[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13920-13922]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                AMENDMENTS TO AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I had intended to come over and talk on 
the ag appropriations bill. I am not going to talk about the ag 
appropriations bill since we are not on it. I am going to talk about a 
couple of amendments I intend to offer, if we ever get to that point. I 
will put us back into a quorum call when I am through.
  There are many important things in this ag appropriations bill that I 
strongly support. I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for 
the work that both Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl have done on this 
piece of legislation. Every appropriator, every Senator who has the 
responsibility of working on the Appropriations Committee, understands 
we are seeing a decline, a deterioration in our capacity to invest in 
our future as a result of a growing problem we have with our budget; 
that is, a larger and larger share that is going to mandatory programs 
and a smaller and smaller share available for these long-term 
investments, whether it is in soil, whether it is in research, all the 
other things that are in this particular piece of legislation. The 
problem is only going to get worse.
  I didn't come to talk about that, but I did feel obliged to say I 
understand that all these men and women who serve on the Appropriations 
Committee are under an awful lot of pressure, and that pressure is 
going to grow.
  We currently take from the American people about 20.5 percent of GDP 
to spend on Federal programs. That one-fifth of total GDP that we have 
been taking for the last 50 or 60 years has remained relatively 
constant, though at 20.5 it has not been at that high level since 1945. 
I say that only because there is an upper limit as to what we can take. 
I think we are there. Indeed, I support cutting taxes right now; I 
believe we can cut taxes. Indeed, part of the reason I am for it is 
that, at 20.5, in order to send a signal, we need to understand there 
is an upper limit. Otherwise, we are apt to spend it on a variety of 
things, and all the fiscal discipline we have had throughout most of 
this decade will be evaporated in a hurry.
  But as to this bill itself, whenever it becomes appropriate, I intend 
to offer a couple amendments. As I said, while this piece of 
legislation does support a number of very important aspects of 
agriculture spending, from agriculture research to food stamps, in 
fact, it can't, given its mission, address the

[[Page 13921]]

enormous amount of changes sweeping across rural Nebraska. I get calls 
all the time from farmers who ask me: Does anybody in Washington 
understand what is going on? I answer, genuinely, yes. I think both 
Republicans and Democrats are scratching their heads trying to figure 
out what we can do.
  I was encouraged by the chairman's comments during the markup of the 
dire emergency supplemental bill for Kosovo; he does understand that 
both Republicans and Democrats understand there is a need to do an 
additional supplemental appropriations bill at some time for emergency 
purposes to help agriculture. But this merely underscores the problem 
we are experiencing in rural America today. Unfortunately, what is 
happening is that family farmer, who very often has a job outside of 
agriculture, is not certain there is any opportunity left.
  I want to say to my colleagues, though, I am very much a free market 
person; I support free trade. I believe we ought to have rules and laws 
that support the free enterprise system.
  In agriculture, we do a lot more on these family farms than just 
produce food. The food is important, a vital part of our export 
strategy, and it has economic value that one cannot deny. But these 
farms produce human beings. All of us who have had the pleasure of 
working with boys and girls who are working for the 4-H organization, 
or the Future Farmers of America, when you see these young men and 
women, you see kids with unusually good character and values that are 
acquired as a result of living in an environment where you understand 
that this biblical motto that says you can't reap what you don't sow is 
true; where you live constantly in an environment of understanding 
that, though you may have a good or a bad farm program, and like or not 
like what is going on in Congress, still the most important act you 
have is the act that occurs when you are on your knees in the morning, 
or in evening, or you are bowing your head at lunch or supper and 
praying and being grateful for what you have but hoping that Mother 
Nature delivers enough and the right amount of rain, enough and the 
right amount of other conditions that are necessary in order to produce 
this product.
  As the distinguished occupant of the Chair knows, being from 
Arkansas, food production is unusual because, unlike manufacturing 
businesses, it is produced out of doors. It may seem like an obvious 
fact, but in my businesses I regulate the environment. I have an air 
conditioner; I have a heater; I have a furnace that produces heat in 
the winter; and I have an air conditioner that produces cool air in the 
summertime. I can control that environment 365 days a year. I did get 
wiped out once by a tornado in 1975, but I don't, in the normal course 
of business, worry about hail or about not getting enough rain. I don't 
have a growing season where I can be wiped out with a single event, and 
I don't have all my annual sales gone just like that as a result of 
something way beyond my control.
  So we understand that we have basics that we are dealing with. I hope 
we understand that agriculture produces people with values. There is a 
rural policy aspect of our farm program that is not really economic. We 
want people to live in rural America. We understand that our program 
has to provide them with some hope of economic prosperity, and we 
understand that these farms produce more than just some thing, some 
commodity that has economic value.
  The question is how to do that. We had a great debate in 1995 over 
Freedom to Farm. Though I didn't vote for it, let me say that I was 
very sympathetic to the idea that the Government should not be out 
there regulating every single thing the farmer does. Under the old farm 
program, that happened. Farmers were saying to me: I am not making 
decisions anymore. All my decisions are made down at the Farm Service 
Agency. I have to go down and find out from USDA and Soil Conservation 
Service and other people what I can do before I make plans.
  They wanted those handcuffs taken off. They were also very 
uncomfortable and not happy with the Government's performance in owning 
grain reserves. They watched the Government operate those reserves at 
times that caused the price to go low and subsidies to go up, and then 
their neighbors were saying to them: You are farming for your welfare 
check.
  They didn't like being on welfare. I am not here this morning to 
attack Freedom to Farm, but I do think there are a number of things 
about our underlying law that deserve attention and deserve 
modification.
  First of all, we are spending way more than we thought we were going 
to spend. Last year, we spent $20 billion. It is estimated we will 
spend more than that this year. We have an Uruguay Round commitment not 
to spend more than $19 billion on production or price-related support. 
We are already at $12 billion to $13 billion, and there is an 
anticipation that there will be additional spending, especially for 
loan deficiency payments under the soybean program.
  The Commodity Credit Corporation is out of money for the first time 
since 1987. CCC borrowing has an authority of $30 billion, so this is 
not what we considered to be too low of a ceiling but with the 
combination of direct payments, loan deficiency payments, dairy price 
supports, and export programs, we have already exhausted what we 
thought was a generous amount of money to provide the Commodity Credit 
Corporation. These are all technicalities.
  (Mr. BURNS assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. KERREY. Now we have a new ``Mr. President'' in the Chair with 
slightly different agriculture interests but still substantial 
agriculture interests. So I feel that I am speaking to a kindred 
spirit. I notify anybody who happens to be watching this on television 
that the occupant of the Chair is the only person here listening to me 
other than the pages and the staff. I appreciate very much that he is 
now looking at me. I appreciate that.
  Freedom to Farm was supposed to cost $43.5 billion over 7 years. It 
has cost more than that already. That is before we have an additional 
payment, which is likely to occur. We have 2 more years to go. I said 
earlier I am not attacking either Freedom to Farm or those who support 
it. I understand exactly why it was there. There are many aspects of it 
that I like a great deal. But I will offer, when it is an appropriate 
time, two amendments to this appropriations bill that I hope get due 
consideration by both supporters and opponents of Freedom to Farm.
  First of all, I will offer an amendment that will reestablish the 
farmer-owned reserves. I will offer it, as I said, as an amendment to 
the bill at the appropriate time. The farmer-owned reserve is a proven 
tool; it works. I will not offer documentation this morning, but I will 
if the debate becomes a serious debate. It is a tool that will increase 
market prices; it will decrease expenditures by the Government. History 
has shown that for feed grains every 100 million bushels removed from 
the immediate market stream increases prices 3 to 5 cents. Wheat is 
double that, 8 to 10 cents a bushel. This sets very strict release 
trigger points based upon existing loan rates, and though critics have 
said this puts a ceiling on the market price, a market price of $2.78 
for corn and $4.12 for wheat looks rather appealing, I argue, both 
today and in the foreseeable future for any family out there producing 
either one of those two commodities.
  Increased market prices, not Government payments, are the most 
equitable way to provide income to farmers. The farmer-owned reserve is 
embraced in Nebraska as a commonsense way to help farmers without 
throwing out Freedom to Farm. The idea originally came to me in 
testimony that was offered by the Nebraska corn growers at a hearing 
that was conducted by Congressman Bill Barrett in Nebraska.
  The corn growers and the wheat growers have endorsed this idea. They 
understand that it has worked in the past. It is a way to decrease the 
payments that are being made by taxpayers and increase the margin of 
the price the farmers are receiving at the market. I hope when I have 
an opportunity to offer that amendment we can

[[Page 13922]]

get by some of the normal ideological fears about the farm program 
itself and put this reasonable change into law.
  I also intend to offer an amendment to put the antitrust authority 
for agriculture on a par with the antitrust authority over other 
industries; that is, to remove it from Packers and Stockyards and take 
it under the law over to the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
Justice. I would love for the jurisdiction to stay at USDA. By it 
staying at USDA, I retain authority as a result of being on the 
Agriculture Committee. I am not on the Judiciary Committee. I 
understand that I am surrendering some jurisdiction when I do that. But 
the fact is that the USDA will never have the resources to be as 
aggressive as Justice, and producers, in my view, who want competition, 
who want the marketplace to work now more than ever, need to know that 
somebody in Washington, DC, is going to be making certain that that 
marketplace is, indeed, competitive.
  The appropriations bill provides no new funding for Packers and 
Stockyards. Indeed, the recommendation is to provide $2.5 million less 
than last year's appropriations. I understand that last year's 
appropriations provided for a one-time revolving GIPSA. I criticize the 
committee for cutting GIPSA's budget. However, the fact still remains 
that Packers and Stockyards will have no additional resources next 
year.
  In the meantime, the Antitrust Division appropriations in Commerce-
State-Justice is $14 million more than we had in 1999.
  To his credit, the President asked for an additional $600,000 to 
investigate packer competition. But not to his credit, the President 
proposed to pay for it with additional user fees, which the committee 
quite appropriately refused to do. It leaves us with the status quo. 
What I am hearing from Nebraska producers is, that is not enough.
  I pause to say that last year during debate in the Agriculture 
Appropriations Committee, I offered an amendment that would increase 
competition, that would provide for a change in the law so prices that 
were offered under contract or formula had to be reported. The 
distinguished occupant of the Chair, with his great courage, great 
wisdom, and great leadership, enabled that amendment to be agreed to in 
the agriculture appropriations. Unfortunately, it was stuck in the 
murky process that led to $500 million or $600 million being spent. It 
was dropped, unfortunately. We will be back to revisit that issue 
again.
  This is very much an issue that dovetails with mandatory price 
reporting. Earlier this year, Americans who went to motion pictures 
shows, who went to movie theaters to watch a movie, were concerned 
because in their communities they didn't have access to movies that 
were nominated for Academy Awards. They feared, quite correctly, that 
the theater owners were not allowing them to see movies that they 
wanted to see. There is a concentration of ownership in the theater 
business. So where did they go? They went to the Antitrust Division of 
Justice. Guess what. The Antitrust Division of Justice opens an 
investigation against concentration of ownership, trying to ask the 
question, Do we have competition in the marketplace, and is the lack of 
competition having a negative impact upon people who are consuming 
motion pictures, who go and spend 6 or 8 bucks--whatever it costs--in 
their local communities to see the movies that they wanted to see? They 
have the law on their side. People who go to motion picture shows have 
the law on their side.
  Our packers are out there saying, my gosh, if the Federal Government 
is willing to forcefully intervene on behalf of those consumers, why 
are they not willing to forcefully intervene on our side?
  We met with Joel Klein. We have met with other agencies of 
government. They say to us--especially Antitrust--that they simply lack 
authority.
  The Federal Trade Commission said the same thing to us--that the only 
thing we have on our side is the Packers and Stockyards Administration. 
But Congress constantly underfunds this agency. As a consequence, they 
have been either unable or unwilling, since this law has been enacted, 
to file any antitrust action against individuals who are out there in 
the business.
  I believe in the American way. I don't want anybody to be prevented 
from becoming as big and as prosperous as they want. These larger 
companies, in my view, are organizing for success. They contribute an 
enormous amount of tax revenue to the Federal Government. They 
contribute by building jobs. They are doing lots of really good things.
  But if you are going to have the United States of America be the land 
of opportunity, you have to have the rules written so that a man or 
woman who wants to start a small business has a chance to compete and 
has a chance with an operation with a small amount of resources. They 
are not going to have anybody lobby the Government. They are not likely 
to have the money to hire an accountant, or lawyer, or all of the other 
sorts of people you can hire when you became a larger entity. They are 
not likely, as a consequence of commanding fewer resources, to be able 
to survive by pricing their product under their cost for very darned 
long. As a result, they are vulnerable.
  That is why we have antitrust laws. The laws are there to protect not 
just the small businessperson but to protect the United States of 
America so that we are the land of opportunity. That is where the jobs 
are created. That is where the innovation occurs.
  I will offer this amendment transferring authority from Packers and 
Stockyards, regrettably, because, as I have said, I have jurisdiction 
over that, being a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I don't 
like to surrender jurisdiction. But the evidence to me is overwhelming. 
Consumers have somebody on their side in the Antitrust Division at 
Justice. Consumers and producers, when it comes to Packers and 
Stockyards, do not.
  In conclusion, as I said earlier, when it comes to the agriculture 
crisis, I intend to work in a bipartisan fashion.
  I know the distinguished occupant of the Chair is very concerned 
about what is going on in rural America today. I hope we are able to do 
much more than just talk. I don't intend to try to command an issue. I 
prefer to produce results.
  My hope is that either on this piece of legislation or at some later 
time we can take action and have the farmers in Nebraska and the 
farmers in Montana and the farmers in Oklahoma and throughout the 
country say they believe the Congress understands what is going on in 
rural America today and is making a concerted effort to finally do 
something about it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague, the Senator 
from Nebraska, for his statement.

                          ____________________