but with respect 
to floods and drought that have destroyed a significant number of crops 
in various parts of our country.
  If I might, with my colleagues' consent, show a picture of a fellow 
standing in front of about 300 acres of soybeans. As you can see, it is 
of course nothing but water. These soybeans are gone. It is the result 
of a June 12 and June 13 deluge of rain that fell in the Red River 
Valley, somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 to 19 inches of rain in a 
period of about 36 hours.
  Let me say that again.
  In the Red River Valley, on dead flat land, 16 to 19 inches of rain 
fell in some areas in about 36 hours. Then on June 19, in Cass County, 
and in Richland County, and several other areas of the State, in a 6-
hour period a group of thunderstorms came together and dumped 8 to 9 
inches of rain in a very short period of time. The result was fields as 
far as the eye could see that looked exactly like this, with crops 
planted that are devastated and destroyed. In fact, in the Red River 
Valley area, both in the northern and the southern part of the valley, 
about 1.7 million acres of crops were lost or significantly damaged as 
a result of those two devastating events.
  We also have a significant drought that is occurring right now in the 
southern part of our country. As you know, crops are burning up at an 
accelerated pace. We have a disaster occurring for farmers in other 
parts of the country.
  Let me again say it is my intention to seek consent to withdraw the 
amendment. I offered the amendment for the purpose of saying to the 
Congress that, yes, in fact, new events have occurred beginning on June 
12 and 13 in our State when 18 to 19 inches of rain fell in about 36 
hours, devastating a million and three-quarters acres of crop land. New 
events are occurring this week, and occurred last week, and I assume in 
the weeks ahead, with respect to the crops in the southern region of 
the United States.
  I think we will have to address this issue. I think somehow we have 
to find a way to provide some assistance to those family farmers whose 
crops have been destroyed by a natural disaster.
  Some will say perhaps there was some money provided earlier in the 
year in an agriculture bill for family farmers. That of course is true, 
and it dealt with the issue of collapsed grain prices. That 
reimbursement had to do with the collapse of market prices for 
commodities. There is, however, a circumstance in our country today, 
given the new laws in recent years, in which we don't have a disaster 
program available to try to provide some assistance when these 
disasters occur.
  I offered the amendment for the purpose of discussing it, as will my 
colleague.
  At this point, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3963) was withdrawn.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the managers of the bill, I 
send a package of amendments to the desk, the agriculture emergency 
assistance package, and ask that they be reported.

[[Page S7344]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for himself and 
     Mr. Kohl, on behalf of other Senators, proposes en bloc 
     amendments beginning with No. 3964.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendments be dispensed with.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. Is the amendment divisible?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator sent up a group of amendments that 
require consent to be considered en bloc.
  Mr. GRAMM. I object to them being considered en bloc.


                           Amendment No. 3964

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the first amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3964.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me make a point of order and say that 
it is the intention of the manager to read a description of each of the 
amendments in the order in which they have been submitted to the Chair 
so that all Senators will be advised of the nature of the amendment.
  I renew my request to ask that the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide the use of funds for the Emergency Watershed 
Program for emergency expenses for floodplain operations identified as 
                           of July 18, 2000)

       On page 76, after line 18, of Division B, as modified, 
     insert:


                 natural resources conservation service

               watershed and flood prevention operations

       ``For an additional amount for `Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Operations,' to repair damages to the waterways 
     and watersheds, including the purchase of floodplain 
     easements, resulting from natural disasters, $70,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds shall 
     be used for activities identified by July 18, 2000: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request for $70,000,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.''

  Mr. COCHRAN. For the information of Senators and the edification of 
all Senators who have asked that amendments be put before the Senate, 
under a section of the bill entitled ``Agriculture Emergency Assistance 
Package,'' I will read the list that the managers recommend be 
considered now by the Senate:
  Amendment No. 1, for Senator Harkin, to provide additional funding 
for emergency watershed and flood prevention operations;
  No. 2, an amendment for Senators Levin and Collins to provide 
emergency assistance to apple and potato producers;
  No. 3, an amendment on behalf of Senators Graham and Mack----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could the Senator state the dollar number when he reads 
it? You gave us a description. Can you tell us how much?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I was going to give you a total dollar number.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Do you know each amount? It is your bill.
  Mr. GRAMM. We have one amendment before the Senate, the Harkin 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Harkin amendment is $70 million. The Levin-Collins 
amendment is $115 million; the Graham-Mack amendment to compensate for 
nursery stock losses does not score.
  No. 4, an amendment on behalf of Senators Lott, Cochran, and Kohl to 
extend the wetlands reserve program; it is estimated to cost $117 
million;
  No. 5, an amendment on behalf of Senators Leahy and Jeffords, 
compensation for livestock losses, is estimated to cost $4 million;
  No. 6, an amendment on behalf of Senators Harkin and Bond, for green 
biotechnology evaluation, estimated to cost $600,000;
  No. 7, an amendment on behalf of Senators Abraham, Schumer, and 
Levin, for potatoes and apples quality losses, estimated to cost $45 
million;
  No. 8, on behalf of Senators Graham and Mack on compensation for 
citrus canker losses, estimated to cost $40 million;
  No. 9, on behalf of Senator Cochran, on emergency APHIS funding, 
estimated to cost $59.4 million;
  An amendment on behalf of Senators Thurmond and Hollings on grain 
indemnity assistance, estimated to cost $2.5 million;
  An amendment on behalf of Senator Cochran on conservation assistance, 
no score on budget authority, $6 million in budget outlays;
  No. 12, on behalf of Senator Sessions on livestock assistance, no 
score is available, and is estimated to have no cost;
  No. 13, on behalf of Senator Edwards on community facilities, 
estimated to cost $50 million;
  No. 14, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, natural disaster assistance, the 
amendment described, $450 million;
  No. 15, Senators Inouye and Akaka, an amendment on commodity 
transportation assistance, estimated to cost $7.2 million.
  That is the entire list, for the information of Senators. It has been 
reviewed by the managers and recommended to the Senate by the offering 
of the amendment as eligible for agriculture emergency assistance in 
the amounts identified as stated.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What was the total?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The total amount of all of these amendments amounts to 
about $900 million. The bill contained $1.116 billion in emergency-
designated programs and activities as reported by the committee. So the 
total emergency designated items and programs included in the bill, if 
this package is agreed to, would amount to $2.1 billion based on 
preliminary scoring made available to the committee by the 
Congressional Budget Office.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I first clarify that the $450 
million that the Senator from Mississippi referenced is not for North 
Dakota. It is a national program to deal with disasters that have 
occurred in this most recent period of time. Some States have been hit 
by drought. Some States have been hit by flooding.
  In reference to the question of the Senator from New Mexico, whether 
these are emergencies that could not have been dealt with in the normal 
process of the committee's work, the answer is affirmatively yes, they 
could not have been dealt with in the normal work of the committee. 
They could not have been dealt with in the previous supplemental 
because the disaster had not yet occurred--at least with respect to 
North Dakota.
  Senator Dorgan indicated we had the most remarkable weather event 
since we saw the 500-year flood in 1997. In mid-June, our State got 20 
inches of rain in 36 hours. This is the headline from the biggest paper 
in the State: ``Swamped.'' This was a week after the rain that I just 
referenced.
  The rain that I just referenced occurred a week before this one. We 
have been hit by the most remarkable series of floods since the 1997 
flood, which was a 500-year event.
  On June 12, in North Dakota, we had rains that were up to 20 inches 
in a wide band in northeastern North Dakota. Seven days later we got 
hit with this rainstorm--8 inches in 6 hours. The devastation is 
stunning.
  On the State university, this is the reference, NDSU, $50 million at 
the State university.
  At the dome that is the large center, the activity center for the 
city: $10 million of damage. In surrounding farm areas as a result of 
these two floods: 1.7 million acres devastated.
  The catastrophe in our State cannot be overstated: 1.7 million acres 
of land devastated, hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in the 
largest city in our State. This is an emergency by any definition. 
Unfortunately, it had not occurred when we dealt with the 
supplementals. It had not occurred

[[Page S7345]]

when the committee did its work. It is only now that we know the full 
extent of the damage. That is why we are here asking our colleagues not 
for a new program but to reinstate the program we had last year to deal 
with crop loss disasters.
  Last year, we put in place a program that cost about $2 billion to 
deal with natural disasters. This year we are asking for $900 million 
not just for North Dakota but for the other States that have been hit 
as well. We know the devastation in North Dakota is stunning, but we 
are not alone. In other areas of the country disasters have ruined 
crops as well: 216 counties in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida 
were declared disaster areas on July 14.
  I might say to my colleagues, I spoke on this matter last Friday with 
Senator Coverdell, Senator Coverdell who was tragically lost to us 
earlier this week. Senator Coverdell had indicated that he would join 
in an amendment because Georgia has been devastated. South Carolina and 
Florida were declared agricultural disaster areas as well on that same 
day, July 14.
  USDA has also declared agricultural disasters in parts of Alabama, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, Arizona, Mississippi, New York, Texas, 
Washington, and perhaps other States. These are the States that I know 
of that have had disasters declared.
  The hard reality is these things have happened. The earlier package 
we dealt with was designed for economic disasters. That has been 
passed. That has been signed into law. This is to give back the program 
that was available last year for areas hit by drought or severe 
flooding. We are asking for $900 million. I can tell you, it is 
desperately needed, desperately needed. It is without question an 
emergency.
  This series of events, at least in our State, had not occurred at the 
time of the supplemental appropriations bills, nor had it occurred so 
the full extent of the damage was known for the committee 
deliberations. That is the reality.
  This responds also to the needs of producers in the Northeastern 
United States who have been hit, and the needs of producers hit by 
disasters in the South.
  I ask my colleagues to very carefully consider their response to this 
request. We have always tried to be a United States of America in 
response to disasters, listening to the needs of every State in every 
condition. I regret very much that I am here asking again. We have had 
nine Presidential disaster declarations in the last 8 years in my 
State. I never remember something like this in my life. There is 
some extraordinary weather pattern affecting my State.

  As many of you know, we have a lake that has risen 25 vertical feet 
in the last 6 years, a lake that is the size of the District of 
Columbia, a lake that is devouring surrounding communities, roads, 
farms--that is another disaster. That lake missed having this 
extraordinary rainfall by 70 miles. If that lake would have been hit by 
this 20 inches of rain in 2 days, we would have been here dealing with 
a calamity of stunning proportion.
  So I say to my colleagues, I know none of us like these surprise 
requests, but we could not have made the request until the disaster 
occurred. We could not have quantified the need, unfortunately, until 
FEMA and USDA had a chance to go in and do a review of the level of 
disaster. Again, the $450 million requested is not for North Dakota. It 
is a national response to all the States that have been affected to 
repeat the program we passed and put in place last year. I hope my 
colleagues' hearts will not turn cold simply because we have had to 
face disasters year after year. I can tell you, the people of my State 
need help. Mr. President, 1.7 million acres devastated, that is one-
fifth, 20 percent of the crop base of my State, and the biggest city of 
my State, as the headline in the biggest newspaper in my State says: 
``Swamped.''
  This is from the Grand Forks Herald, one of the four largest cities 
in the State, 80 miles to the north of Fargo: ``Area Flooding 
Continues.'' Here are additional reports, ``Weather Service Official 
Says Storm Worst He's Ever Seen.''
  It is hard to describe an event of this proportion--20 inches of rain 
in 36 hours. It is Biblical. I don't know any other way to say it to my 
colleagues.
  This is from the Fargo Forum, again the biggest newspaper in our 
State, with officials there saying: ``It's the worst rain flood we've 
ever had''--in the history of our State.
  Finally, this story kind of tells it all, again from the biggest 
newspaper in our State: ``Floods Finish Off Crops Hurt By Drought.''
  I just conclude by saying to my colleagues: It is perverse but it has 
happened. Hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in my State alone, 
with other States similarly affected. We ought to put in place the 
program we had last year to help those who deserve assistance. That is 
my plea to my colleagues tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has been 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Texas, I 
think I will take about 3 or 4 minutes; that's all. I want to associate 
myself with the remarks of my colleagues from North Dakota.
  I simply want to put it in personal terms because I think that is the 
way most Senators understand things. About 2 weeks ago, I was visiting 
with friends. When I drove up, there were pickup trucks as far as you 
could see. The farmers were there because of flooding, again, for the 
seventh year in a row. In my State, 350,000 acres of farmland have been 
destroyed. You could just look at the faces of people and see the pain. 
This happened in June when we were dealing with the MILCON bill. We 
were not able to assess the damage yet.
  Look, whatever the vehicle is and however we do this, I thank Senator 
Cochran for understanding what we are trying to do, and I hope--this 
amendment has been withdrawn, but I hope we do come together as 
Senators to support this. This is not just about North Dakota or 
Minnesota; it also is about a lot of States in the South. There, it is 
the opposite problem; it is drought.
  I have only been here--I guess it is a long time--9 years. That is 
not as long as some of my colleagues. The way I feel about the Senate 
is we do become a community. Maybe we will do it a different way, but 
we are a community in the sense that it is, there but for the grace of 
God go I. Whenever Senators come to the floor and say: My God, it's 
been tornadoes, it's been hurricanes, its floods, its droughts and 
people are hurting and people need help, I do not hesitate to vote for 
other Senators and other people in other States. That is what this is 
about.
  This amendment has been withdrawn, but the question before us will 
continue to be a question before us. I certainly hope that, working 
with Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, we will be able to get 
the support.
  I will finish this way: This is not like how do you come to the floor 
of the Senate and sneak something through or there is something that 
you are doing that is some flagrant special interest favor. The only 
special interests here are a whole bunch of good people, who are going 
through a living hell, who need some help. What we are trying to do is 
get that help for those people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if we were beginning to write a farm budget 
this year, these arguments might resonate. The problem is we have 
already spent $9.6 billion that required budget waivers so far this 
year: Spending some of it in the year 2000, and spending some of it in 
the year 2001, but all of it where we made a commitment to spend this 
year.
  What is really happening is we are in the process of simply throwing 
the budget out the window. We are in the process of letting this budget 
surplus literally burn a hole in our pockets. The level of scratching 
and clawing to get into the pockets of the Federal Government is at a 
level I have never experienced in the 22 years I have served in 
Congress.
  It seems to me if this provision were meritorious in a bill that is 
providing

[[Page S7346]]

$14.85 billion of discretionary assistance to farmers and ranchers, it 
would have found a place. In fact, this bill, in addition to the $1.4 
billion of crop insurance, $1.6 billion in emergency assistance, the 
$5.5 billion of loss assistance, the $1.1 billion this bill has for 
emergencies--if we adopt this amendment, we are saying that a full 
$10.5 billion of emergency spending in agriculture will be expended 
this year when the entire nonemergency part of the bill is $14.85 
billion. In other words, we have about a 66-percent increase in 
spending, all in the name of emergency.
  I have to say I believe this has gone too far. We are all interested 
in helping farmers and ranchers. We all know there are problems, but 
every year the President proposes a level of assistance, Republicans 
raise it, Democrats raise it more, and then our Democrat colleagues 
raise it again. Is there no limit to the amount of money we are willing 
to spend because we have this surplus?
  Obviously, I cannot address every issue raised by every Senator, but 
one has to ask the question: When 50 cents out of every dollar going to 
farmers in America is coming from the Government, what is going on in 
America today?
  It is very interesting to me, and I just put these figures out here 
and pose a question: If we are having a complete agricultural disaster, 
if farmers are going broke left and right, if we should be spending 
almost 70 percent of our ag budget in emergency add-on spending, what 
would you expect to be happening to farm debt? Given that we have a 70-
percent cost over-run to ``help the farmer,'' what would you think is 
happening to farm debt? What would you think is happening to the level 
of farm assets? What would you think is happening to the debt-to-asset 
ratio?--in other words, the amount of debt farmers have relative to 
their assets.
  When we have allowed emergency spending to reach levels unprecedented 
in the history of this country, when we have made emergency 
appropriations in agriculture the norm, when we have had a bidding war 
to buy votes in rural America such as this country has never seen in 
its history because of all of these losses, what would you think is 
happening to farm debt?
  Let me just give you the figures: Farm debt in 1998 was $172.9 
billion. In 1999, it was $172.8 billion. This year, it is projected to 
be $172.5 billion.
  With all of this economic disaster, with this destruction such as we 
have not seen since Steinbeck novels, somehow, remarkably, farm debt is 
going down and not up. Yet we cannot spend money fast enough. There is 
just not enough money in the world to meet the demand we have for it.
  What would you think is happening to farm assets? Farmers going broke 
left and right, leaving the farm, disaster, the trails, the trucks 
going to California, the desertion, the disaster in rural America--what 
do you think is happening to farm assets? They must be plummeting. They 
must be in a complete free-fall. Oddly enough, not only are they not 
plummeting, they are going up. They were $1.0643 trillion in 1998, 
$1.0672 trillion in 1999, and they are projected to be $1.0728 trillion 
this year.

  If there is such absolute calamity in agriculture in America today, 
why are assets going up, and not down?
  Finally, with all of this burgeoning debt--farmers drowning in debt; 
the mortgage collector at the door; the mean, cold-hearted banker 
beating on the farm door, foreclosing mortgages; widows being put out 
on the lawn on our farms--what do you think has happened to the debt-
to-asset ratio in agriculture? It was $16.2 billion in 1998, $16.2 
billion in 1999, and $16.1 billion today.
  What is wrong with this picture? We are saying that the world is 
collapsing in rural America, and we are spending at rates unprecedented 
in the history of this country to deal with a calamity; and yet farm 
debt is going down, farm assets are going up, and the debt-to-asset 
ratio in agricultural America is actually going down.
  Now look, something is wrong here.
  What is wrong with this picture? I will tell you what is wrong with 
this picture. The obscene actions that have been taken in this 
Congress. There seems to be no limit to what we are willing to spend in 
the name of agriculture. I think it has to stop. I can't judge the 
merits of this case, this $70 million, that $115 million, the next $117 
million, $4 million, $600,000----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend.
  The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. GRAMM. The $45 million, $40 million, $59.4 million, $2.5 million, 
$6 million, $50 million, $450 million, $7.2 million--these are all 
emergencies that, when we funded the three previous emergencies, did 
not make it into the stack. When this bill was written, in a committee 
that is not known for turning a cold, dead eye to suffering farmers and 
ranchers, this $900 million never made it into the stack.
  But here we are, on a Thursday afternoon, at 7:20 p.m., and we are 
talking about $900 million--$900 million of spending that was not in 
the budget, that was not in the appropriations bill, that requires a 
waiver of the Budget Act, and that requires the designation of an 
emergency.
  I am saying, in $10 billion of emergency spending and $14.85 billion 
of ordinary spending--out of $25 billion that we are spending--how come 
there was not room for this $900 million? How come we are suddenly 
dealing with it at 7:25 p.m. tonight?
  I think the answer is as clear as the answer can be. The answer is, 
we are determined we are going to spend every penny we can spend. We 
are turning our budget process into an absolute laughing stock. We are 
proving that all somebody has to do is walk down to the floor on 
Thursday evening and offer an amendment, spending millions of dollars, 
and it is great.
  We are asked: Have you lost compassion? Look, I have plenty of 
compassion. But how much compassion is enough? How much do we have to 
spend on these programs? This year, we have already spent almost $10 
billion in agricultural programs that required a budget waiver. We are 
already to the point where half of all net farm income is coming from a 
check from Washington, DC. Where does it end?
  Final point--I have talked too long--but today, when we had Alan 
Greenspan before the Banking Committee, he was asked whether or not he 
was concerned about the fact that if you take the appropriation growth 
we had this year and project it for 10 years, it is over $1 trillion in 
new spending. We are realistically debating a new entitlement that, 
when fully implemented for 10 years, would cost about $750 billion. He 
said he was very concerned about it, that he thought it represented a 
potential threat to the economy.
  So I am not saying that all of these things are without merit. I am 
just saying: When does it end? When does it stop? How much is enough? 
Is $10 billion of emergency spending--almost 70 percent above the 
normal level of spending--is that not enough?
  I think these are real questions that need to be answered. I think it 
is important that we stop these amendments. And they may be adopted. 
Look, I understand the votes may be here to adopt them. But they are 
going to be adopted individually. And they are going to be subject to a 
point of order. We are going to begin to resist. This has to end 
somewhere. It seems to me that this is the place where we need to begin 
to talk about it ending.
  I, quite frankly, was willing to accept all of these so-called 
emergencies already in the bill, but this just goes beyond the limits 
of endurance, in my opinion.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  I am very pleased that the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee is going to raise a point of order, very shortly, on the 
first amendment, the Harkin amendment. I do not pretend to have the 
budget knowledge and expertise of the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee, but I do know that when he becomes exercised about 
what is taking place, at an ever-increasing crescendo of additional 
spending, about which Members really have no information or knowledge, 
we have to bring this to a halt at some point.
  I say to my colleagues now, I will make every effort to prevent us 
from going out of session without the appropriations process being 
resolved. No

[[Page S7347]]

more should we all go home while four or five Members of Congress 
decide on omnibus appropriations bills and then we are called back to 
vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on a bill that none of us has had a chance to 
know or read.
  Every year, for the last 3 years, we have been assured that this will 
not happen again. Well, my friends, I will do everything in my power 
not to have it happen again.
  But let me point out, the Harkin amendment, which we just saw--this 
amendment which was about to be adopted by voice vote in the package of 
amendments totaling $960 million, which none of us had seen--let me 
just describe it to you.
  It says:

       For an additional amount for ``Watershed and Flood 
     Prevention Operations,'' to repair damages to the waterways 
     and watersheds, including the purchase of floodplain 
     easements, resulting from natural disasters, $70,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds shall 
     be used for activities identified by July 18, 2000 . . . .

  Let me repeat that:

       . . . That funds shall be used for activities identified by 
     July 18, 2000. . . .

  That was 2 days ago. What activities? Identified by whom? The 
Department of Reclamation? The Department of Agriculture? Senator 
Gramm? Senator Harkin? What activities that were identified by July 18? 
And where is the record of July 18 of these activities that were 
identified to spend $70 million on?
  What is going on? We are going to spend $70 million for ``Watershed 
and Flood Prevention Operations,'' for ``activities identified by July 
18, 2000'? Is there any Member of this body, including the sponsor of 
the bill, who knows what activities have been identified?
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to give him 
the answer.
  Mr. McCAIN. I will be happy to hear the answer.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The date of July 18 was chosen because it was on that 
date that the National Resources Conservation Service provided a list 
to the committee, at our request, of unfunded needs that were 
considered emergency watershed projects throughout the United States.
  It was this list from which we chose to estimate the funding needs 
that ought to be included in this bill as true emergencies. The total 
amount of the unfunded projected needs is $157,111,000. We have 
suggested the $70 million figure for emergencies. Of those projected 
needs, spring floods accounted for $30 million, hurricanes and 
tornadoes for $50 million, and fires for $10 million. These are either 
erosions or destruction of watershed protection facilities or the 
requirement for obtaining floodplain easements in those areas. That is 
generally across the United States. It is not State specific.
  Then there are 23 States where the amounts are specifically 
identified as totaling $67,111,000. These are the States: Alaska, 
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, 
Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, 
New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, 
Utah, and Wisconsin. They vary in each State from, for example, Alaska, 
which is a small number, $237,000, to a large number, California, $12 
million; another large number, Illinois, $7.5 million; and Iowa, which 
was the subject of Senator Harkin's request, $7.5 million, to which the 
managers added all the other States so it wouldn't be just relief for 
one State but all States that were similarly situated would be included 
in this amendment because they all had similar needs.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. That is very 
illuminating. I guess my next question to the distinguished manager is, 
we already have $1.1 billion worth of spending designated ``emergency'' 
in the bill. What occurred in the intervening time that necessitated an 
additional nearly billion dollars and next week will there be another 
billion dollars? I believe only a week has elapsed since the bill was 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, these are 
figures that were provided to the committee by the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service. That service administers the Emergency Watershed 
Protection Program. These are the projected needs through fiscal year 
2000. They were provided to the committee on July 18 at our request.
  This program was out of money as of sometime last fall because of the 
cutbacks in funding that we have been seeing in this bill, along with 
others as well. To try to achieve consistency with the budget 
resolution targets and our allocation under section 302(b), we were not 
able to fund programs to the full amount of the request from the 
administration for projected needs.
  These are given to us as certified emergency needs from this agency 
that has the responsibility of administering the program.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for that information.
  The Senator from Mississippi has added a great deal to the store of 
knowledge of this body. I think it is very helpful. I still don't quite 
understand why at the end of an appropriations bill there should be, en 
bloc, 15 or whatever it is amendments worth over $900 million, which we 
didn't even get a copy of until we demanded it at the time, after the 
amendments were proposed. I don't think that is the way we should do 
business around here, particularly when we are talking about hundreds 
and millions and billions of dollars. I think it would have been 
appropriate--although I won't continue with the floor--as to what 
happened to the $8 billion or so that we already spent. What about 
those emergencies and what happened to that money?
  I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his information and yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will try to be very brief.
  I want to make an observation. I honestly believe that we would be 
better off if instead of continually adding emergencies for agriculture 
or anything else, if we were to add more money straight up to the 
appropriations process. I believe we ought to just ask the chairman and 
ranking member at the end of this year to add more money. But we ought 
not to, by the week, add emergencies.
  I know there are a number of bills--who knows where we will come out 
on them--that are taking care of problems by adding emergency 
provisions. I believe the chairman understands, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee understands our problem. I believe Senator 
Byrd understands our problem. The solution is not to add an emergency 
by the week, have a bill and then everybody comes running and we say: 
There is no room for it. Well, call it an emergency and then there will 
be room because it doesn't count against anything.
  I want to make another observation about the agricultural community. 
I probably have the best support or at least as good support as any 
Senator here from the agricultural community of my State. But I am not 
impressed with the year-in-year-out emergency requests of the 
agricultural community of this country. It is approaching the 
ridiculous. They ask the Budget Committee, put more money in for 
agriculture.
  We were pretty skimpy on other things, but we were not very skimpy on 
agriculture. We provided, and the committee held on to this in the 
appropriations, a $5.5 billion reserve fund for market losses. As soon 
as they funded it, the reserve fund was released, and they had $5.5 
billion. Market losses are emergencies in the broad sense for 
agriculture, I guess. I understand that to be the case. People are 
getting checks because the market didn't work. They didn't get money.
  We put in a new crop insurance allowance for which everybody thanked 
us. It was passed, but it was passed even bigger than we thought. And 
that was all right. That amounted to $3 billion. It is heralded as a 
fantastic success by people such as Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas. We 
finally did it. Now crop insurance is emergency money. It is a rational 
way to take care of annual losses by crop insurance, a sharing of the 
burden by a lot of people. When a crop fails, you have something to 
help them with.
  Well, that wasn't quite enough and we knew it. And we heard: Don't 
hold your breath; there will be more agricultural emergencies.
  I hope and pray the bill finishes tonight. I wish it would have 
finished a week ago. Sooner or later, we have to

[[Page S7348]]

stop adding emergencies to a bill in the agricultural area. I am not 
sure that every one of these are agricultural subsidy enhancers. The 
bill has a lot of jurisdiction. It could be other things. The 
distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi manages the bill 
beautifully. He knows what he is doing.
  I noted also, when he sent these amendments to the desk, he said: I 
send them on behalf of the Senators that have asked for them. He did 
not say the chairman of the Agriculture Committee submits these and 
asks for all of them. I believe he really thought somebody would 
challenge some of them but he would offer them because he had worked on 
them to narrow down a request that was even bigger than this.
  I suggest that we try this on tonight, that we decide that if we need 
more money and we are going to put it in bills, that we ask the 
chairman to spend more money. I will not agree with my friend from 
Texas. It is not the appropriations bills that are going to break this 
budget. It is not the appropriations bills that are going to cause us 
to run out of the surplus that is being generated. You can count on 
that. The increases in appropriations will be wiped out by one 
entitlement bill. Whatever you expect to be added to appropriations the 
next decade will be wiped out by the first major entitlement bill that 
comes along. It will take from the same pot of surplus as 
appropriations. It is not appropriations that is breaking the bank.
  I compliment Senator Gramm for trying to keep us from going wild, but 
the truth is, it is not appropriations. We don't have any control over 
it, if in fact instead of asking for the money to be added to the 
budget and vote on that as grown-up Senators, we added money, and do 
you want it or not. You will have a shot at that when we add it because 
we are going to add money. The chairman is going to have to ask us for 
more money to get the appropriations bill, substantially more. But it 
will be a heads up add-on. It won't be coming along the way we are 
here. So when it is appropriate, after asking a parliamentary inquiry, 
I will make a point of order. What is pending before the Senate right 
now?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the amendment No. 3964 
offered by Senator Cochran for Senator Harkin.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it appropriate to make a point of order under the 
Budget Act regarding the emergency quality of that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be appropriate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the 
amendment contains an emergency designation in violation of section 205 
of H. Con. Res 290, and the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order 
pursuant to section 205(c) of H. Con. Res 290 with respect to all 
emergency designations in this bill and to all the amendments to this 
bill filed at this time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first issue is to determine if there is a 
sufficient second. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Amendment No. 3977--Motion to Waive

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

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3977:
       Strike all after the first word, and insert the following:
       ``I move to waive section 205 of the budget resolution for 
     consideration of the Harkin amendment.''

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3978 to Amendment No. 3977

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to strike the word ``waive'' in 
the pending amendment and insert the following: ``Section 205(c) of H. 
Con. Res. 290 with respect to all emergency designations in this bill 
and all amendments filed at the desk at this time to this bill other 
than amendment No. 3918.''
  I send the motion to the desk. I ask it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3978 to amendment No. 3977.

  Mr. GRAMM. Parliamentary inquiry. Is this a strike-and-insert 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is for the clerk to finish 
reporting the amendment.
  For the information of the Senator, the amendment does strike a word 
and add other language.
  Mr. GRAMM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Under the regular order, the amendment should be read or its reading 
terminated by regular order.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike the word waive in the pending amendment and insert 
     the following:
       ``Section 205(c) of H. Con. Res. 290 with respect to all 
     emergency designations in this bill and all amendments filed 
     at the desk at this time to this bill other than amendment 
     No. 3918.''

  Mr. COCHRAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 3978 to Amendment No. 3977, Withdrawn

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader and at his 
request, I ask consent that the pending motion to waive and any 
amendments thereto be withdrawn, and that the point of order be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


[[Page S7349]]



                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the 
following nomination on the Executive Calendar: No. 624, Norman Y. 
Mineta, to be Secretary of Commerce.
  I further ask unanimous consent the nomination be confirmed, the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return 
to legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:


                         department of commerce

       Norman Y. Mineta, of California, to be Secretary of 
     Commerce.

                          ____________________