[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 96 (Friday, July 21, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7437-S7441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last evening, the Senate completed action on
the Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies. The bill was passed by a vote of 79
to 13. I commend Senator Cochran, Chairman of the Subcommittee, and
Senator Kohl, the Ranking Member, for crafting this very important
legislation.
This bill includes many ongoing programs that are vital to the
American people. It also includes a number of items to deal directly
with problems that our farmers and rural residents are facing this year
as they struggle to recover from natural disasters last year, and are
now faced with the reality of continuing drought.
Overall, in Division A, the bill provides a total of $75.6 billion in
non-emergency spending for fiscal year 2001. Of that amount, a little
more than $60 billion is for mandatory programs, such as Food Stamps
and reimbursements to the Commodity Credit Corporation which funds a
wide array of commodity, conservation, and international trade
programs. The balance of the non-emergency appropriations in this bill,
$14.8 billion, is directed toward discretionary programs and represents
an increase of nearly $900 million above last year's level. In addition
to the $75.6 billion in Division A of the bill, Division B, as passed
by the Senate, contains approximately $2.2 billion in emergency
agricultural disaster assistance for the nation's farmers and rural
communities. I will discuss these vital programs in more detail later
in these remarks.
America's farmers have made this nation the breadbasket of the world.
Our ability to produce plentiful safe, wholesome, and nutritious food
is one of the basic foundations of economic and national security. The
term ``food security'' may be little more than a vague concept to most,
unfortunately not all, Americans; but in much of the world, it is an
everyday reminder of the struggle to survive. The prosperity and the
fate of nations throughout the history of the world are closely tied to
their agricultural production capabilities. When the fields of Carthage
were sown with salt by the legions of Rome, that once-great nation of
northern Africa soon disappeared into the sands of the Sahara.
This appropriations bill includes many of the tools American farmers
need to sustain their historically high levels of production. Research,
conservation, credit, and many more items important to agriculture
receive much-needed funding in this bill. Programs to promote exports
of U.S. agricultural products throughout the world are included in this
bill. American producers, and consumers alike, benefit from the work of
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and we should all join in
supporting their efforts.
Agriculture exists in every part of the nation, and every Senator
knows the important contributions farmers make to his or her state.
When one thinks of farming, instant images of broad, flat fields of
wheat or corn, spreading from horizon to horizon, easily come to mind.
Visions of combines combing the Great Plains and of massive grain
elevators reaching to Midwestern skies are a solid part of our national
consciousness. But farming does not only exist in the flat plains of
Kansas or the rolling hills of Iowa or in many of the other states most
familiar to Americans as ``Farm Country.'' Agriculture exists in the
tropics of Hawaii and the bogs of Maine. Agriculture exists in the
orchards of the Pacific Northwest and in the groves of Florida.
Agriculture even extends to the vegetable fields and reindeer herds of
my Chairman's state, Alaska.
West Virginia is not famous as an agricultural state, but West
Virginia agriculture is changing to meet the new demands of consumers.
The future of agriculture includes diversification to meet the changing
demands of consumers at home and abroad. Farmers in West Virginia,
through the help of the Appalachian Farming Systems Research Center at
Beaver, West Virginia, and the National Center for Cool and Cold Water
Aquaculture at Leetown, West Virginia, are but two examples of the
diversification of agriculture in my state and I am glad this bill
provides increased funding for these two facilities.
In addition to the regular programs funded in this bill, I would also
like to mention a few of the items included to address special problems
farmers and rural residents have to face this year. Last year, Congress
provided more than $8 billion in emergency funding to help farmers and
rural areas respond to adverse weather and depressed commodity prices.
This year, all indicators point to continuing drought conditions and
prices for some commodities have fallen more than ever in history.
While it is important for Congress to respond to emergencies, it is
equally, or perhaps more, important to prepare for them. Last year,
many livestock producers in West Virginia suffered horrible losses from
drought and, in many cases, had to liquidate their herds at depressed
prices. Congress finally provided assistance to cover the
[[Page S7438]]
costs of feed, but in many cases the assistance was too little and,
more tragically, too late.
Accordingly, I met with USDA Secretary Dan Glickman this spring and
outlined for him my plan to put in place a program that will help
prevent a repeat of some of the losses suffered by West Virginia
farmers and farmers all across America last year. The Secretary agreed
that action now is proper to provide him the tools necessary to
mitigate losses that are likely to occur this summer. While it is
beyond the power of the Congress to overcome the awesome powers of
nature, it is within our power, and our responsibility, to provide
assistance to the American people in the most effective manner
possible. Where the likelihood of drought is certain, where acts of
prevention are possible, there lies our responsibility and I want to
thank my colleagues for supporting an amendment I offered to put these
preventive tools in place.
Pursuant to my amendment, this bill provides $450 million for
livestock assistance this year in the event drought conditions continue
to worsen. These funds will only be available in counties which receive
an emergency designation by the President or the Secretary. In the
event no emergencies are designated, none of these funds will be spent.
On the other hand, the ounce of prevention we provide in this bill may
easily outweigh the costs producers, and possibly taxpayers, will later
realize unless we act now to help mitigate losses that are likely to
occur.
Drought conditions not only affect production agriculture, they drain
water resources necessary for basic community services in rural areas.
Currently, drought conditions in part of the nation are so severe that
rural water systems are at risk from depleted supplies, wells will not
function, and the increased demand for water have compounded this
problem to the point of crisis. I am pleased that my amendment also
provides $50 million for rural communities that are at-risk due to
natural emergencies or due to threats to public health or the
environment. Similar to the livestock provision mentioned above, a
portion of these funds would be limited to counties which have received
an emergency designation by the President or the Secretary and for
applications responding to the specific emergency.
In addition to addressing problems related to drought, my amendment,
as contained in this bill includes a number of other provisions.
Included is $443 million to help dairy farmers recover from the current
collapse in market prices. Also, $58 million is provided for
compensation to producers from losses due to pests and disease such as
Plum Pox, the Mexican Fruit Fly, Pierce's Disease, and Citrus Canker.
During floor consideration of the bill, a manager's package of some
fifteen amendments was adopted to provide additional emergency
agricultural assistance to farmers across the nation. That package of
manager's amendments total approximately $1 billion, the largest
portion of which, $450 million, will provide emergency assistance to
producers who have suffered losses from recent natural disasters. This
assistance will help offset losses from the heavy rains that recently
affected more than one million acres of farmland in North Dakota, as
well as losses in other parts of the country affected by drought.
Additionally, $175 million was included to assist apple producers who
have suffered from a combination of both market and quality losses; $40
million was provided to help compensate for losses due to citrus
canker; $70 million was provided to fund emergency watershed operations
in a number of states; an additional $50 million was included for
community facility needs associated with losses from Hurricane Floyd
and related storms; and the balance of items in this package will
assist producers and rural communities across the nation in a variety
of ways.
Overall, this bill strikes a good balance for providing funds to meet
regular, ongoing needs and to prepare for problems that we are likely
to experience later this year. I especially thank Senator Stevens and
Senator Cochran, Chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, respectively, and all members
of the Appropriations Committee for their support of provisions which I
authored that will provide the Secretary of Agriculture the ability to
meet the developing drought conditions this summer. By meeting this
challenge head on, we will be helping producers avoid a repeat of some
of the terrible losses incurred last year. I support this bill, and I
urge all Senators to support this bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
oyster industry in connecticut
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to describe a distressing
situation that 23 Connecticut oyster farmers found themselves in
earlier this summer, and to offer my thanks to Mr. Cochran and Mr. Kohl
for helping Mr. Dodd and myself correct an injustice to these
hardworking individuals. In early June, the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) informed twenty-three Connecticut oyster farmers by
letter that they must repay approximately $1.5 million total in federal
disaster aid payments that were granted due to a federal error. I am
pleased to say that Mr. Dodd's and my amendment to forgive that
repayment was included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
The oyster industry is important to Connecticut's economy--prior to
1997, Connecticut's annual oyster crop was second only to Louisiana's.
However, between 1997 and 1999, our oyster industry was devastated by a
disease known as MSX, resulting in massive losses. The market value
plummeted from a 1995 high of $60 million to just $10 million.
In the face of this severe loss to the oyster industry, the
Connecticut Farm Service Agency (FSA) approved and distributed modest
disaster payments to the oyster farmers in 1999. The payments were made
pursuant to the 1998 Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program (CLDAP),
which is administered by the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance
Program (NAP). With this critically needed assistance, the oyster
farmers began to rebuild their livelihoods.
Earlier this year, long after the funds had been invested and for
purely technical reasons, USDA determined that the payments were made
in error because most Connecticut oyster farmers grow their oysters in
open beds rather than controlled environments. On June 2, 2000, USDA
sent each of the 23 farmers a letter stating that they must repay the
disaster assistance that they received the previous year. The oyster
farmers were understandably frustrated and distressed by the message. I
note, Mr. President, that only a small portion of oyster farming
nationwide is done within controlled environments, and that production
in a controlled environment was not a prerequisite for disaster
assistance following damage to Florida and Louisiana oyster farms by
Hurricane Andrew.
USDA has acknowledged that it bears responsibility for the error in
disaster aid payments. However, USDA strongly believes that it would
have ``no legislative authority to waive ineligible disaster aid
payments'' without specific Congressional direction. Consequently, the
Connecticut delegation has worked closely with USDA legal counsel to
draft legislation exempting the oyster farmers from repaying the
ineligible disaster aid. Earlier this month, the House of
Representatives included such an amendment in the House Agriculture
Appropriations bill; the Congressional Budget Office scored the
amendment as neutral.
Today, I am pleased that the Senate has also recognized the injustice
of holding hardworking oyster farmers responsible for federal error by
including an amendment to forgive these payments in the Senate
Agriculture Appropriations bill. Again, I thank Mr. Cochran and Mr.
Kohl and their staffs for assisting Mr. Dodd, myself, and especially
the Connecticut oyster farmers in correcting an unfortunate situation.
disaster assistance
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to today offer my support and
cosponsorship of the Dorgan amendment providing additional disaster
assistance to producers hit hard by floods, drought, and other severe
storms that have resulted in crop destruction and disease. In
Minnesota, floods in the northwest and southern portions of the state
have devastated many farmers causing some crops to rot in the field.
This is yet another hit for the struggling Minnesota farm economy.
Portions of my state have faced heavy
[[Page S7439]]
rains and flooding for several years now, and things aren't getting any
easier for these hardworking farmers also hit with low prices. In
northwest Minnesota, FSA estimates that nearly 50 percent of the
acreage has been affected by floods. In nine counties in Minnesota,
there have been nearly 1.2 million acres affected. In Mahnomen county,
100 percent of the acreage has been impacted by floods.
FEMA funding and disaster assistance under the Small Business
Administration and other programs do not provide these farmers the help
they need. If we are willing to help farmers who are suffering from
falling prices, as we have already done this year through supplemental
spending, we should also come to the aid of those suffering from
natural disaster, as we do on a routine basis each year as we
experience such disasters.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
amendment.
emergency meth lab cleanup funds amendment
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the managers of the FY
2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill for their cooperation in including
the amendment for emergency methamphetamine lab cleanup funds that
Senator Hutchinson and I had offered as part of the bill's FY 2000
supplemental package.
This amendment, also cosponsored by Senator Bingaman, Senator
Brownback, Senator Nickles and Senator Thomas--provides $5 million in
emergency lab cleanup funds for state and local law enforcement.
A similar provision I had offered was included in the emergency
package from June but it was dropped before it was attached to the
Military Construction Appropriations conference, which gained final
passage with a voice vote. There was strong support for this provision
from both Democrats and Republicans. And it was included in both the
House and Senate supplemental packages.
So, it didn't make sense why it was suddenly dropped--especially when
we're talking about dangerous chemical sites that are left exposed in
our local communities.
Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas and I last week sent a letter to the
Appropriations leadership that was signed by 30 Senators, calling for
this emergency funding. Our states desperately need this money or they
will be forced to take money out of their own tight law enforcement
budgets to cover the high cost of meth lab cleanup.
Over the years, Iowa and many states in the Midwest, West and
Southwest have been working hard to reduce the supply and demand of the
methamphetamine epidemic. But meth has brought another unique problem
to our states-- highly toxic labs that are often abandoned and exposed
to our communities.
The Drug Enforcement Agency has provided in recent years critical
financial assistance to help clean up these dangerous sites, which can
cost thousands of dollars each.
Unfortunately and to everyone's surprise, the DEA in March ran out of
funds to provide methamphetamine lab cleanup assistance to state and
local law enforcement. That's because last year, this funding was cut
in half while the number of meth labs found and confiscated has been
growing.
Last month, the Administration shifted $5 million in funds from other
Department of Justice Accounts to pay for emergency meth lab cleanup.
And I believe that will help reimburse these states for the costs they
have incurred since the DEA ran out of money. My state of Iowa has
already paid some $400,000 out of its own pocket in cleanup costs since
March.
But, this is not enough to get our states through the rest of the
fiscal year.
This $5 million provision will ensure that there will be enough money
to pay for costly meth lab clean-up without forcing states to take
money out of their other tight law enforcement budgets to cover these
unexpected costs.
If we can find the money to fight drugs in Colombia, we should be
able to find the money to fight drugs in our own backyard. We cannot
risk exposing these dangerous meth labs to our communities.
Again, I appreciate the managers of this bill, Senator Cochran and
Senator Kohl for their cooperation on this important provision and I
look forward to working with them to making sure it is maintained in
conference.
emergency sugarcane relief
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to
Chairman Thad Cochran, Ranking Member Herb Kohl, and Minority Whip
Harry Reid for their efforts yesterday in passing Amendment 3976 to
H.R. 4461, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year
2001. This amendment, which was offered by my colleague, the Senior
Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, and myself will provide emergency
relief to the Hawaii sugarcane industry.
Since 1990, the Hawaii sugarcane industry has experienced a dramatic
decline in its sugar production, from 55 sugarcane farms operating on
approximately 162,000 acres to three sugarcane farms operating on
60,000 acres.
Compared to other sugarcane growers in the United States, Hawaii
growers are at a disadvantage due to higher transportation costs
incurred in shipping raw sugar to California for refining. In addition,
Hawaii growers are precluded from participating in certain relief
provisions of the 1996 Farm bill, such as the United States Department
of Agriculture's sugar loan program, which are available to other U.S.
sugar growers. Hawaii sugar growers have demonstrated a strong
commitment to remain in sugar production.
They continue to be on the forefront of sugarcane production and are
working to diversify its capabilities by venturing into other
agricultural commodities such as fiberboard products, energy products,
seed corn, and low caloric sweeteners. Without emergency funds to help
Hawaii's sugar industry compensate for extraordinary low prices and
high transportation costs, this distressed sector of Hawaii's
agricultural industry will cease to exist.
This amendment will designate $7.2 million as emergency funding for a
grant from the Commodity Credit Corporation to the State of Hawaii. It
will provide the necessary relief to this distressed sector of Hawaii's
agriculture industry. This provision will provide compensation for
extraordinary low prices and high transportation costs incurred by this
industry.
Again, I wish to thank my colleagues for their support of this
important amendment.
bison meat and more nutritious indian reservation food supplies
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, last night the Senate passed the Fiscal
Year 2001 appropriations bill for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and Related Agencies with my support. Today I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the Manager of the bill, Senator Cochran, for his
willingness to accept my amendment to require that funds available in
the Food Stamp Program be used for the purchase of bison meat for use
in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). This
amendment was cosponsored by Senators Dorgan, Conrad and Domenici.
The buffalo has always played an important role in Native American
culture, religion and history, providing Indian people with clothing,
tools, and food. Bison meat is extremely healthy, low fat, and high
protein meat source that in the past was a staple of nutrition for
Indian people. However, when our own government decided it was best for
tribes to be placed on reservations, often far away from their
traditional lands, tribes lost this nutritious food source and from
this, we are seeing some severe and devastating effects on the health
of our Native communities.
Today, Native Americans suffer from diabetes and heart disease at
five times the rate of any other group in the United States. Diabetes
is a killer and the cure for it is elusive. One of the things we can do
is to encourage a better diet for Native people. This is awfully hard
to do when the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations is the
main source of food for nearly 125,000 Native Americans and most of the
meat that they do receive is canned and high in fat and sodium.
Two years ago USDA purchase $2 million in bison, and then another $6
million in 1999 through a bonus buy purchase and had enormous success
[[Page S7440]]
with it. My office has received numerous requests from Tribal Food
Distribution Program Directors, tribal recipients and buffalo producers
to help secure additional of bison. I sent a letter to Secretary
Glickman requesting such purchases and his response is not encouraging.
Mr. President, the amendment I offered will direct USDA to use $7.3
million of the Food Stamp Program to purchase bison meat.
The Food Stamp Program, funded at around $21 billion, is expected to
have a substantial surplus from lower participation given our healthy
economy and low unemployment rate. It only seems reasonable that we
could use a very small portion of those funds to help provide a
healthier and culturally preferred choice of food for Native Americans.
I yield the floor.
explanation on votes
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I regret that I was ill and unable to
vote on the Senate floor yesterday during consideration of H.R. 4461,
the FY01 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
Had I been here yesterday, I would have voted in the following
manner.
On Rollcall Vote Number 218, the Harkin Amendment, I would have vote
``Aye'' on the motion to table.
On Rollcall Vote Number 219, the McCain Amendment, I would have vote
``Aye'' on the motion to table.
On Rollcall Vote Number 220, the Wellstone Amendment, I would have
vote ``Aye'' on the motion to table.
On Rollcall Vote Number 221, the Harkin Amendment, I would have vote
``No'' on the amendment.
On Rollcall Vote Number 222, the Wellstone Amendment, I would have
vote ``Aye'' on the amendment.
On Rollcall Vote Number 223, the Specter Amendment, I would have vote
``No'' on the amendment.
On Rollcall Vote Number 224, on the question of germaneness of the
Amendment, Number 3980, I would have voted ``no''.
On Rollcall Vote Number 225, final passage of the H.R. 4461, the FY01
Agriculture Appropriations Act, I would have voted ``Aye''.
I yield the floor.
telework
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that
is designed to make information technology--IT--jobs a part of diverse,
sustainable rural economies while helping IT employers find skilled
workers. The goal of this bill is to link unemployed and underemployed
individuals in rural areas and on Indian reservations with jobs in the
IT industry through telework.
We are in the midst of an information revolution which has the
potential to be every bit as significant to our society and economy as
the industrial revolution two hundred years ago. But in recent months
there has been much discussion of the ``digital divide,'' the idea that
one America is not able to take advantage of the promise of new
technologies to change the way we learn, live, and work while the other
America speeds forward into the 21st Century. As advanced
telecommunications and information technology become the new engines of
our economy, it is critical that no communities are left behind.
Many rural communities and Indian reservations are already facing
severe unemployment, underemployment, and population loss due to a lack
of economic opportunities. A study last year by the Center for Rural
Affairs reports that widespread poverty exists in agriculturally based
counties in a six-state region including Minnesota. Over one-third of
households in farm counties have annual income less than $15,000 and,
in every year from 1988 to 1997, earnings in farm counties
significantly trailed other counties. Unemployment on many Indian
reservations exceeds 50 percent and remote locations make traditional
industries uncertain agents for economic development.
There are troubles ahead for the new economy as well: the information
technology industry reports that it faces a dramatic shortage of
skilled workers. The Minnesota Department of Economic Security projects
that over the next decade, almost 8,800 workers will be needed each
year to fill position openings in specific IT occupations.
Approximately 1,000 students graduate each year from IT-related post-
secondary programs in Minnesota, not anywhere near enough to fill the
demand, according to this same state agency. This shortage is reflected
nation wide, with industry projecting shortfalls of several hundred of
thousand IT workers per year in coming years.
Rural workers need jobs. High tech employers need workers. This
legislation would create models of how to bring these communities
together to find a common solution to these separate challenges.
My amendment is very straightforward. It would simply add $3 million
to the very popular and successful Distance Learning and Telemedicine
Program operated by USDA's Rural Utility Service for the purpose of
promoting employment of rural residents through telework.
Mr. President, telework is a new term that may be unfamiliar to
colleagues so I want to take a moment to explain what it is. According
to the International Telework Association and Council, telework is
defined as using information and communications technologies to perform
work away from the traditional work site typically used by the
employer. For example, a person who works at home and transmits his or
her work product back to the office via a modem is a teleworker, also
known as a telecommuter; as is someone who works from a telework
center, which is a place where many teleworkers work from--often for
different companies.
The nature of IT jobs allow them to be performed away from a
traditional work site. As long as workers have the required training,
and a means of performing work activities over a distance--through the
use of advanced telecommunications--there is no reason that skilled IT
jobs cannot be filled from rural communities.
Because it essentially allows distance to be erased, telework is a
promising tool for rural development and for making rural and
reservation economies sustainable. Very soon, a firm located in another
city, another state or even another country need not be viewed as a
distant opportunity for rural residents, but as a potential employer
only as far away as a home computer or telework center. Likewise,
telework arrangements allow employers to draw from a national labor
pool without the hassles and cost associated with relocation.
Many businesses and organizations are already using telework or
telecommuting as a tool to reduce travel and commuting times and to
accommodate the needs and schedules of employees. Many metropolitan
communities with high concentrations of IT industries are already
looking to telework as a means of addressing urban and suburban ills
such as housing shortages, traffic congestion, and pollution.
However, the IT industry does not currently view rural America as a
potential source of skilled employees. Nor do many rural communities
know how to turn IT industries into a viable source of good jobs to
revitalize local economies. Moreover, many rural community leaders fear
that providing IT job skills to rural residents--when there are no
opportunities for using those skills in the community--will lead to
further population losses as retrained workers seek opportunities in
metropolitan areas. At the same time, management of off-site employees
requires new practices to be developed by employers and in some cases,
dramatic paradigm shifts. Rural areas and Indian reservations are in
danger of being left behind by a revolution which actually holds the
most promise for those communities which are the most distant. IT
employers risk missing a pool of potential employees with a strong work
ethic.
Receiving one of the teleworking grants provided for by my amendment
will give rural communities access to federal resources to implement a
locally designed proposal to employ rural residents in IT jobs through
telework relationships, linking prospective employers with rural
residents. This amendment will allow these communities to create
locally developed and implemented national models for how telework can
be used as a tool for rural development.
The necessary vision to of how to make telework a reality already
exists in some employers and in some rural communities. In Sebeka,
Minnesota--a town with a population of little more
[[Page S7441]]
than 600 people--a small firm called Cross Consulting was founded. That
company employs over 20 people through a contract with Northwest
Airlines to provide programming on Northwest's mainframe computers.
These people are rural teleworkers. The new economy is not leaving
Sebeka behind and we need to incubate that kind of innovation in rural
areas and Indian reservations across this country.
On April 13 along with Senators Baucus and Daschle I introduced the
Rural Telework Act of 2000. That legislation is a more comprehensive
means to the same ends as this amendment I am offering today. I mention
this legislation because it is broadly supported by private industry,
rural communities, educational institutions and tribal governments.
For many jobs, in many industries, telework may be the future of
work. It may also be the future of diverse, sustainable rural
economies. This amendment offers an early opportunity to invest in
local innovation to harness this potential and I urge its adoption.
____________________