[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14231-14233]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk for a few minutes 
about agriculture appropriations. That is the bill that is before us. 
It is one I believe is particularly important. But I want to talk, 
really, about the need for us to be doing the necessary work of the 
Congress to be moving forward with our appropriations bills to keep the 
Government operating. These are the things we have before us. We have 
to pass 13 bills before this Congress is adjourned, before the 30th of 
September. We have to do this to keep the operations of the Government 
moving, particularly in the area of agriculture where we are having one 
of the toughest times we have had in the economics of agriculture, all 
over the country. It has been very difficult. Of course the 
appropriations bill for agriculture will be there to help. There will 
be other things done as well, but this is the basic effort we will have 
to make.
  I am very sorry to say our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have seen fit to delay this bill by using stalling tactics and bringing 
up unrelated amendments that have caused us not to be able to move 
forward. This is not a question of which issue is most important. We 
believe, with all of these issues, it is a question of an orderly 
process of moving forward to do the things that we have to do to 
accomplish our assignments.
  I am sorry to say we are not able to do our job. It has been derailed 
by what I believe is simply an effort to bring partisan political 
issues to this debate which really do not have a place in this 
situation.
  One, we need to move forward with the appropriations bills; there is 
no question about that. Two, we are dealing with patients' rights, 
which we have dealt with before and with which we continue to deal. It 
is not a question of being willing to do it. We have a Republican bill 
for patients' rights.
  Are there some disagreements, some differences? Of course. We have 
been talking about this for more than a year. It is completely 
inappropriate to bring it up now and use it as a stalling tactic.
  The unfortunate part is this is not the first time we have had it 
happen. We had it happen just 2 weeks ago when we were talking about 
Social Security, and we were unable to move

[[Page 14232]]

forward with the lockbox legislation. We are finding an unusual amount 
of disruption in moving forward with the business of this Congress.
  I commend the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations for their 
hard work in putting this bill together. The lion's share of funding, 
$47 billion, is designated for mandatory programs. Domestic food 
programs, food stamps, and child nutrition programs account for more 
than half of the agriculture appropriations bill.
  Certainly, the subcommittee faced difficult challenges in crafting 
this bill. Industry is struggling. The requests for financial 
assistance are escalating. Those types of things are very real, and we 
are prepared to deal with them. All we need to do is have the 
opportunity to move forward.
  Unfortunately, the stalling tactics have stopped us. For those of us 
who are primarily from agricultural States, passage of this bill is 
fundamental to our economy and fundamental to those agricultural 
producers.
  Recently, I heard several of my colleagues describe the financial 
problems in agriculture, and I do not disagree with any of them. We are 
feeling those in my State of Wyoming.
  I am very frustrated we cannot take action on a bill because it has 
been bogged down. We should focus on this bill. We should get this one 
done. We can do it. There is general agreement on it. We can deal with 
the disagreements and move forward.
  There are a number of programs in this agriculture bill that are 
particularly important. In addition to the domestic food programs, it 
contains funding for activities that are essential to an industry that 
employs more people in this country than any other industry, and that 
is agricultural producers. It has to do with land grant universities. 
It has to do with our rural citizens.
  Of particular importance to Wyoming, a State where 50 percent of the 
State belongs to the Federal Government and is managed by the BLM and 
Forest Service, there are funds for predator management which is 
particularly important, even important in places like Hawaii. It has to 
do with decreasing livestock losses and crop losses. It has to do with 
research and extension.
  We have the most efficient agriculture in the world because we have 
had land grant colleges and we have had the extension service. We have 
been able to produce more efficiently than anyone else. It is one of 
the largest exports we have.
  There are conservation initiatives. Mr. President, $800 million is 
provided in this bill to assist farmers and ranchers to be stewards of 
the land, to be environmental stewards, to reduce soil erosion, to 
reduce nonpoint water pollution. The list of positive programs in this 
bill goes on and on.
  For food safety, there is $638 million, an increase of $24 million 
over the fiscal year 1999 level.
  Also in the bill are agricultural credit programs--the Presiding 
Officer is one of the experts with a background in agriculture and has 
worked on this problem--loan authorization for rural housing, and 
assistance for rural communities to develop waste disposal and solid 
waste management programs.
  To brush this off and say we have other things to do, we should not 
undertake to deal with this agricultural appropriations, is distressing 
to me. I want us to move forward with it.
  It is important, of course, not only to producers but to all of us as 
citizens of this country when we talk about safe food.
  When we are finally able to debate the agriculture appropriations 
bill, there will be numerous amendments, as there should be. Some will 
be controversial which will further delay the passage of the bill.
  We ought to also keep in mind that in order to go forward with the 
programs of this country, we need to move forward. We have about four 
appropriations bills that have been passed. Our goal should be to pass 
at least 11 of them by the end of July. We do not want to find 
ourselves in this business of having political problems that shut down 
the Government, as we did several years ago, and trying to blame each 
other.
  Instead, we ought to move forward and do the things we ought to be 
doing. We have a process and we ought to move forward with it. There is 
much to be done, and I urge my colleagues to end their tactics of 
derailing and allow us to move forward on this very important spending 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, is the Senate still in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The majority has 9 
minutes and approximately 30 seconds. The minority has 5 minutes 5 
seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Wyoming who has 
expressed a frustration that I think many of us in the Senate hold and 
that a growing number of Americans hold as to the current tactic being 
used by Democrats to block an ag appropriations bill or to force an 
issue that is separate and apart from it.
  We do have a responsibility in the Senate and in the Congress, and 
that is to pass 13 appropriations bills on an annual basis to fund the 
workings of our Government. And the one before us today is agriculture.
  There is some $60 billion to be spent in many of the areas outlined 
by the Senator from Wyoming. They are critical to all our States, not 
just the agricultural community but for those people who are less 
fortunate, for their very nutrition--nutrition for women, infants and 
children, the Food Stamp Program, certainly the School Lunch Program. 
All of those programs are embodied in this appropriations bill. A 
tactic to push what now rapidly appears to be a raw political point for 
the purpose of upcoming campaigns against the normal and necessary 
workings of our Government is a bit frustrating to me.
  I have made that assumption at this moment. Let's assume that I am 
wrong, that clearly the other side is dedicated to a concern on the 
part of the average citizen as it relates to his or her health care, 
and in being so concerned they have offered a Kennedy bill that some 
call a Patients' Bill of Rights. If I take it at face value, it is a 
bit of a frustration, and in the next few moments let me express that.
  Chairman Patrick Kennedy in the House, a Democrat, of the 
Congressional Campaign Committee, was recently quoted and the national 
media is saying that ``we have written off rural areas.'' He means that 
Democrats politically have written off rural areas.
  Is it by coincidence the Senator from Massachusetts chooses the ag 
bill on which to place his political agenda? There seems to be a unique 
coincidence that Patrick Kennedy, Congressman Kennedy on the other 
side, says, ``We have written off rural areas,'' and Senator Kennedy on 
this side says, ``I'm going to attach it to the ag approps bill; I'll 
bring the ag bill down if I can't have my political agenda for a 
Patients' Bill of Rights.''
  Let me look at the substance of what may be offered today, because it 
is my understanding that there may be an attempt, in an amendment, to 
offer a portion of the Kennedy health care mandates.
  What would that do? That talks about what we now call medical 
necessities. It is a portion of the bill that I think offers the 
illusion of the patients being in control, by requiring health care 
plans and employers to pay for whatever care a physician recommends--
without question. If that is what the physician recommends, without 
peer review or any observation of the total situation, it is paid for.
  If that were the case, in today's medical climate, here is the 
reaction of the Barnitz Group. Who are they? They are an economic 
consulting firm that deals with health care and health care costs. They 
evaluate them. They make judgments as to how a given policy would 
affect the payment for health care for the individual.
  Here is what they suggest this particular portion of the Kennedy bill 
would do. It could cost nearly $60 a year per covered household, per 
insured household. It could cost employers $180 a year per covered 
employee. In other

[[Page 14233]]

words, it shoves the cost of health care up. Arguably, it might improve 
health care--I cannot debate that--by requiring that anything a doctor 
suggests gets funded. But it would cost more, or at least that is the 
observation.
  In that cost--this is a marketplace we are dealing with out here--it 
could result in the loss of 191,000 jobs or it could result in the 
cancellation of coverage for 1.4 million Americans. That is a provision 
in an amendment that might be offered this afternoon.
  Isn't it unique--I made some of this argument yesterday--that as we 
deal with ag appropriations, at a time when the chairman of the 
National Democratic Campaign Committee says, We write the rural areas 
off, that the Senator from Massachusetts would be offering a bill that 
would dramatically impact the uninsured by forcing more to be 
uninsured.
  It just so happens that a very large number of the uninsured live in 
rural America. It just so happens, according to the Employees Benefit 
Research Institute, nearly half, or 43 percent, of all workers in 
agriculture, in forestry, and in the fishing sector of our economy have 
no health insurance. In other words, they have to provide for 
themselves. Now we are suggesting that we will drive the cost of 
insurance up for those who are uninsured instead of doing things that 
bring the cost of that insurance down so that the uninsured can find 
insurance more affordable.
  Is this a coincidence or is there a relationship? I am not sure. But 
there is one thing that is for sure: The other side has decided to 
target ag appropriations with a bill that they think is extremely 
valuable politically. It is also an issue that we have come together on 
to say that there are some real needs and we are willing to address 
those needs in a bipartisan and timely fashion.
  But let us allow the work of the Congress to go forward in the 
appropriations area. We will deal with health care, as we should deal 
with health care, but we cannot deal with it by driving people from it, 
creating a greater dependency on government programs, as inevitably 
will happen, as shown by every research institute that has looked at 
the Kennedy bill.
  The Kennedy bill, without question, shoves possibly 2 million people 
out of insurance; I will be conservative and say at least 1 million, or 
1.4 million by conservative estimates.
  So let us get on with appropriating money for women, infants, and 
children for their nutritional needs, for the school lunch program, for 
food stamps, for ag research, for those things that are important to 
rural America.
  I do not care if Congressman Kennedy on the House side has written 
off rural America. This Senator will not write it off. We will pass an 
ag approps bill. We could do it today. We could finalize it this week 
and send a very important message to American agriculture that your 
work and your interests are important to us; that we will deal with you 
on a timely basis; that we will respond to your needs as best we can; 
and we will say to those less fortunate, we will feed you, and we will 
not use it as a political issue. We will do it in a right and 
responsible and timely way.
  I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can agree with 
that. It is what they ought to be agreeing with. There is enough 
politics to go around. Let's take politics out of the ag bill. They put 
it in with the injection of the Patients' Bill of Rights. They now have 
the opportunity to remove it.
  Our leaders have been negotiating for some time to establish a time 
certain so we can handle this issue and all sides can debate its 
fairness, its equity, or its lack thereof. We will have a lot more 
detail. But obstructionist attitudes, blocking the activity of the 
Senate, gain very few of us anything. And the American public scratches 
its head and says: What are they doing back there? Why can't they do 
the work of the people? Pass the ag appropriations bill. Deal with 
health care in a timely fashion. Move the other appropriations bills 
and complete the work of Government.
  That is what the American people expect of us. That is what they 
should expect of us. I hope the other side will ultimately agree with 
that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________