[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 25040-25056]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
      RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 1906, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompanying H.R. 1906, making 
     appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the agreement, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume on the Agriculture conference report.
  As Senators will remember, we invoked cloture on this conference 
report yesterday. I think the vote was 79-20. So by a very decisive 
vote, the Senate has expressed its will that we should complete action 
on this conference report. So debate has been limited, by agreement, to 
6 hours, as described in the announcement to the Senate.
  I am very pleased we have reached this point. This has been a very 
difficult and hard to resolve conference agreement. There have been a 
lot of issues extraneous to the appropriations process this year that 
had to be considered because they were raised either in the Senate or 
during consideration of the conference report.
  We have reached the point, though, that it is time to complete action 
on this conference report. We are appropriating funds for the fiscal 
year that began on October 1. So we have already begun the fiscal year 
during which the funds we will approve today will be needed. These 
funds are going to be allocated for administration by the Department of 
Agriculture among a wide range of programs. Sixty billion dollars are 
made available under the terms of this bill for programs of the 
Department of Agriculture including agricultural research, food and 
nutrition service, conservation programs, agricultural support 
programs, and rural development. We also have the responsibility of 
funding the Food and Drug Administration and the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission activities under this bill. So funds are provided 
for those agencies as well.
  I am very pleased that the conference agreement reflects a very 
strong commitment to the food safety initiatives. The President has 
been very active in his effort to increase funding for a number of 
those programs. Funds are provided for that--not all that the President 
wanted for every aspect of the program, but it is a well-balanced 
program.
  We also fund the Food Safety Inspection Service of the Department of 
Agriculture. Under that program, we have inspection that is conducted 
at food processing plants throughout the country, trying to make sure 
the food that is made available in the marketplace in our country is 
safe and wholesome, trying to alleviate concerns and the risks of 
foodborne illnesses.
  I daresay we have the best record of any country in the world in 
protecting our citizens from foodborne illnesses, and this is due in 
large part to those industries and those people who are involved every 
day in preparing and marketing the foods that make up the U.S. food 
supply. So they are the ones who really deserve the credit, in my 
opinion, and we very often do not recognize that. Government officials 
like to take the credit for just about everything, and I think that is 
wrong. In our society, we have a lot of people who work very hard and 
in a very conscientious way with the latest technologies to try to help 
make this country the best in the world, and they have done it.
  We try to support the activities of food processors and producers, 
but we sometimes fall short. This year, for example, we have had a very 
serious problem in production agriculture because of low commodity 
prices. There is an oversupply of some commodities in the world market 
that has depressed prices a great deal. We have seen a lot of weather-
related disasters strike production agriculture this year. So in this 
bill there is a response to that problem. A generous disaster 
assistance program totaling $8.7 billion is included in this conference 
report, providing emergency assistance for production agriculture.
  The head of the Mississippi Farm Bureau was interviewed after the 
House approved this conference report to get his reaction to the need 
in agriculture for the funds that were provided in this bill. Here is 
what David Waide of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation said about 
this emergency assistance: It ``could well mean the difference in 
massive foreclosures and the ability to continue farming'' in 
Mississippi. ``It's that serious,'' he said, ``because of the market 
situation and the extremely

[[Page 25041]]

low commodity prices and the natural disaster we've had with weather, 
every producer is impacted to some degree.'' He went on to say, ``With 
the type of market losses that we're seeing as a result of an extremely 
dry year, the producers are still going to have to struggle.''
  I point this out because there are some who think we have overreacted 
to the problems in agriculture this year. Every farmer in every area of 
the country may not be seriously affected by the problems I have 
discussed and described but most are. In my State of Mississippi, David 
Waide has it right. He has described what the problems are and what the 
needs are, why it is important for this appropriations bill with this 
emergency disaster assistance program to be approved.
  I am hopeful Senators will come to the floor under the order that we 
have provided for debate. We have a good amount of time available for 
the discussion of sanctions legislation we adopted in the Senate on an 
amendment offered by Senator Ashcroft, which would have limited the 
unilateral power the President has to impose embargoes, in effect, or 
trade embargoes, stopping the flow of agricultural commodities from 
this country into the international marketplace as a means for trying 
to discipline other countries or coerce them into some kind of change 
of behavior. For many, this has seemed to be an area where we have 
unfairly targeted agriculture and made agricultural producers and 
exporters bear the brunt of American foreign policy and, in many cases, 
it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked to change the behavior of those 
countries against whom the trade embargoes or sanctions were imposed. 
And it has hurt our own economy--not just the agricultural producers 
and exporters but others, because it has had a ripple effect throughout 
our economy. So I supported that initiative and I hope we can see 
legislation of that kind enacted. But because it was legislation, a 
change in law, there were objections to it being included on this 
appropriations bill.
  So there will be other opportunities to take up that issue, and I 
hope the Senate will address that at the earliest possible time. We 
have time available for Senator Ashcroft and others who are interested 
in discussing that issue. Under the impression that there will be 
Senators coming to the floor soon to discuss those issues and others, I 
am prepared to yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent the 
time under the quorum call be charged equally to both sides under the 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to make comments on the 
Agriculture appropriations conference report. It is a bill which I 
think is very important for America's farmers and ranchers. Clearly, 
the agricultural community in America is in dire straits. Farmers need 
relief quickly. But the irony about this bill is that farmers are 
getting, in my judgment, shortchanged. They are getting short-term 
financial relief, but they have been robbed of good policy; that is, a 
policy to reform the unilateral embargoes of food and medicine that 
have kept our farmers from being able to sell their products around the 
world.
  Before I get substantially into my remarks, I thank the Senator from 
Mississippi, the chairman of the agriculture appropriations 
subcommittee, for his support and vote to end unilateral food 
embargoes, and for his very mannerly handling of this issue on the 
floor and in the Senate-House conference. He has a strong record of 
supporting an end to the food embargoes. I know he recognizes the 
incredible groundswell of support for this policy change that is in the 
Congress and, more importantly, in the farm community. Senator Cochran 
is to be commended. I thank him. He has done an outstanding job.
  Farmers in America are aware that the current U.S. embargoes tie 
their hands and give an advantage to Canada, Brazil, Europe, and South 
America, farmers from around the world, when competing against the 
United States. Current U.S. policy favors foreign farmers--not U.S. 
farmers. It is a tragedy that our own policies throw roadblocks between 
our farmers and the world marketplace so producers in other countries 
have a better opportunity to be more successful than producers in our 
country.
  Make no mistake about it. The history of U.S. food embargoes is that 
they almost uniformly hurt only two parties: the American farmer and 
innocent people overseas.
  Food embargoes generally don't succeed in changing other nations. 
They succeed in taking dollars out of our farmers' pockets and in 
putting dollars in the pockets of foreign farmers. They succeed in 
undermining our farmers' reputation as reliable suppliers in the world 
market. We understand that because farmers have talked to us. Farmers 
have come to me. I have met with them. Senator Bond and I have several 
times sat down together and discussed it with farmers in the last 3 or 
4 months at various places. We were in the foothills of Missouri. We 
were in the central part of the State. We have been at various places 
around the State. They have helped me understand this issue more 
clearly than ever before.
  A number of other Senators are very attuned to this. This is 
something that goes on on both sides of the aisle. This is not an issue 
that is defined by parties in this Congress. Senators Hagel, Baucus, 
Dodd, Brownback, Dorgan, Kerrey, along with myself and many others--you 
notice this is one of those things where you can go back and forth 
across the aisle as you name the Members of the Senate--have been 
working on a bill that would lift embargoes involving U.S. farm 
products.
  I wish to recognize the fact that Senator Lugar has for a long time 
been working on measures to do the same and is chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee in the Senate.
  This understanding about the need to have markets where farmers can 
sell what they produce is a pretty substantial understanding. It is not 
partisan. We did not surprise anyone with this proposal. Americans have 
long agreed it is generally unwise for the United States to use food as 
a weapon. The weapon usually backfires and hurts us more than it hurts 
anyone else.
  Congress has endorsed the values of the American people. Our job is 
to represent the values of the American people and not to allow a 
select few inside Washington, DC, to go behind closed doors and impose 
their values on America. I am here today to do what I was elected to 
do--to promote farm policies that reflect the values of the farm belt 
instead of caving in to the values of the beltway.
  If Members listen to their farmers, they will most likely hear what I 
have been hearing. This is a letter from Kansas City, MO, signed by 10 
people with a strong interest in this issue. Let me read a part of it:

       We believe that this legislation--

that is the legislation to allow farmers to market their products to 
change the way we have embargoes imposed so we don't have the 
unilateral embargoes against food and medicine imposed by the President 
without Congress.

       We believe that this legislation will help the United 
     States sell its valuable farm products and medicines as well 
     as help the receiver countries.
       The President and Congress ought to review more carefully 
     unilateral embargoes against any country. Withholding food 
     and medicine is an affront against human rights as well as a 
     politically foolish practice. Such sanctions have never 
     toppled governments, but only serve to perpetuate hatred, 
     hunger, and poverty among the ordinary citizens.

  This was signed by 10 individuals. This is one of a number of letters 
I would like to submit for the Record.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page 25042]]


                                        Latin American Task Force,


                                        Catholics for Justice,

                              Kansas City, MO, September 13, 1999.
     Hon. John Ashcroft,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: Thank you for introducing the Food 
     and Medicine for the World Act as an amendment to the 
     agricultural appropriations bill and for championing it 
     through this far. We hope that you and Senator Bond will 
     continue to work to pass this important amendment.
       We believe that this legislation will help the United 
     States sell its valuable farm products and medicines as well 
     as help the receiver countries.
       The President and Congress ought to review more carefully 
     unilateral embargoes against any country. Withholding food 
     and medicine is an affront against human rights as well as a 
     politically foolish practice. Such sanctions have never 
     toppled governments, but only serve to perpetuate hatred, 
     hunger, and poverty among the ordinary citizens.
       Thank you for your attention; we will look forward to a 
     report on the outcome of Food and Medicine for the World Act.
       Letter signed by 10 people.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, not only do members of my constituency 
and citizens of Missouri write letters to me, but they write letters to 
the editor. They talk to the press and farm focus forums about the 
significance of lifting food embargoes. Senator Bond and I not only 
were in Columbia at one of these farm forums, but we were at the State 
fair.
  I am reading from a newspaper article out of Sedalia, MO, entitled, 
``Farmers Meet with Bond, Ashcroft at State Fair.''
  This is what some farmers said. This is what the article begins with. 
It includes quotes by farmers.

       Some farmers who are worried by low prices and the recent 
     lack of rain felt encouraged after talking with Missouri's 
     two U.S. Senators about emergency relief and trade barriers.
       ``I hope the relief comes soon,'' said Brent Sandidge, a 
     hog farmer. ``[But] rather than always giving us immediate 
     relief, help us so that we can live so that emergency money 
     won't be needed.

  That is what the hog farmer was saying. Give us the capacity to sell 
our products so emergency money won't always be needed.

       One such long-range plan is Ashcroft's Food and Medicine 
     for the World Act. . . .

  The article continues, and then Brent, the hog farmer who was with 
us, said:

       . . . lifting embargoes makes sense. We need to use the 
     agriculture in this country to feed the grave hunger of 
     people around the world.

  I am pleased to have had that article in the Sedalia paper. The 
bottom line is this: The final Agriculture appropriations conference 
report should have included the embargo reform that was overwhelmingly 
supported by American farmers and adopted by the Senate. Frankly, it is 
a great disappointment to me that the Agriculture conference report 
does not include reform for food embargoes. First of all, this reform, 
which we had included in the Senate version of the Agriculture bill, 
was a reform that would have required the President to collaborate with 
Congress and get approval before imposing any unilateral sanction that 
would embargo food or medicine.
  The Senate approved that amendment by an overwhelming vote of 70-28. 
That included a majority of positive votes from both sides of the 
aisle--both Democrats and Republicans. This vote shows that not only do 
we have more than a majority, but 70 votes would be more than enough to 
invoke cloture, if these votes remain committed, more than enough votes 
to even override a Presidential veto.
  After the Senate 70-28 vote when the Agriculture appropriations bill 
went to the conference, the House conferees voted on a proposal to make 
the Senate reform even stronger. This is significant because it 
reflects the view of many of the House Members with whom I have talked 
that embargoes be brought to the House of Representatives for a 
straight up-or-down vote, and the proposal would receive the same kind 
of overwhelming support in the House that it received in the Senate. 
They were confident of that if voted on by the House. Also, eight 
Senate conferees to three favored keeping the Senate provisions along 
with the stronger House provisions.
  It is a mystery that the House wanted this, the Senate wanted this, 
we voted 70-28 to have it, and then behind closed doors a decision was 
made to strip out the reform provision that received overwhelming 
bipartisan support in the Congress. It is something that the American 
farmers want, that will help sell American goods overseas, that will 
help reverse the currently depressed prices, that will help provide 
food and medicine to people all around the world, and a reform that 
would reverse the rather ridiculous policy in which America finds 
itself alone so often as a nation using food and medicine as a weapon 
of foreign policy.
  A select few in Congress have tried to make the issue of embargoes on 
food an issue about Cuba. I reject this narrow interpretation. It is 
about the importance of consistent U.S. policy on food and medicine 
embargoes. Since Cuba is one of those countries that we sanction or 
embargo exports of wheat, rice, pork, and other vital farm products, 
let me address that. Does it really make sense for the United States 
not to sell food to Cuba when the entire rest of the world already 
does? I don't think so. Does it really make sense for the United States 
to deny food and medicine and thereby bolster Castro's anti-American 
distortions?
  Let's hear from the countryside on this issue. Here is an e-mail I 
received from one of my constituents, Thomas Capuano, from Kirksville, 
MO:

       Dear Senator Ashcroft, I want you to know that I favor 
     loosening the embargo on Cuba. The best way for understanding 
     between our two peoples is by means of free markets, free 
     exchange of ideas and goods and services, and freedom of 
     movement. . . .

  I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To: John Ashcroft.
     From: Tom Capuano.
     Date: 15 July, 1999.
     Subject: Cuba embargo.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: I want you to know that I favor 
     loosening the embargo on Cuba. The best way for understanding 
     between our two peoples is by means of free markets, free 
     exchange of ideas and goods and services, and freedom of 
     movement between Cuba and the U.S. Please consider supporting 
     the exemptions that are currently being proposed to ease the 
     embargo. Food and medicine should be totally exempted from 
     the embargo.
       Thank you for your attention.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Here is another e-mail received from Ms. Janelle 
Sharoni:

       The blockade against Cuba has been going on for so many 
     years we have nearly forgotten about the terrible suffering 
     of the Cuban people and the total lack of any results to 
     point to from this blockade. The blockade has not worked and 
     has alienated us from other Latin Americans.
       All this does is exempt food, agricultural supplies, 
     medicine and medical supplies for the trade embargo. It does 
     NOT indicate any change in American policy, just a change in 
     how we deal with the poor and suffering.

  That is a description of the Food and Medicine for the World Act.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To: Senator Ashcroft.
     From: ``Janell H. Sharoni''.
     Date: 21 July, 1999.
     Subject: End the Cuban Embargo.
       Dear Senator Ashcroft: The blockade against Cuba has been 
     going on for so many years, we have nearly forgotten about 
     the terrible suffering of the Cuban people and the total lack 
     of any results to point to from this blockade. This blockade 
     has not worked and has alienated us from other Latin 
     Americans.
       Businessmen are trying, against of course the wishes of the 
     Miami community, who seem to control our entire congress, to 
     make headway in working to establish relations with Cuba. 
     Please support or co-sponsor SB926 to end the embargo against 
     Cuba.
       All this does is exempt food, agricultural supplies, 
     medicine and medical supplies for the trade embargo. It does 
     NOT indicate any change in American policy, just a change in 
     how we deal with the poor and suffering in the third world. 
     Is it not obvious that Fidel Castro will die in office and 
     never be removed?
       This is the first step in ending our stupid cold war 
     relationships with a person who is head and shoulders above 
     most of the dictators we have supported in the past in our 
     anti communist stance.
       The Pentagon is not afraid of Cuba, and especially the 
     Cuban people. Why, Senator

[[Page 25043]]

     Ashcroft, do we continue this terrible ordeal against the 
     people of a nation so close to our shores.
           Sincerely,
                                               Janelle H. Sharoni.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. I received many letters about this issue. Here is one 
from a constituent in St. Joseph, MO, Mr. Craig Drummond, who is the 
Drake University student body vice president.
  I don't know why he went all the way to Iowa to get his education, 
but Drake is a fine institution.
  He states it this way:

       The United States is a country that was founded on the 
     premise of freedom, democracy and sovereignty. We enact 
     policies, laws and regulations that best exhibit the highest 
     ideals of democracy and the American public. For the most 
     part, we do a good job and function well as a powerful global 
     leader. I am a proponent of democracy and capitalism and hold 
     the values and ideas of the aforementioned paramount to any 
     other country or government. The United States has problems 
     and for the most part we are aware of these and have good 
     people working to rectify our problems and wrongs. That is 
     why this whole Cuba situation intrigues me so much.
       Why does America continue to have an embargo against trade 
     with Cuba? Why have we chosen to isolate Cuba and ourselves 
     from each other?

  I think the point here that ought to be made is a point that needs to 
be made over and over again. For food and medicine, we don't strengthen 
the regime; we strengthen the people. Strengthening oppressed people is 
what is fundamentally appropriate in terms of eventually allowing them 
to survive oppressive regimes.
  I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    June 22, 1999.
       Dear Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri: I am writing this 
     letter in regards to the United States' embargo against Cuba. 
     I recently visited Cuba through a U.S. Treasury Department 
     licensed trip that was part of a class for Drake University. 
     In Cuba I was immersed in their culture and sense of 
     community and feel that after this experience, it is my 
     Lockean duty as an American citizen to write my elected 
     leaders and express my concern at the status quo foreign 
     policy that America practices in regards to Cuba.
       The United States is a country that was founded on the 
     premise of freedom, democracy and sovereignty. We enact 
     policies, laws and regulations that best exhibit the highest 
     ideals of democracy and the American public. For the most 
     part, we do a good job and function well as a powerful global 
     leader. I am a proponent of democracy and capitalism and hold 
     the values and ideas of the aforementioned paramount to any 
     other country or government. The United States has problems 
     and for the most part we are aware of these and have good 
     people working to rectify our problems and wrongs. That is 
     why this whole Cuba situation intrigues me so much.
       Why does America continue to have an embargo against trade 
     with Cuba? Why have we chosen to isolate Cuba and ourselves 
     from each other? This puzzles me dearly and I have searched, 
     with a patriotic mindset, to find answers, yet I have not 
     found any viable ones. Cuba operates as a socialistic 
     government and this government is by far one of the best 
     examples of true socialism that I have seen. The people are 
     educated, have access to medical care and the leaders do not 
     live lavish lifestyles. Cuba is poor and the people need 
     money and have wants, yet the division of wealth appears to 
     be fair and from the government leaders to the person on the 
     street, the people support their governmental system.
       Why then has the United States, the world leader in human 
     rights, let itself place greed and the desires of a limited 
     minority of American businessmen above the needs of a people, 
     fair foreign policy, and the search for social justice in 
     U.S. action? American businessmen are upset because their 
     companies were nationalized in the Revolution of 1959. Cuba 
     has since offered retribution, but the former owners have 
     declined it on the grounds that the retribution is not for 
     the real amount that the assets were worth. Well, as someone 
     who has invested in foreign markets, I personally know of and 
     accept the higher degree of risk that is taken when investing 
     in foreign markets that are not under direct U.S. control. A 
     foreign investor must accept this risk and realize that there 
     is additional risk associated with transacting or operating a 
     business in a foreign country.
       Cuba is a nation of great beauty and opportunity. The Cuban 
     people desire and need the help of the United States. I see 
     no reason for the current embargo and would ask you to 
     compare Cuba to China when talking about foreign policy and 
     governmental structures. I am asking as a constituent and 
     citizen that you look into this matter so that you can form 
     an educated opinion on this subject. Hopefully, education on 
     this subject will foster a desire to rise up and make the 
     necessary change to lift this embargo. There may have been 
     reasons in the past for the implementation of the embargo, 
     but Cuba and the U.S. have both changed since the 1950's and 
     it is time for our foreign policy to change as well.
       The lifting of the embargo will not only help the Cuban 
     economy, but it will inevitably act as an impetus to spark 
     American investment and exports to Cuba. Such transactions 
     could only be considered a positive for the U.S. economy. 
     Thank you and if you have any questions or comments please do 
     not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,

                                            Craig W. Drummond,

                                    Drake University Students Body
                                                   Vice-President.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. A final letter from Mrs. Joan Botwinick in University 
City, MO:

       I want to thank you for introducing a bill which would lift 
     the embargo on food and medicine. Not only is it the humane 
     thing to do, but it would also benefit our farmers.

  That is a clear statement of what I think is the important truth.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in its entirety in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                          University City, MO,

                                                   Sept. 24, 1999.
       Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I want to thank you for introducing a 
     bill which would lift the embargo on food and medicine in 
     Cuba. Not only is it the humane thing to do, but it would 
     also benefit our farmers.
       The broader issue is: Do we promote democracy by putting 
     sanctions on countries we don't like or who may be a threat 
     to us, or do we try to help improve their economies by 
     engaging in commerce and dialogue. I believe our best course 
     is the latter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Joan Botwinick.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Comments about lifting the food embargo come not just 
from the Midwest. An editorial from the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 
August 16, 1999, states:

       It clearly would be in America's best interest to expand 
     trade in food and medicine to Cuba, for more reasons than 
     one.

  I continue to quote:

       If nutrition and health-care conditions don't improve in 
     Cuba under the easing or lifting of U.S. trade restrictions, 
     Castro won't have the embargo to blame for his government's 
     failures.

  In other words, we provide Castro with an opportunity to blame 
America for hungry people, to blame America for sick people, as long as 
we embargo food and medicine.
  Quite frankly, there is a ground swell of support to lift the food 
and medicine embargo on Cuba--and other countries.
  An article from the Omaha World-Herald commends the cosponsor of this 
legislation, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been such a 
leader in this respect. I will read from that article:

       Sens Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John Ashcroft, R-Mo., added 
     to the Senate's recent farm spending bill an amendment that 
     would exempt most food and medical supplies from U.S. 
     sanctions against foreign nations.
       As an editorial in this space said on August 10, Cuba 
     provides the closest example of why Hagel and Ashcroft have a 
     good idea: Such sanctions usually harm only the people who 
     deserve it least, and they pointlessly exclude U.S. farmers 
     and pharmaceutical manufacturers from significant 
     international markets.

  I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial from the Omaha World-
Herald, Friday, August 20, 1999, printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Omaha World-Herald; Fri. August 20, 1999]

                       A Gentler Face Toward Cuba

       Maybe it's just a coincidence of timing. But lately it 
     seems that Midwesterners are at the forefront of a push to 
     start easing some of the barriers between the United States 
     and Cuba.
       Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John Ashcroft, R-Mo., added 
     to the Senate's recent farm spending bill an amendment that 
     would exempt most food and medical supplies from U.S. 
     sanctions against foreign nations.
       As an editorial in this space said on Aug. 10, Cuba 
     provides the closest example of why Hagel and Ashcroft have a 
     good idea: Such sanctions usually harm only the people who 
     deserve it least, and they pointlessly exclude

[[Page 25044]]

     U.S. farmers and pharmaceutical manufacturers from 
     significant international markets.
       Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Sen. 
     Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., recently came back from a visit to Cuba 
     with figures that undergird that idea. They said officials in 
     Cuba told them the country imports nearly $1 billion in food 
     and medicine annually and food imports could double in five 
     years. Cuban doctors and hospital officials told the 
     Americans that more than 200 important pharmaceuticals are 
     not to be found in Cuba and that a pressing need exists to 
     restock.
       One must consider the source of such assertions. But even 
     if the numbers were substantially exaggerated, they still 
     point to real markets and real needs.
       Now there's the visit to Havana by the Gold Nemesis from 
     Lincoln, Nebraska's top under-17 soccer team, with its 
     people-to-people sports diplomacy stint. What are the young 
     players (many of whose parents have no memory of a time when 
     there wasn't an embargo against Cuba) learning?
       ``People from Cuba are not stereotypical, real hard-nosed, 
     mean people,'' Gold nemesis co-captain Christian Mangrum told 
     the Associated Press. ``They're actually really nice, really 
     genuine.''
       No surprise there, surely. The faceoff between the two 
     nations has never been about Americans vs Cubans. It is about 
     the corrupt and dictatorial regime of Fidel Castro and his 
     dreams of Pan-American revolution. And harbor no illusions: 
     Castro remains Castro. All in Cuba is not sweetness and 
     light.
       Dorgn reported that Castro staunchly defended the current 
     system. ``He staunchly defends what he has done,'' Dorgan 
     said. ``He rejects the notion that there are human rights 
     violations.'' Dorgan said Cuban officials had told him and 
     Daschle they were free to speak to any Cuban. But that proved 
     to be untrue when they wanted to talk to four dissidents 
     recently sentenced to prison.
       The overthrow of Castro is not a realistic prospect, but 
     after all, he will not live forever. It is time to think 
     about what happens after he's gone. If Americans demonstrate 
     to Cubans that we as a nation aren't out to starve them or 
     deprive them of medical care; if we show them more about 
     average Americans and the kind of life that is possible under 
     a more progressive form of government: doesn't it make sense 
     that in the post-Castro era they'll be open to a free and 
     open society?
       For that reason, when the House of Representatives resumes 
     its session next month, it should join the Senate in easing 
     the food and medicine embargo.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Most people realize it is the good thing to do for our 
farmers and it is the right thing to do in terms of humanitarian 
interests of those abroad. That is why the Senate overwhelmingly 
approved this concept, and that is why it should have been retained in 
the conference report which provides relief for American farmers.
  We provide financial relief, but we ignore the need for structural 
relief so that their market can be expanded. It is no secret that what 
happened to the appropriations bill for farmers has been construed by 
some as an affront to farmers. Missouri farmers are not duped; they are 
not fooled. They understand that while there is additional financial 
assistance being given out, they are still being deprived of their 
markets, and Missouri farmers want to be able to produce and to sell. 
That is what farming is all about. They are bewildered as to how their 
freedom to market, which had majority support from both sides of the 
aisle, could be stripped out of the bill. I will do everything I can to 
make sure they get the freedom to market we have been promising them 
for years; we must deliver.
  Quite frankly, there is growing consideration of an idea that says we 
can't have Freedom to Farm if we don't have freedom to market. We have 
never given it a real chance to work. We have to give our farmers the 
chance to market what they produce as well as the freedom to be 
producers.
  If what happened over the last 2 weeks on sanctions policy keeps up, 
I do not think we will be seeing this program work. We have to have 
both freedoms: The freedom to farm and the freedom to market; and who 
will be to blame but those who kept us from passing the freedom to 
market?
  Our amendment, the Food and Medicine for the World Act, is designed 
to allow our farmers to market around the world and is designed to 
restructure the way in which agricultural embargoes, or food embargoes, 
would be imposed--if at all. That proposal would have put United States 
farmers on more competitive ground with the Canadians and more 
competitive ground with the Europeans and South Americans in world 
markets. It would have put money in the pockets of U.S. farmers--clear 
and simple; just a fact; there would have been money in the pockets of 
American farmers.
  It is hard to believe we simply--we? I should not say ``we.'' From 
somewhere, in the dark of night in the conference committee, out goes 
that provision which had overwhelming support, I believe, in both 
Houses of the Congress. It would have restored the credibility of the 
Congress worldwide, across America, and would have restored our 
farmers' credibility worldwide as suppliers.
  I will continue my efforts to win final approval for ending 
unilateral food and medicine embargoes. Next week the sponsors of the 
amendment, that was approved 70 to 28 and was added to the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, intend to introduce the embargo reform as a 
freestanding bill. We will bring it to the Senate and the Congress. We 
will say to the Congress: This is not part of the Agriculture 
appropriations measure as it was before, but we want to present this to 
the Congress. I am grateful the majority leader of the Senate has made 
a commitment to me to bring the proposal back to the Senate floor for 
separate consideration this session. That is important to me.
  I wanted the measure approved as part of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill and sent to the President for signature. It would 
have been easier. It certainly was an overwhelming consensus of this 
body and I believe an overwhelming consensus of the House. But if that 
can't be, then we try plan B. Plan B is to bring it up separately and 
get it passed through the Senate, get it passed through the House of 
Representatives, and sent to the President.
  I thank the majority leader of the Senate who has made a commitment 
to bring the proposal back to the Senate floor for separate 
consideration. This debate will continue, therefore.
  Let me reiterate a few points that are vital to the proposal we are 
advancing. The general framework is this. We do not make it impossible 
to have an embargo. We just say, before there can be an embargo, the 
Congress has to approve it. So we do not tie the hands of the 
President, but we ask him to shake hands with the Congress before you 
take this draconian, drastic step which hurts American farmers, before 
you have sanctions on food, fiber, and medicine. We will not allow the 
President, with the stroke of a pen, to damage the livelihood of 
American farmers or to cut off the subsistence of oppressed people 
around the world. It will require consultation with the Congress.
  I want to make one thing as clear as I can. This is genuinely a 
proposal that supports the policy of helping our farmers and putting 
products which will eliminate suffering and hunger into the hands of 
those who need them most. This is not about shipping military equipment 
or even dual-use items--things that could be used in the military 
setting--to other countries. We want to keep those kinds of things out 
of the hands of tyrants. But we do not want to assist tyrants, or 
strengthen the hands of tyrants, by allowing them to blame America for 
hungry people who are oppressed or people who are ill in health, so 
that the tyrant can say: The reason you are ill and the reason we don't 
have good medicine is the United States of America won't allow you to 
have good health or won't sell us food.
  Our approach helps us show support for the oppressed people who need 
to be strengthened in these countries, at the same time we send a 
message that the United States in no way will assist or endorse the 
activities of the rogue leaders of these nations which threaten our 
interests. If these rogue leaders don't spend the money with the 
American farmers to buy food, that leaves them hard currency to buy 
weapons and destabilize countries around the world. We ought to hope 
they spend all their money on food for their people instead of weaponry 
they use either to repress people in their own regimes or destabilize 
neighboring countries.
  Ending unilateral embargoes against sales of U.S. food and medicine 
is good, solid foreign policy, it is good farm policy, and it promotes 
U.S. interests

[[Page 25045]]

around the world. In the past, we have imposed embargoes that have done 
exactly the opposite from what we intended. If we use food as a weapon, 
we have to be careful it doesn't backfire. Using food as a weapon has 
really resulted in more backfiring than forward firing. We have 
actually enriched the people we were seeking to hurt, and we have hurt 
the people, the American farmers, who have been the producers of what 
has made this Nation the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, 
where hunger has been virtually abolished--or it should be.
  Let me just give this example. It is a tragic example. It is not 
humorous, but it is almost funny because it backfired so badly. 
Everyone remembers the Soviet grain embargo in the 1970s. We canceled 
17 million tons of high-priced exports from the United States. We told 
farmers: You cannot make those sales; we are not going to allow you to 
ship that grain to Russia.
  Here is what happened. The Russians, having been relieved of their 
contractual obligation to buy what they wanted to buy, went into the 
world marketplace. Do you know what they did? They bought all the stuff 
which we refused to sell them, and they saved $250 million in the 
process. We really hurt the Russians with that one. Robert Kohlmeyer of 
``World Perspectives'' brought that story to the committee as we had 
hearings on sanctions. I thought to myself, that gun backfired in a big 
way. The only people with powder burns, the only people suffering as a 
result of that volley, were American farmers and individuals in the 
production of American agriculture.
  Our market reputation as a supplier in the world went down, and other 
people decided they would bring on land to be producers, in South 
America and other settings, so they could supply what we would refuse 
to supply. All of a sudden, we brought new competitors into the arena; 
we destroyed our reputation; we helped our enemy get $250 million he 
wouldn't otherwise have gotten, and we hurt American farmers. Seldom 
can a gun backfire so accurately in so many directions. I say seldom, 
but it is just generally so in the arena of embargoes. Our embargoes 
more often deny people who suffer under such regimes the food and 
medicine they need and desire rather than hurting the leaders in those 
countries.
  America has been a nation that promotes freedom worldwide. We should 
continue to talk truthfully about political oppression in other 
countries. We should do so, though, without denying food and medicine 
to the oppressed people who need to be strengthened, not weakened. How 
can we ever expect to topple a regime by starving those who populate 
it? Our foreign policy interests should be to strengthen, not to 
weaken, those who could resist an oppressive regime.
  We need to stop using food as a weapon against the innocent. It is 
not good foreign policy. It is failed foreign policy. That gun 
backfires. It is not working. It is hurting those abroad and is hurting 
those of us who are back home. In terms of market access for farmers, 
we can talk about the roadblocks that are laid down by foreign 
governments--and I am pretty distressed about those roadblocks. The 
Europeans have vast subsidies that make it hard for us to compete with 
them overseas. But let us also be aware we have to stop throwing 
roadblocks in the way of our own farmers here at home. We have built a 
solid brick wall in front of our own farmers. Simply, it is an 
impenetrable wall when it relates to embargoes and sanctions imposed 
unilaterally on food and medicine against a number of countries around 
the world. My message today to the Congress is simply this: Tear down 
this wall we have built.
  Let our farmers be free. Our food embargoes have failed. Our food 
embargoes are not effective. Food embargoes are not the way for us to 
win. That gun backfires. It is time to tear down this wall. And we 
will. Starting next week, we will do our best to bring this measure up 
as an independent, freestanding measure.
  While I believe it is important to help our farmers in the 
Agriculture appropriations bill upon which we are going to be voting, 
that is a financial assist in the short term for a disastrous year, but 
we need the long-term structural reform that the hog farmer in Sedalia, 
Brett, came to me and said: We need the ability to market so we don't 
need to come back for financial assistance over and over again. Tear 
down this wall.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from 
Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Presiding Officer, the other distinguished 
Senator from Kansas. I appreciate his recognition. I ask unanimous 
consent to speak for up to 10 minutes on the Ag appropriations 
conference report which is before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of what my colleague 
from Missouri just spoke about. As he was speaking, I was thinking 
where I was when the embargo happened. In the late seventies, I was a 
farm broadcaster in Manhattan, KS, when President Carter put the 
embargo on the Soviet Union. My dad was farming, as he is today. We 
were both long in wheat. Wheat went down lock limit for 3 days in a row 
with that embargo. The markets did not recover when that big of a sale 
was taken out of the system. We lost a lot of money.
  Senator Ashcroft was talking about how much we lost as a nation and 
how much our farmers lost. I remember what we lost as a family in that 
embargo, not that it should be any deciding factor, but it galvanized 
in my mind what happens when we do these sorts of things. That is, we 
lose markets, we lose money, our farmers are penalized, punished--and 
the Soviet Union got cheaper grain out of the deal. It was bad for us 
all the way around.
  One of my great disappointments with the Ag appropriations conference 
report is that we had a chance to end once and for all the use of food 
and medicine as a foreign policy tool. We did not take that chance, and 
we are poorer for it. We should have gotten this monkey off the back of 
U.S. farmers.
  I rise to state my strong disappointment with this conference report, 
even though my colleague from Mississippi, who chairs this 
subcommittee, has done everything he possibly can. There is a lot of 
good in this appropriations conference report, but we missed a chance 
to lift these unilateral sanctions on food and medicine.
  As you have already heard several times, the Ashcroft amendment was 
adopted overwhelmingly in this body by a vote of 70-28. It is important 
to keep mentioning that fact because it is astonishing to me that such 
a clear message from the Senate could be so easily ignored.
  In a place as diverse as America and as compact as Congress, there 
are bound to be honest disagreements about any number of issues, 
including sanctions. These disagreements were given a thorough and 
extensive airing in the Senate, and the result was an overwhelming 
majority decided it was not an effective policy tool to use food and 
medicine in foreign policy. This is a conclusion that a vast majority 
of the American public has already recognized for some time and 
certainly the farming public has recognized this for a long period of 
time.
  What has occurred with the Agriculture appropriations bill is an 
attempt to avoid this important policy issue. I am delighted we are 
going to bring it back up next week and discuss it, but it is an 
unfortunate tactic that has moved us to next week rather than now in 
deciding this critical policy issue for U.S. agriculture and for 
America's foreign policy. Compounding this wrong is the fact that U.S. 
agriculture is in the midst of an economic struggle, and sanctions 
serve to limit U.S. markets for no real policy effect.
  Unilaterally using food and medicine as foreign policy weapons fails 
to take into account that the U.S. has competition in agriculture. If 
we do not sell it, somebody else will, and that is what has taken place 
in the past. It is time we limit the possibility of this happening 
again in the future to the United States.

[[Page 25046]]

  Even if the U.S. denies trade with another nation, other countries 
will, and do eagerly, sell these products. We know this for a fact. The 
only one who gets hurt in this process is truly the U.S. farmer, the 
farmers across Kansas who do not get to make these sales.
  While it is difficult to calculate the actual gain that lifting 
sanctions would bring in the short term it is easy to see the long-term 
benefits of sanctions reform. These benefits include the increased 
sales to new markets because we tell that new market we will be a 
reliable supplier; we will not just step in willy-nilly on this; we 
will be reliable in our supplying. Perhaps even more profound, this 
policy serves to reassure all our trading partners that the U.S. will 
continue and will always be that constant and reliable supplier of 
agricultural goods. This assurance is necessary in a competitive 
market.
  Efforts to reinstate this important sanctions relief language or find 
a compromise have certainly been valiantly put forward by Senator 
Ashcroft, Senator Dorgan, and a number of others, including the Chair. 
I commend my neighbors in this principled fight and their persistence 
on this issue. Still the few who oppose sanctions reform have blocked 
any progress.
  Reluctantly, I will vote for this bill because farmers and producers 
are depending on the emergency aid funding contained in this bill. But 
I truly believe the future of U.S. agriculture depends on the long-term 
reforms such as this Senate-passed amendment lifting unilateral 
sanctions. I will continue to fight on this issue and insist that the 
will of the majority be followed.
  In conclusion, we had a chance to once and for all remove the use of 
food and medicine as a foreign policy tool, and we missed it. We could 
do something good, something right, morally on the high ground, the 
right thing for U.S. farmers, the right thing for those consumers in 
places around the world who need and should have this good, high 
quality food product we have. We missed that opportunity. We are poorer 
for it, and so is the rest of the world. We will have this fight again 
next week. I hope we can still move this bill this session of Congress. 
I lament we did not do it on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am glad to join my 
colleague, Senator Cochran, in support of the conference report to H.R. 
1906, the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill.
  I congratulate Senator Cochran, chairman of the subcommittee, for 
guiding us past many obstacles that have stood in the way of final 
passage of this measure. At the end of today's debate, we will send to 
the President an agricultural spending bill that will result in 
immediate aid to hundreds of thousands of farmers across our country. 
That is an accomplishment of which we can all be proud.
  At times, work on this bill was contentious. The money we had 
available to work with made it very difficult to fund adequately the 
most critical programs at USDA, FDA, and the other agencies in this 
bill.
  Senator Cochran did a masterful job in finding a balance of 
priorities, given the budgetary constraints under which we had to work. 
In fact, we were even able to increase spending for some critical 
programs. This conference report provides an increase for the 
President's food safety initiative, as well as additional funds to help 
avoid a shortfall in inspectors at the Food Safety Inspection Service. 
An increase is provided for the WIC Program to help maintain caseload. 
Other programs, such as research and education, conservation and rural 
development are all funded at a very healthy level.
  Most important, we have managed to include $8.7 billion in emergency 
aid to farmers suffering from the price collapse that has hit too many 
commodities. I realize some of my colleagues, especially those from the 
Northeast, will argue that more is needed to address the needs of 
farmers suffering from the effects of this summer's drought and 
Hurricane Floyd. I agree. The administration should send us a separate 
emergency request for these recent disasters, and Congress ought to act 
on it immediately. But our commitment to help the farmers of the 
Northeast overcome the natural disasters of the last several months 
should not stop us from enacting aid for farmers all over the country 
suffering from the economic disasters of the last several years.
  I also want to note the efforts made to ensure that harmful 
legislative riders, such as attempts to undermine USDA reform of dairy 
policy, did not become part of this conference report. We have spent 
months putting together a fair bill--not perfect, but fair. Efforts to 
incorporate dairy compacts into this legislation were defeated more 
than once. It is time to pass this bill and get much-needed funding to 
dairy farmers and to hardworking farmers across the country.
  And let me emphasize that last point. This bill contains almost $9 
billion in emergency assistance to struggling farmers everywhere. 
Within days of the President signing the bill, almost $5 billion of 
that aid will be on its way to farmers. It is all well and good for us 
to spend days listening to talk about this money--how it is distributed 
and how much there should be--but there are hundreds of thousands of 
farmers who need it now to plant, feed, and operate. All the words in 
the world will not help farmers get next year's crop in the ground or 
milk the cows. We have talked enough--it is time now to pass this bill.
  In closing, let me say how much I have enjoyed working with Senator 
Cochran. This is my first year as ranking member on this subcommittee 
and his exceptional leadership, good judgment, and helpful hand has 
been indispensable in making this a positive experience for all of us. 
I would also like to thank his distinguished staff, Rebecca Davies, 
Martha Scott Poindexter, Les Spivey, and Hunt Shipman, for their 
important contributions to this bill. And, of course, I must thank 
Galen Fountain of the minority staff for his wisdom and patience. Galen 
is an invaluable resource to me, to all Democratic Senators, and to the 
Senate itself.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter on the Foreign Market 
Development Program from the USDA be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 1999.
     Hon. Herbert Kohl,
     Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kohl: This is in reply to your request for 
     information about the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) 
     Charter Act and the President's budget to fund the Foreign 
     Market Development Program (FMD) through CCC.
       The President's budget proposes to shift funding for FMD 
     from the FAS appropriated account to the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation (CCC). The budget also proposes to fund a new 
     Quality Samples Program through CCC. In conjunction with the 
     budget, the Administration has forwarded to Congress 
     legislation authorizing the use of CCC funds for FMD and 
     capping expenditures for that purpose at the Fiscal Year (FY) 
     1998 program level of $27.5 million.
       You questioned whether such legislation was necessary or 
     whether the Administration has the authority to fund these 
     programs through CCC administratively. You are indeed 
     correct: although it is the Administration's position that 
     such legislation should be enacted, CCC has the authority to 
     fund FMD and the proposed Quality Samples Program under the 
     Section 5(f) of the CCC Charter Act without additional 
     legislation. The legislation we submitted does not expand the 
     Secretary's existing authority; it limits it by imposing a 
     cap on CCC expenditures for the two programs.
       If FMD ultimately is funded through CCC rather than from 
     the FAS appropriated account, the Administration intends to 
     continue to fund FMD at not less than the historic level of 
     $27.5 million annually.
       Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional 
     information.
           Sincerely,

                                       August Schumacher, Jr.,

                                      Under Secretary for Farm and
                                    Foreign Agricultural Services.

  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

[[Page 25047]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KOHL. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding and also 
thank him and the Senator from Mississippi for their efforts on behalf 
of this legislation. But I must come to the floor today in opposition 
to this bill because it is not fair legislation for all the farmers of 
America--certainly not fair to the farmers of the Northeast, in Rhode 
Island, New England, the Mid-Atlantic States, because they have 
suffered a tremendous loss this year because of a drought that has 
historic implications. It was the worst drought in the history of this 
region in over 105 years of record keeping by the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. This has had a devastating impact on the 
farmers of my State and of the region.
  Most people do not consider the Northeast to be a place where there 
are lots of farms, but in my own small State of Rhode Island there are 
over 700 farmers who grow vegetables, turf, nursery stock, cranberries, 
strawberries, and potatoes. We also have numerous orchards and dairy 
farms. All of these farms have suffered devastating losses. And these 
are family farms; these are not large agricultural combines--certainly 
not in Rhode Island. They are family farms that are struggling to make 
do. This year they had a difficult struggle because of this historic 
drought.
  We originally thought that farm losses would be about 50 percent of 
the crop--a serious blow. But I have just been given data today from 
our agricultural authorities where in Rhode Island they are suggesting 
that the August estimates were not as severe as the reality is turning 
out to be. In fact, the estimate is that the percentage loss of sweet 
corn in the State is 80 percent, silage corn is 70 percent, potatoes is 
60 percent, mixed vegetables is 75 percent, and hay is 50 percent. 
These are difficult losses to bear, particularly difficult to bear 
without assistance.
  We have received some rain through the last few weeks, but it has not 
been enough to reverse the damage that already was done April through 
August with the worst drought in the history of our region.
  That is why I am here today, because, frankly, the resources in this 
legislation that are being made available to the Northeast, to the Mid-
Atlantic farmers, are insufficient. We have tried, over the last 
several months, to structure a meaningful relief package that would 
help the farmers throughout this country--every region.
  In the 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, Democrats 
offered an amendment to provide disaster relief for America's farmers 
and ranchers which would have taken care of all of our farmers 
throughout the country. This provision was rejected by the majority. 
Later, Democrats offered additional disaster relief amendments to the 
fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill as it was being 
considered in the subcommittee. Those amendments were rejected also.
  On the floor of the Senate in August, I joined my Democratic 
colleagues in supporting an emergency farm package that would provide 
over $10 billion to producers in need of relief, including $2.6 billion 
in disaster relief and $212 million in emergency conservation 
assistance, both of which would have been very critical to my farmers 
in Rhode Island and throughout the Northeast. Sadly, that proposal was 
also rejected. There was even discussion to try to work out a 
compromise, a bipartisan effort, on the order of $8.8 billion. This, 
too, failed.
  Finally, I think in the hopes of moving the process forward, we did 
agree to the final $7 billion package proposed by the majority, as a 
downpayment, if you will, on the necessary support we hoped we could 
obtain through the conference process and we hoped we would be voting 
on today in this final conference report.
  But today we are faced with a bill which we cannot amend, which we 
must either accept or reject; and, sadly, despite all the efforts, all 
the earnest efforts of my colleagues, I must vote against it because it 
does not provide the kind of assistance that is necessary for the 
farmers of my State and my region.
  Of the $8.7 billion in emergency farm relief in the appropriations 
bill, only $1.2 billion is set aside for all disasters declared by the 
Secretary of Agriculture in 1999. In the Northeast alone, our Governors 
have told us we are facing nearly $2 billion in total losses. And as 
today's data indicates, those are probably conservative estimates. For 
the Department of Agriculture to cover 65 percent of our region's 
losses alone would cost about $1.3 billion. Yet we have only 
appropriated $1.2 billion for the entire country--every region, for 
every natural disaster from January 1 to December 31.
  So as you can see, all of this money that is within this bill could 
easily be used in the Northeast, in the Mid-Atlantic alone, but it will 
be spread throughout the country and, in fact, be spread in such a way 
that my farmers will be particularly disadvantaged.
  It is unlikely this $1.2 billion of disaster relief money will be 
available to my farmers until sometime in the middle of next year 
because, as the legislation is written, the Secretary must wait until 
the end of the year to calculate all of the damages throughout the 
country and then begin the cumbersome process of proration and 
distribution of these funds, which could take months. That is another 
problem with the legislation. Not only are there insufficient funds 
available to the Northeast, but these funds may not come until the 
middle of next year.
  That is in contrast to what my colleague from Wisconsin pointed out 
with respect to those farmers who are part of the Agricultural Market 
Transition Act. There is $5.5 billion there. That money will be flowing 
out immediately. They will get assistance immediately. Not only will 
they get this assistance, but they will also qualify for this $1.2 
billion of natural disaster money if they suffered their loss through a 
natural disaster. They will get essentially two bites of the apple, 
where my farmers in the Northeast will get what is left.
  There are many States throughout this country that qualify for this 
disaster program, this $1.2 billion--33 States, in fact. So there will 
be a long line of farmers who have to be satisfied by this insufficient 
amount of money.
  There are things we could have done, I believe we should have done, 
in addition to putting more money into the natural disaster program so 
we could take care of the real needs of all the farmers across the 
country.
  I had hoped we could have increased the Crop Loss Disaster Assistance 
Program, which is something that has been helpful in the past. There is 
also a Livestock Feed Assistance Program which is also critically 
important to my farmers in the Northeast because much of the silage has 
been lost. In our dairy farms particularly, that is a critical loss.
  We also, as we go forward, should think about the structure of the 
program for noninsured crop disaster assistance, the NAP program. There 
is a trigger in that program that requires a 35-percent areawide loss. 
Sometimes we can't meet that loss, but, frankly, most of the crops in 
my State are noninsured. They are strawberries, vegetables, et cetera. 
They individually sometimes can't meet this trigger, and they are 
denied any assistance whatsoever. If that program were more flexible, 
we could address some of the concerns we are talking about today in 
terms of insufficient funding.
  In addition to this lack of resources, in addition to the unfairness 
of the distribution, in addition to the lack of timely response to the 
problems of my farmers in the Northeast and Rhode Island, there is also 
the issue of the dairy compact. Failing to extend this undercuts a 
program that was working, a program that provided not only support to 
the dairy industry in my State but, frankly, provided consumers with 
milk at reasonable prices. It also provided tremendous environmental 
benefit to the State of Rhode Island and other States because of the 
pressure of

[[Page 25048]]

development, particularly in the Northeast. Many of these dairy farms, 
given the choice of producing at a loss each year or selling out to 
developers, will sell out. In Rhode Island, the little green space we 
have becomes less and less and less.
  For all these reasons, I must oppose this legislation. I hope in the 
remaining days of this session we can, in fact, find ways and other 
legislative vehicles, perhaps even a supplemental, to direct assistance 
to the farmers throughout this country, including farmers in the 
Northeast, particularly in my home State of Rhode Island.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I will talk a few minutes this morning in 
support of the Ashcroft amendment to the Agriculture appropriations 
bill dealing with sanctions. I know this Agriculture appropriations 
bill covers many areas, including dairy, as we just heard our colleague 
from Rhode Island discuss. I have a different view, of course, on the 
dairy situation. I hope to have more on that in another statement that 
will also be entered into the Record in regard to the Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  I was disappointed the conferees decided to drop the Ashcroft Food 
and Medicine for the World amendment added by 70 Senators to the Senate 
Ag appropriations bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill to be introduced 
by Senator Ashcroft and the cosponsors of his amendment. While I would 
prefer this bill addressed all unilateral sanctions, not just food and 
medicine, I strongly support the bill as a good start to reforming our 
sanctions policy. As a cosponsor of the Lugar Sanctions Reform Act, I 
believe it is long overdue that the administration and the Congress 
think before we sanction.
  it makes no sense to punish the people of a country with which we 
have a dispute. Denying food and medicine does nothing to penalize the 
leaders of any country. Government leaders can always obtain adequate 
food and medicine, but people suffer under these sanctions, whether 
they are multilateral or unilateral. Those two areas should never be a 
part of any sanction.
  At the same time our farmers suffer from the lingering effects of the 
Asian financial crisis as well as those in other areas of the world, we 
either have, or are debating, sanctions that further restrict markets 
for our farmers and medical supply companies. Since most of our 
sanctions are unilateral, it makes no sense to deny our farmers and 
workers important markets when those sales are made by our allies. I 
need not remind any of you that we are still experiencing the aftermath 
of the Soviet grain embargo of the early 1980's when the United States 
earned a reputation as an unreliable supplier.
  Another example of how we have harmed our farmers is the Cuban 
embargo. I have for several years supported Senator Dodd's Cuba food 
and medicine bill, similar to this proposal. For 40 years this policy 
was aimed at removing Fidel Castro--yet he is still there. This is a 
huge market for midwestern farmers, yet it is shut off to us for no 
good reason. Because Cuba has fiscal problems, many of its people are 
experiencing hardship. Those who have relationships with Cuban-
Americans receive financial support, but those who don't have relatives 
here need access to scarce food and medical supplies. Higher shipping 
costs from other import sources has restricted the volume of food that 
can be imported. Yet here we are 90 miles away. We could help these 
people, but we cannot. It is time to develop more contact with the 
Cuban people and time to help those who do not have relatives in the 
United States. This bill does not aid the government, as United States 
guarantees can only be provided through NGOs and the private sector. 
Currently, donations are permitted, as well as sales of medicine, but 
they are very bureaucratically difficult to obtain, and they don't help 
everyone. Our farmers are in a good position to help and they should be 
allowed to do so.
  I applaud Senators Ashcroft and Hagel and many others for there work 
to ensure farmers and medical companies will not be held hostage to 
those who believe sanctions can make a difference. Any administration 
would have to get Congressional approval for any food and medicine 
sanction. This is our best opportunity to help farmers and to show the 
world we are reliable suppliers. I urge the support of my colleagues 
for this long overdue legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, seeing no Senators seeking recognition, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time 
be charged equally among all sides to the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized for as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for the work that has been done on both sides. I know this is a very 
difficult issue, one about which Members have very different ideas 
concerning resolution. I do appreciate the work that has been done.
  Certainly, one of the things that has occurred and has an impact on 
what we are talking about today has been the difficult times we are 
having in agriculture. In my State of Wyoming, we have basically three 
areas of economic activity. This is one of the three; minerals is the 
other. Both have not been good lately. Fortunately, there are some 
signs of improvement, particularly in the livestock area, which is of 
course the most important part of Wyoming's agriculture.
  I come to the floor to talk about what we need to do in the long run. 
We are talking in this bill about a great deal of fairly short-term 
remedies. I don't argue with those particularly. I guess maybe we have 
spent a little more money than we should, used the emergency technique 
for some things that probably are not bona fide emergencies. On the 
other hand, we have a great deal to do in our community in agriculture 
and all that needs to be done.
  No one doubts the urgency of providing the short-term relief, whether 
it be from emergencies in weather, from emergencies in markets, or 
whether it be other kinds.
  But the fact is that this, in my view, is not the long-term solution 
to the problems we have. Producers in Wyoming generally do not favor 
returning to the Government farm programs. I think they would much 
prefer the idea of being in the marketplace, producing for the 
marketplace, developing new markets.
  We had an agricultural seminar in our State recently, and those were 
the things that were talked about--that we do need to develop markets; 
we need overseas markets because we are great producers. We produce 
efficiently and at good prices. But in order to do that, we have to 
continue to develop markets. I think we have to, in addition, reduce 
the kinds of restrictions that prohibit the sort of production we 
choose. So we need to follow up, and I think many of the agricultural 
leaders in the Senate believe we have some things we have to do to make 
Freedom to Farm work. Those are the things we must do in following up 
to make that marketplace work.
  One of them, of course, is to reduce unfair trade barriers throughout 
the world. We have a great many of those, and probably the most 
pressing one is the European Union, where they have

[[Page 25049]]

found various ways through tariff barriers, or nontariff barriers, to 
keep agricultural products in the country moving--beef, for example, 
which is important to me and others.
  We have a great opportunity, as we go forward with the WTO meetings 
in Seattle soon, to take to that meeting the kinds of things that are 
important to us. I happen to be involved as chairman of the 
subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific rim. So I have been involved with 
some of the countries with which we deal to a great extent.
  Japan has a 40-percent tariff on American beef. This is not a 
realistic thing to do. If we are going to have trade organizations and 
trade treaties that are designed to level the playing field and be 
fair, those kinds of things should not happen. We have some 
opportunities in China, as a matter of fact, where they moved this 
summer to suggest they would take more wheat and also more beef. So we 
have some great opportunities to do that. We just this week had some 
hearings with respect to the NAFTA treaty with Canada. In this 
instance, we had some hearings before the International Trade 
Commission to seek enforcement of those trade agreements.
  So what I am saying, of course, is that these are the kinds of 
things, over the long term, that we have to do to cause American 
agriculture to produce for the market and to be able to produce from 
that market a reasonable price. We can do that.
  Unilateral sanctions. We have had a great deal of talk and discussion 
about unilateral sanctions. I think most people would agree that 
unilateral sanctions are not an effective tool for foreign policy. 
Basically, what we do is bar our own producers from selling in those 
particular places and gain no advantage from it. If there have to be 
sanctions, they certainly ought not to be unilateral. They should be 
through some kind of a trade organization.
  So that, coupled with enforcement, I believe, of trade agreements is 
something that agricultural people are very anxious about. Obviously, 
foreign trade is not the only remedy, but it is one of the major ones. 
It was unfortunate that at the time we were moving into the marketplace 
in agriculture, we had the currency crisis in Asia, a place where we 
have a potential for great markets. Of course, now, hopefully, the 
Asian market is strengthening and we will find we will be able to move 
back there again.
  As I mentioned, foreign trade is not the only remedy and not the only 
issue on which we ought to be working. I think we have to have some 
other innovative avenues to spur market competition. I think one of 
them that, again, was talked about at our seminar in Wyoming was 
producer-owned cooperatives that move on through to the retail 
marketing of these products.
  I think it is pretty clear, particularly in the case of beef--or at 
least it is very appropriate there--where you had a major reduction in 
the price received by producers but no reduction in the retail market, 
no reduction in the grocery store when you went there--so there is some 
sort of a problem in between. We think producer-owned cooperatives may 
be a way to do the processing and to ensure that, indeed, producers are 
given their fair share of the final product. Another is niche 
marketing. A great number of things are taking place on the Internet, 
where people are marketing products in specialties areas.
  I think we need to look at the concentration of packers, where there 
are only two or three packers that handle 80 to 85 percent of the 
livestock. I think there are some similarities in the grain industry, 
where very few buyers are available to go into the marketplace. So you 
have to ask the question, Is there, indeed, a competitive, fair 
marketplace? We have the Packers and Stockyard Act which is designed to 
do that. Over the years, we have appealed to the Justice Department a 
number of times to look at whether there was, indeed, a monopoly 
factor. They have said that, under the law, there is not. Not everybody 
agrees with that. Nevertheless, that has been the result.
  We are going to, I think sometime this week, introduce a proposition 
that would have to do with packers' ownership of livestock and see if 
we can do something about reducing the potential for monopolies so the 
market prices are there. In this bill, I think there is a market-price-
revealing requirement that is very important.
  Financial solvency, of course, for agriculture is always difficult.
  Crop insurance. The Senator who is presiding at this time continues 
to do a great deal with crop insurance, and we need to do that--at 
least from the weather emergency standpoint. That is the kind of thing 
that needs to be in place to protect the investment of farmers. In the 
form of tax relief, we have tried to do some things to extend income 
averaging. As you can understand, because some years are good and some 
are not, there needs to be the ability to income average.
  There is interest in estate taxes. Most agricultural people have 
their estate in property, and they make very little profit often, but 
it accumulates toward their estate under the circumstances, and after 
they get beyond the exemption of 55 percent, that estate has to be paid 
in taxes. That is extremely difficult for agriculture. So we are going 
to be doing some things there.
  Regulatory relief is particularly important in States such as ours, 
where 50 percent of the land belongs to the Federal Government, where 
much of agricultural activity, particularly livestock, is carried on, 
on public lands. The restrictions sometimes are very difficult.
  So I am pleased we are going forward with this bill. As is the case 
with many, it probably isn't the way I would do it if I were in charge. 
But I am not in charge, nor is anyone else. So when you put it all 
together, it is difficult. I think the committee has done the best they 
could and has done a good job, but we need to focus on the long-term 
prosperity in agriculture, the family farm. We need to focus on 
continuing to keep U.S. producers competitive in the world market and, 
finally, opening those markets throughout the world for our 
agricultural products on a fair basis, so we are not kept out of those 
markets by nontariff barriers, and, in addition, of course, to develop 
domestically the things we do.
  So, again, I say to the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, good 
job. He has worked very hard in doing this, and we are pleased that 
this bill will be sent to the White House.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, repeat what I 
said on the floor yesterday, which is that I am going to support this 
emergency package, both the financial emergency package and the 
disaster relief emergency package.
  I am going to do so because, may I say for the Record, Tracy Beckman 
tells me this will mean $620 million in AMTA payments to Minnesota, and 
this will be important for some 60,000-plus producers. I hasten to add 
that most of this money to farmers will end up being used to pay back 
bankers.
  I also am going to support this because I want to get some assistance 
out there. I don't think we are going to have enough with this $8.7 
billion package. I don't think there is enough for disaster relief.
  Clearly, our farmers in the Northeast are saying we don't figure in. 
And in northwest Minnesota where we have had so much wet weather and 
some farmers haven't been able to get a crop in or much of a crop in, I 
fear there won't be enough assistance.
  But I think that when we are at least talking about something we can 
pass. We need to get this to the President and have President sign it 
in order to get some of this financial assistance out to our 
communities within the next couple of weeks. For this reason, I am 
going to support it. I also want to say that I hope to have to never 
vote for such a package again.
  I believe these disaster relief bills are becoming a disaster. I 
think they are a complicated way of acknowledging the fact that we have 
a failed agricultural policy. Who would ever have dreamed that we would 
have spent over $19 billion now to keep farmers going post-

[[Page 25050]]

Freedom to Farm bill. This doesn't make a lot of sense.
  The producers in my State, the farmers in my State, much less the 
rural communities, the small businesses that are affected by this, the 
implement dealers, and those who sell tools all say: What we want is a 
decent price.
  I want to make it real clear that I wish--though I appreciate the 
work, I don't think there is any Senator on the floor who has any 
unkind words to say about Senator Cochran, publicly or privately, 
because I think he is held in such high regard--I wish we were doing 
this through a somewhat different mechanism because I fear that too 
much of the support will be in reverse relation to need. I think we 
will have yet another supplementary emergency package to deal with, 
especially disaster relief because there is not enough in here.
  In any case, we ought to deal with the root of the problem. The 
family farmers in my State of Minnesota and in the rural communities 
that have been so affected by this economic convulsion in agriculture--
it is a depression in agriculture--I want to see a new policy. The 
Freedom to Farm bill has become the ``freedom to fail'' bill. I do not 
hear very many Senators talking any longer about staying the course. We 
have to change the course of agricultural policy.
  I make a plea on floor of the Senate that before we finish, before we 
adjourn, before we leave Washington, before we go back to our States, 
we pass legislation to change farm policy; that we pass some 
legislation to deal with the price crisis; that we pass legislation to 
give our farmers and our producers some leverage in the marketplace so 
they can make a decent price and so they can support their families.
  The plea or the cry in rural America from family farmers is nothing 
more than to say for all you people who believe there should be a 
family wage, or a living wage, and a parent or parents ought to be able 
to make enough of a wage to support their families, well, those of us 
who produce the food and the fiber for families in this country ask for 
the same thing.
  That is what this is all about.
  I want to translate this crisis in personal terms.
  Lynn Jostock is a Waseca, MN, dairy farmer. He tells his story:

       I have four children. My 11-year-old son Al helps my 
     husband and I by doing chores. But it often is too much to 
     expect of someone so young. For instance, one day our son 
     came home from school. His father asked Al for some help 
     driving the tractor to another farm about 3 miles away. Al 
     was going to come home right afterward. But he wound up 
     helping his father cut hay. Then he helped rake hay. Then he 
     helped bale hay. My son did not return home until 9:30 p.m. 
     He had not yet eaten supper. He had not yet done his 
     schoolwork. We don't have other help. The price we get at the 
     farm gate isn't enough to allow us to hire any farmhands or 
     to help our community by providing more jobs. And it isn't 
     fair to ask your 11-year-old son to work so hard to keep the 
     family going. When will he burn out? How will he ever want to 
     farm?

  Gary Wilson, an Odin farmer, says:

       Received the church newsletter in the mail. What's normally 
     to the entire congregation had been addressed to only 
     farmers. The newsletter said farmers should quit farming if 
     it was not profitable. If larger, corporate-style farms were 
     the way to turn a profit, the independent farmers should let 
     go and find something else to do. ``What he doesn't 
     understand is that the farmers are his congregation. If we 
     go, he won't have a church.''

  Oh, how right Gary Wilson is.
  The point is, if we continue with this failed policy, we are going to 
lose a generation of producers. We are going to see this convulsion in 
agriculture play out to the point where we have a few large 
conglomerates that control all phases of the food industry. Believe me, 
if you have just a few landowners versus a lot of family farmers who 
live and buy in the community and invest in the community, there won't 
be the support for the church. There won't be the support for the 
synagogue. There won't be the support for the small business. There 
won't be the support for the school system.
  Darrel Mosel is a Gaylord farmer.

       Farming for 18 years. When he started farming in Sibley 
     County, which is one of Minnesota's largest agricultural 
     counties, there were 4 implement dealers in Gaylord, the 
     county seat. Today, there are none. There's not even an 
     implement dealer in all of Sibley County. The same thing has 
     happened to feed stores and grain elevators. Since the farm 
     policies of the 1980s and the resulting reduction in prices, 
     farmers don't buy new equipment they either use baling wire 
     to hold things together or quit. ``The farm houses have 
     people in them but they don't farm. There's something wrong 
     with that.''

  That is a direct quote from Darrel.
  John Doe--this is a farmer who wants to remain anonymous:

       This family has gone through a divorce and the father and 
     three children are operating the farm. The father has taken 
     an off farm job to make payments to the bank and has his 12 
     year old son and 14 year old daughter are operating the 
     farming operation, unassisted while he is away at work. The 
     neighbors have threatened to turn him in to human services 
     for child abandonment and so he had to have his 18 year old 
     daughter quit work and stay at home to watch the two younger 
     children.
       The 12 year old boy is working heavy farm equipment, mostly 
     alone. He is driving these big machines and can hardly reach 
     the clutch on the tractor. It's this or lose the farm.

  I could go on and on, but I will not. I want to repeat what I have 
said, which is that I am going to support this emergency assistance 
package. But all it does, at best, is enable farmers to live to farm 
another day. The truth of the matter is it isn't going to help the 
farmers who it needs to help the most.
  In addition, I am going to support it because at least it gets some 
assistance to some families. It doesn't do anything for the small 
businesses. Most important of all, farmers simply will not have any 
future.
  Ken and Lois Schaefer from Greenwald, MN, will not receive much 
assistance. Ken and Lois are one of the few small, independent hog 
operations still remaining, with roughly 400 hogs. They raise feeder 
hogs and sows. Lois has an off-farm job to make ends meet. Ken is 
considering an additional job. This is common. People who farm have 
jobs off the farm; it is unbelievable stress on the family. There is no 
choice if they are to survive.
  A recent hog operation opened near the Schaefer farm and is seeking 
employees. Ken's neighbor started working part time for the hog 
factory. Ken and Lois will not receive much assistance; there is not 
near enough livestock assistance. However, Ken and Lois do not 
necessarily want assistance. What they want is a decent price for their 
hogs.
  They ask the question: How can it be that we as hog producers are 
facing extinction and these packers are in hog heaven? How can it be 
that we as hog producers are facing extinction and the IBPs and the 
Cargills and the ConAgras are making record profits?
  Several weeks ago, I spoke about the crisis that is ravaging rural 
America. I told my colleagues about farmers I visited in Minnesota, 
Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas. Today, I want to talk about 
why there is this convulsion, why every month more and more family 
farms are put on the auction block; why every month more and more 
family farmers are forced to give up their way of life; why they lose 
their work; why they are losing their hope; and why they are sometimes 
losing their communities.
  We ought to act now. I have said to the majority leader three or four 
times that I want an opportunity to bring to the floor of the Senate 
some legislation that will alleviate the suffering. I want to talk 
about this today. I want the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on 
a moratorium on any further mergers or acquisition of any huge 
agribusiness. We have a frightening concentration of market power. 
These big conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table and 
are driving out family farmers. At the very minimum, we can put into 
effect the moratorium and have a study so over the next 18 months we 
can come up with legislation while this moratorium is in place that 
will put some competition and free enterprise back into the food 
industry, giving our family farmers, our producers, a fighting chance.
  Several weeks ago I spoke on the floor at some length about the 
crisis that is ravaging rural America today. I told my colleagues about 
some of the

[[Page 25051]]

farmers I've visited with in Minnesota, in Iowa, in Texas, and around 
the country who are on the brink of financial disaster because of 
record low farm prices.
  Farmers from all around the country were in Washington, DC, that week 
because they know that the future of the family farm is at stake. Every 
month, more and more family farms are put on the auction block. Every 
month, more and more family farmers are being forced to give up their 
life's work, their homes, and their communities. We must act now.
  In Minnesota, about 6,500 farmers are expected to go out of business 
this year. That's about eight percent of all farmers in my state. In 
northwest Minnesota, which has been hit especially hard by this crisis, 
about 11 percent are expected to go under. An August 1999 survey of 
Minnesota County Emergency Boards reported that more Minnesota farmers 
are quitting or retiring with fewer farmers taking their place; more 
Minnesota farm families are having to rely on non-farm income to stay 
afloat; and the number of Minnesota farmers leaving the land will 
continue to increase unless and until farm prices improve. We must act 
now.
  Today I want to take a step back and look at the larger picture. I 
want to examine what is going on in American agriculture and why; what 
it means for farmers and for us as a society; and, most importantly, 
what we can do about it.
  I want to talk about record low farm prices. I want to talk about 
record high levels of market concentration and the absence of effective 
competition in almost every major commodity market. I want to talk 
about the failure of our antitrust enforcement authorities to do much 
of anything about this.
  I want to talk about the need for Congress to take immediate action 
to restore competitive markets in agriculture and give farmers more 
equal bargaining power against corporate agribusiness. And I also want 
to make the case for a moratorium on large agribusiness mergers and 
acquisitions, effective immediately, which I have recently proposed 
along with Senator Dorgan.
  In my travels around Minnesota and around the country, I've found 
that many people are not even aware of the crisis afflicting rural 
America today. Even fewer have any idea to what extent market 
concentration and anti-competitive practices have substantially 
eliminated competition in agriculture. So let me just start by ticking 
off a few statistics that some of my colleagues may find surprising.
  In the past decade and a half, an explosion of mergers, acquisitions, 
and anti-competitive practices has raised concentration in American 
agriculture to record levels.
  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.
  The top four turkey processors now control 42 percent of production.
  49 percent of all chicken broilers are now slaughtered by the four 
largest firms.
  The top four firms control 67 percent of ethanol production.
  The top four sheep, poultry, wet corn, and dry corn processors now 
control 73 percent, 55 percent, 74 percent, and 57 percent of the 
market, respectively.
  The four largest grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of elevator 
facilities.
  By conventional measures, none of these markets is really 
competitive. According to the economic literature, markets are no 
longer competitive if the top four firms control over 40 percent. In 
all the markets I just listed, the market share of the top four firms 
is 40 percent or more. So there really is no effective competition in 
the processing markets for pork, beef, chicken, turkeys, ethanol, 
flour, soybean, wet corn, dry corn and grain.
  This development is not entirely new. In some sectors of agriculture, 
there was already considerable horizontal concentration at the turn of 
the century. Pork and beef slaughtering and processing were dominated 
by Wilson, Armour and Swift. That's why Congress passed the Packers and 
Stockyards Act in 1921.
  But now, with this explosion of mergers, acquisitions, joint 
ventures, marketing agreements, and anti-competitive behavior by the 
largest firms, these and other commodity markets are becoming more and 
more concentrated by the day.
  Recently the Justice Department approved a modified merger between 
Cargill and Continental. Just a few weeks ago Smithfield Foods, a major 
meat processor, announced the acquisition of Murphy Family Farms, a 
giant hog producer. DuPont is buying Pioneer Hi-Bred International. ADM 
is buying more and more of IBP. Among seed companies and input 
suppliers, there has been more than $15 billion worth of combinations 
in the last three years.
  In my hands I have a monthly listing of new mergers, acquisitions, 
and other agribusiness deals through March 1999. Let me just read a 
sample of some of the headlines to give you a sense of how rapidly this 
concentration is taking place. March 1999: Dupont to buy Pioneer. 
Farmland-Cenex to discuss combining grain operations. Smithfield to 
acquire Carroll's.
  February 1999: Three California dairies preparing for merger. 
December 1998: Monsanto completes Dekalb purchase. Smithfield gains 
control of Schneider. Cargill buys Bunge's Venezuelan units. November 
1998: Cargill buys out rival grain operation; deal boosts firm's hold 
on market. Dow Chemical completes purchase of Mycogen. IBP buys 
appetizer business in expansion move. And so on.
  The effect of this surge of concentration is that agribusiness 
conglomerates have increased their bargaining power over farmers. When 
farmers have fewer buyers to choose from, they have less leverage to 
get a good price. Anybody who has been to an auction knows that you get 
a better price with more bidders. Moreover, when farmers have fewer 
buyers to choose from, agribusinesses can more easily dictate 
conditions that farmers have to meet. And fewer buyers means farmers 
often have to haul their production longer distances, driving up their 
transportation costs.
  In addition to this horizontal concentration among firms in the same 
line of business, we are also seeing another kind of concentration. 
It's called vertical integration. Vertical integration is when one firm 
expands its control over the various stages of food production, from 
development of the animal or plant gene, to production of fertilizer 
and chemical inputs, to actual production, to processing, to marketing 
and distribution, to the supermarket shelf.
  The poultry industry is already vertically integrated, by and large. 
95 percent of all chicken broilers are produced under production 
contracts with fewer than 40 firms. Now the same process is occurring 
in the pork industry. Pork packers are buying up what's called captive 
supply--hogs that they own or have contracted for under marketing 
agreements. If these trends continue, grain and soybean production may 
soon be vertically integrated just like poultry.
  The problem with this kind of vertical concentration is that it 
destroys competitive markets. Potential competitors often never know 
the sale price for goods at any point in the process. That's because 
there never is a sale price until the consumer makes the final 
purchase, since nothing is being sold outside the integrated firm. It's 
hard to have effective competition if prices are not publicly 
available. Today there is essentially no price discovery, and therefore 
no effective competition, for chicken feed, day old chicks, live 
chicken broilers, turkeys and eggs. If vertical integration of pork and 
dairy continues at the current pace, we can expect much the same in 
those industries.
  Vertical concentration stacks the deck against farmers, as we can see

[[Page 25052]]

clearly in the case of the rapidly consolidating hog industry. An April 
1999 report by the Minnesota Land Stewardship Project found that:

       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 independent farmers' hogs and insufficient 
     market information regarding price; and
       Lower prices result.

  Even the USDA's Western Corn Belt hog procurement study showed price 
discrimination against smaller farmers. Smaller farmers were paid lower 
base prices, lower premiums, and they were given little or no access to 
long-term marketing contracts.
  The combined effect of these two different kinds of concentration is 
to put enormous market power in the hands of a handful of global 
agribusiness giants. Not only do these conglomerates dominate 
processing for all the major commodities, but the same firms appear 
among the top four or five processors for several different 
commodities. ConAgra, for example, is among the Top Four for beef, 
pork, turkeys, sheep, and seafood, and it's number five for chicken 
broilers. To make matters worse, many of these firms are vertically 
integrated. Cargill, for example, is among the Top Four firms trading 
grain, producing animal feed, feeding hogs and beef, and processing 
hogs and beef.
  Farmers clearly see the connection between this concentration and 
lower farm prices. Leland Swensen, president of the National Farmers 
Union, recently testified that:

       The increasing level of market concentration, with the 
     resulting lack of competition in the marketplace, is one of 
     the top concerns of 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.

  Well, no wonder. How else can you explain the record profits that the 
large agribusiness conglomerates are racking up, at the same time low 
prices are causing a depression for family farmers? IBP's earnings in 
1998, for example, were up 62 percent. In the second quarter of this 
year, they were up a whopping 126 percent. Packing plants, food 
processors and retailers are all reporting record profits.
  While corporate agribusiness grows fat, farmers are facing lean 
times. The commodity price index is the lowest since 1987. Hog prices 
are at their lowest since 1972. Cotton and soybean prices are the 
lowest they've been since the early 1970s. Feed grain prices are the 
lowest they've been since the mid-1980s. Food grain prices are at the 
lowest levels since the early 1990s. Agricultural income in the mid-
Western states is predicted to fall between 15 and 60 percent this 
year.
  Current prices are so low that many family farmers are lucky to stay 
in business. Market prices are lower than their cost of production. The 
value of field crops is expected to be more than 24 percent lower in 
1999 than it was in 1996--42 percent lower for wheat, 39 percent lower 
for corn, and 26 percent lower for soybeans. But farmers' expenses 
aren't falling by the same amount. In fact, they're not falling at all. 
Farmers can't cash flow if their selling prices are falling through the 
floor while their buying prices are shooting through the roof.
  It all comes down to market power. Corporate agribusinesses are using 
their market power to lower prices, without passing those price savings 
on to consumers. The gap between what consumers pay for food and what 
farmers get paid is growing wider. According to the USDA, the so-called 
farm-to-retail price spread--the difference between the farm value and 
the retail price of food--rose 4.7 percent in 1997. From 1984 to 1998, 
prices paid to farmers fell 36 percent, while consumer food prices 
actually increased by 3 percent.
  In other words, the farmer's share of farm profit is falling. The 
farmer share of every retail dollar has fallen from 50 percent in 1952 
to 25 percent today. By the same token, the profit share of farm input, 
marketing, and processing companies is rising. The agribusiness 
conglomerates claim that this is because they're putting more ``added 
value'' into food products. Actually, it looks like they're taking 
additional value out.
  Some people have blamed low farm prices on other factors, such as 
declining exports. That's a big debate that will have to wait for 
another day. But let me just say this. We can hardly expect export 
growth to translate into higher prices for American farmers if the 
multinational agribusinesses still have enough bargaining power to keep 
farm prices down.
  As Jim Braun, a third-generation Iowa farmer, wrote recently, 
``Unfortunately, increased exports do not necessarily mean more money 
for farmers. IBP has doubled exports since 1990 and quadrupled profits 
in 1998, while it destroyed family farmers by paying below Depression-
era prices for hogs. If Cargill, ConAgra, or ADM, the three major grain 
processors and exporters, could sell corn overseas for $20 per bushel, 
they could still pay American farmers below the cost of production 
simply because they have the power to do so.''
  What we do know for sure is that low farm prices are driving 
thousands of farmers into bankruptcy, and concentration is helping to 
depress prices. That's reason enough why we should take immediate 
action to address the problem of concentration. But there are plenty of 
other reasons why we should be concerned about concentration in 
agriculture.
  First of all, concentration is bad for the environment. When large-
scale corporate feedlots replace family-size farms, they create large 
amounts of waste in a relatively small space. That puts enormous strain 
on the local ecology. The lower prices resulting from unequal 
bargaining power also put pressure on farmers to abandon careful soil 
and water conservation practices.
  There's another reason why we should be concerned about concentration 
in agriculture. The price effects of unequal bargaining power are 
tremendously destructive of community and family values. This 
connection was made explicit in an infamous 1962 report by the 
Committee for Economic Development, whose members included some of the 
biggest food companies.
  Amazingly, the Committee had this to say about community and family 
values. They recommended investment ``in projects that break up village 
life by drawing people to centers of employment away from the village . 
. . because village life is a major source of opposition to change.'' 
They went on to say, ``Where there are religious obstacles to modern 
economic progress, the religion may have to be taken less seriously or 
its character changed.''
  So the largest agribusinesses were afraid that ``village life'' and 
religion would stand in the way of modern economic progress. But what 
exactly did they mean by the term ``modern economic progress"? It turns 
out they meant the bankruptcy and forced emigration of two million 
farmers. That's what their report recommended. These agribusiness 
giants were advocating lower price supports for farmers in order to 
lower farm prices. And the primary benefits of lowering farm prices, 
they argued, would be to lower input prices for the food companies, to 
increase foreign trade, and to depress wage levels by putting two 
million farmers out of business and dumping them into the urban labor 
pool.
  There's a third reason why we should be concerned about concentration 
in agriculture. As the Committee for Economic Development report makes 
clear, this concentration is harmful to the economic development of 
rural communities. It's been estimated that when a farm goes under, 
three to five jobs are destroyed. For every six farm failures, one 
rural business shuts down.
  The reason is pretty simple. When production is controlled by more 
non-local corporations, profits don't get reinvested in the community. 
When family businesses operate local farms, elevators, and grocery 
stores, they plough profits right back into other local businesses. 
Those revenues circulate locally three or four times, creating what's 
called a multiplier effect. But

[[Page 25053]]

there's no multiplier effect when non-local corporations drain profits 
out of the community. Rural communities become little more than a 
source of cheap labor inputs for agribusiness multinationals--to be 
purchased as cheaply as possible in competition with low-wage labor 
overseas.
  Obviously, this kind of concentration is not good for the social and 
economic health of rural communities. According to the Nebraska Center 
for Rural Affairs, virtually all researchers have found that social 
conditions deteriorate in rural communities when farm size and absentee 
ownership increase. Studies have shown that communities surrounded by 
large corporate farms suffer from greater income polarization--with a 
few wealthy elites, a majority of poor laborers, and virtually no 
middle class. The tax base shrinks and the quantity and quality of 
their public services, public education, and local government declines.
  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. . . . 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.'' He concludes that ``Societies in which income, wealth, and 
power are more equitably distributed are generally healthier than those 
in which they are highly concentrated.''
  I think this last point is true not only of rural communities, but of 
our country as a whole. ``Societies in which income, wealth, and power 
are more equitably distributed are generally healthier than those in 
which they are highly concentrated.'' In other words, we all do better 
when we all do better. When we have a thriving middle class, including 
a thriving family farm sector, our economy performs better. Our 
democracy functions better.
  The idea that concentrations of wealth, of economic power, and of 
political power are unhealthy for our democracy is a theme that runs 
throughout American history, from Thomas Jefferson to Andrew Jackson to 
the Progressive Era to the New Deal. But this idea was perhaps most 
forcefully expressed by the People's Party of the late 1800s, sometimes 
called the Populists.
  The People's Party embodied popular disgust with rampant 
monopolization and concentration of economic and political power. The 
Populist platform from the 1892 nominating convention in Omaha 
declared, ``The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to 
build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of 
mankind.'' People's Party founder Tom Watson thundered, ``The People's 
Party is the protest of the plundered against the plunderers.''
  In the Gilded Age of the late 1800s and the Progressive Era of the 
early 1900s, the danger of concentrated economic power was widely 
recognized and hotly debated. The Populists argued that a free and 
democratic society cannot prosper with such concentration of power and 
inequalities of wealth. As the great Supreme Court Justice Louis 
Brandeis said, ``We can have democracy in this country, or we can have 
wealth in the hands of a few. We can't have both.''
  The Populists were reacting to a concentration of wealth, economic 
power, and political power that was remarkably similar to what we've 
experienced in the late 1900s. Today, despite wage gains for low-income 
workers over the past couple years, inequality in America has reached 
record levels.
  According to reports by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
and the Economic Policy Institute, the gap between rich and poor is 
greater today than at any time since the Great Depression. CBO data 
shows that after-tax income is more heavily concentrated among the 
richest one percent of the population than it has been since 1977. CBO 
projects that in 1999 the richest 1 percent of Americans (2.7 million 
people) will receive as much after-tax income as the poorest 38 percent 
(100 million people) put together.
  At the same time, we are witnessing the biggest wave of mergers and 
economic concentration since the late 1800s. Not only in agriculture, 
but in media and communications, banking, health care, airlines, 
energy, hi-tech, defense, you name it. There were 4,728 reportable 
mergers in 1998, compared to 3,087 in 1993; 1,529 in 1991; and a mere 
804 in 1980. And as Joel Klein, head of Justice Department's Antitrust 
Division, has pointed out, the value of last year's mergers equaled the 
combined value of all mergers from 1990 through 1996 put together.
  Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the political scientist E. J. Dionne, 
and the philosopher Michael Sandel, among others, have all drawn 
parallels between the conditions of today and the heyday of monopoly 
power in the 19th Century. In the Gilded Age, the welfare of farmers, 
rural communities, and small businesses was sacrificed for the economic 
interests of burgeoning bank, railroad, and grain monopolies. Today, 
the welfare and future of our family farmers and rural communities is 
being sacrificed to the economic interests of near-monopoly global 
agribusiness.
  While the Sherman Act was written by a Republican senator and signed 
into law by a Republican president, in 1896 William McKinley and the 
Republicans openly sided with the titans of industry and decided to 
write off rural America. They felt that the ``social reformers, 
agrarian rebels, church leaders, and others who challenged the 
authority of the industrial giants'' were being hopelessly sentimental, 
as E.J. Dionne puts it. The McKinley Republicans presumed that monopoly 
interests were on the right side of history, of economic progress, and 
of civilization.
  Interestingly enough, Populist demands were initially rebuffed with 
many of the same arguments that have become conventional wisdom today. 
The Populists were told that monopoly power was the legitimate outcome 
of free markets, that concentration was the inevitable result of 
technological progress, that concentration represented economic 
efficiency, and that there were no viable alternatives.
  These arguments are no truer today than they were at the turn of the 
century. The current trend towards concentration in agriculture is not 
the product of the ``free market,'' nor of Adam Smith's invisible hand. 
For starters, with no effective competition in the major commodity 
markets, these can hardly be held up as models of free market 
competition. What they really stand for is market failure.
  In any event, these near-monopolies were not created by the free 
market at all. They were created by government, just like the railroad 
monopolies of the 19th century. Instead of Adam Smith's invisible hand, 
we are seeing the hand of multinational food conglomerates, in the 
words of Iowa farmer Jim Braun, ``acting inside the glove of 
government.''
  The role of government in creating and fostering these monopolies is 
probably most obvious in the context of intellectual property rights, 
such as patents and copyrights. These are monopolies by definition. The 
whole point of intellectual property protection is to prevent 
competition. Without that patent protection, there would be a lot more 
companies selling seed and other inputs to the farmer, there would be a 
lot more competition, and the farmer would pay much lower prices. And 
because of that protection, intellectual property rights generate 
outsized profits and market power.
  My point is not that these patent protections are a good thing or a 
bad thing. The answer will probably depend on a lot of different 
factors in each particular case. My point is that they are not an 
example of the free market at work. On the contrary, these are 
monopolies formally granted by the government.
  The issue here is not just competition for the patented goods, but 
barriers to competition for the entire agribusiness industry. If one of 
these conglomerates engages in high-handed behavior, new businesses 
could normally be expected to enter the market and steal its market 
share. But smaller

[[Page 25054]]

competitors can't enter the market if the barriers to entry are too 
high. And intellectual property rights are a mighty high barrier.
  In fact, one of the motors driving consolidation of agribusiness 
today is biotechnology. Soon biotech companies will be able to control 
the entire food production chain with their genetics. Already Monsanto, 
DuPont, and Novartis are gobbling up smaller biotech companies' market 
share, patent rights, and customer base. And biotech patent monopolies 
on plant and animal genomes will be a nearly insurmountable barrier to 
market entry in the future.
  Professor Bill Heffernan, who was commissioned by the National 
Farmers Union to study these trends, projects that the entire 
agricultural sector will soon consolidate into a small number of ``food 
chain clusters,'' revolving around intellectual property firms. The 
number of these clusters will be limited by the small number of firms 
with intellectual property protection and by extremely high barriers to 
market entry.
  A handful of vertically integrated food chain clusters are already 
poised to control food production from the gene to the supermarket 
shelf. Professor Heffernan identifies three existing food cluster 
chains: Cargill-Monsanto, ConAgra, and Novartis-ADM. He predicts that 
another two or three will eventually develop. Smaller seed firms, 
independent producers and other independent businesses will face a 
dilemma. Either they join one of alliances to obtain inputs and sell 
their production, or they go out of business.
  The emergence of these titanic food conglomerates is not the 
inevitable outcome of technological progress, but of conscious policy 
choices. Our government-funded research programs, for example, have 
chosen to fund expensive technologies that generate greater sales for 
the largest agribusinesses and diminish the role of farmers in the 
production of food.
  Government support for private-sector monopoly over the ``terminator 
gene'' is a good example of the bias inherent in these choices. The 
terminator gene is a gene that can be inserted in plants to make their 
seeds sterile. It forces farmers to buy new seeds every year instead of 
reusing their own.
  This is not a neutral technology. It raises the income of the seed 
suppliers and intellectual property holders by forcing farmers to pay 
more for seed. As Lee Swenson of the National Farmers Union recently 
has testified, ``Biotechnology and the terminator gene have put the 
farmer at the mercy of the food cluster for seed to plant crop. If the 
firms in the processing stage of the cluster require specific genetic 
material and the farmer cannot get that seed, the farmer has no market 
access.'' Yet this technology was developed with support from none 
other than the USDA.
  While choosing to invest in technologies such as the terminator gene, 
the government has generally failed to invest in technology that would 
benefit the family farmer. Research dollars have not been directed 
towards technologies that would reduce farmers' costs for capital or 
inputs, for example, or help them produce higher value products. Dr. 
Neil Harl of Iowa State University also calls for more government 
support of cutting edge seed varieties that should be made available to 
smaller seed companies, helping them compete against the emerging food 
clusters.
  Instead, Congress has chosen to cut funding for publicly available 
research in biotechnology. One seed company CEO, when asked what 
farmers could do to resist the growing vertical integration of 
agriculture, said, ``Absolutely nothing, because these are property 
rights owned by the companies, so the farmer is going to become more 
and more at the mercy of the few who own intellectual properties. 
Again, it goes back to the shortsightedness of funding basic research 
in such a parsimonious fashion. Without government funding, companies 
are going to fund research and control it.''
  Economic concentration is not dictated by economic efficiencies any 
more than it is by free markets and technological progress. In the late 
1800s, John D. Rockefeller made the classic argument for the economic 
efficiencies of monopoly power. He claimed that Standard Oil's monopoly 
was good for the public because it created efficiencies that could be 
passed along to the consumer in the form of lower oil prices. That 
argument wasn't compelling then, and it's not compelling today.
  First of all, efficiency is not what's driving the trend towards 
concentration in agriculture. Research by Iowa State University 
economist Mike Duffy shows no further economies of scale beyond 600 
acres of row crops and about 150 sows. But the most rapidly growing 
farming operations in Iowa are much larger than that, so economies of 
scale cannot be driving their expansion.
  One Iowa farmer writes, ``Today efficiency and cost of production 
have nothing to do with determining which farmer will survive as a food 
producer.'' The most important factor is probably the special 
relationships the integrating firm has with other businesses. In 
industries undergoing vertical integration, especially, farmers who 
don't have special relationships with feed or slaughtering firms often 
have to pay more for inputs and have more problems selling their 
product. And smaller farmers are being forced to sign production 
contracts with input suppliers to obtain new technologies they need to 
stay competitive.
  Another critical factor determining who survives in these non-
competitive markets is deep pockets and market share. Conglomerates 
with multiple holdings can cross-subsidize one of their operations with 
profits from another operation, making it harder for smaller, less 
diversified firms to compete. They can also drive local non-diversified 
firms out of business by excess production or processing of a 
commodity, driving price down below the cost of production.
  These cross-subsidies are increasingly taking place on a global 
scale. A firm like Cargill, which has operations in 70 countries, can 
absorb losses in one country so long as it can cross-subsidize with 
revenues from another country. Because they control supplies in more 
than one country, these multinationals can also drive prices down to 
the detriment of farmers in both countries.
  Even if concentration did produce economic efficiencies, such 
efficiencies wouldn't concern us if they weren't passed on to the 
consumer. But we've already seen that the agribusinesses' price 
windfalls are not being passed on to the consumer. That's because they 
are able to exploit their economic power to increase profit share at 
the expense of farmers.
  So it's simply not true that there are no viable alternatives to 
continued economic concentration. Concentration is not dictated by free 
markets, by technological progress, or by economic efficiency. It's 
occurring because of government-created monopolies, biased choices in 
technology policy, special relationships, and cross-subsidies. And it's 
occurring because our choices in farm and trade and antitrust policies. 
In the end, concentration is driven by policy choices that could be 
made differently.
  Consider all the policy choices that have brought American 
agriculture to where it is today. When we paved the way for family 
farming with the Homestead Act and the defeat of slavery, that was a 
policy choice. When we enacted parity legislation in the 1940s, leading 
to an increase in the number of farmers, expansion of soil and water 
conservation practices, and a decline in farm debt, that also was a 
policy choice.
  When we cut loan rates in the 1950s and 1960s to lower farm prices, 
that was a policy choice. When we interlinked domestic commodity 
markets with lower world prices through trade agreements, that was a 
policy choice. When we eliminated the safety net for farmers with the 
Freedom to Farm Act, that was a policy choice.
  When we invest public resources in technology that tilts the scales 
against family farmers, that is a policy choice. When we fail to fund 
enough economists at GIPSA or enough antitrust

[[Page 25055]]

staff at Justice and the FTC, that is a policy choice. And when we 
encourage global concentration through our trade policies while 
allowing corporate agribusiness to destroy competitive markets here at 
home, that too is a policy choice.
  Now the policy choices before us are clear. We can take legislative 
action that will help preserve family-based agriculture. Or we can 
continue on our present course, which is leading unmistakably in the 
direction of contract farming, rural depopulation, and global 
oligopoly.
  In August, the Omaha World Herald carried a story about one 
economist's projections for the future of American agriculture. 
``Farmers who stubbornly insist on being their own boss will end up in 
the economic scrap heap,'' he said. This economist described a trend 
toward ``polarization of farms by size, with the number of large farms 
growing at a rapid pace''; ``separation of land ownership from land 
production, with more and more people owning land as an investment and 
leasing property for production''; and contract farming, which will 
change the role of farmers from that of an independent producer to 
skilled tradesman.''
  Can any Senator honestly tell me this is the vision he or she 
supports? Do we really want a world of contract farming, in which farm 
laborers are stuck with one-sided contracts and inadequate price 
information and struggle to get out from under mountains of debt? Do we 
really want a world in which our rural areas become depopulated because 
family farmers have to leave the land? Do we really want a world in 
which vertical integration and contract farming shift ever more 
bargaining power to agribusinesses?
  Do we really want a world in which management decisions are made by a 
small group of corporate executives, removed from the land thanks to 
new precision farming technologies? Do we really want a world in which 
titanic food chains face little pressure to pass on price savings to 
the consumer?
  Do we have any say in this matter? I think we do. We don't have to 
accept this vision of the future if we don't want to. We can propose a 
different one, and we can fight for it. These are all policy choices.
  These choices are made more difficult by the immense power of 
corporate agribusiness--not only economic power, but political power as 
well. As Lee Swenson of the NFU recently testified,

       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 
     productions costs.

  The bigger these agribusinesses get, the more influence they have 
over our public policy choices. The bigger they get, the more money 
they have to spend on political campaigns. The bigger they get, the 
more lobbyists they can afford to amass on Capitol Hill. The bigger 
they get, the more likely they are to be named special U.S. trade 
representatives, like the CEO of Monsanto. The bigger they get, the 
more likely public officials will be to confuse their interests with 
the public interest, if they don't already do that. And the bigger they 
get, the more weight they will pull in the media.
  It's a vicious circle. These agribusiness conglomerates used their 
political clout to shape public policies that helped them grow so big 
in the first place. Now their overwhelming size makes it easier for 
them to dictate policies that will help get even bigger.
  This was just as much a problem at the turn of the century as it is 
now. American democracy suffered greatly as a result of concentration 
of economic power in the late 1800s. But the Populists and their 
successors showed us that there is a different path, that there are 
alternatives, and they proceeded to lay the groundwork for the 
Progressive Era.
  Even before the founding of the People's Party, populists and labor 
and progressives began working to rein in the concentration of economic 
power. With the help of some forward-looking Republicans, they fought 
for and passed the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and the Packers and 
Stockyards Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. They also reined 
in the trusts through regulation of banks and railroads. And they 
demanded more and better democracy through the direct election of 
senators.
  Judge Robert Bork notwithstanding, I don't believe the Sherman Act 
was motivated by concerns over economic efficiency and consumer 
welfare. In fact, during consideration of the Sherman Act, Congressman 
Mason directly responded to the efficiency arguments raised by John D. 
Rockefeller.

       If the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent 
     a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to the people of 
     this country by the trusts which have destroyed legitimate 
     competition and driven honest men from legitimate business 
     enterprises.

  As Richard Hofstadter has written, the Sherman Act was ``a ceremonial 
concession to an overwhelming public demand for some kind of reassuring 
action against the trusts.'' During debate on the Act, Senator John 
Sherman himself railed against the ``kingly prerogative'' of men with 
``concentrated powers.'' He vowed that ``We will not long endure a king 
over production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessities of 
life.''
  But the antitrust laws, in the words of Supreme Court Justice William 
O. Douglas, are now ``mere husks of what they were intended to be.'' In 
the last 20 years, the courts have been unduly influenced by the anti-
antitrust views of Judge Bork and the Chicago School. Today 
tremendously unfair market power routinely goes unpunished, especially 
with regard to vertical integration.
  Courts have limited the effectiveness of the antitrust laws by 
narrowing their focus to questions of economic efficiency and consumer 
welfare. The focus on consumer welfare is an obstacle to antitrust 
enforcement in agriculture, even though farmers were an integral part 
of the original antitrust movement. Conventional antitrust analysis 
focuses on the ability of dominant firms to charge higher prices to 
consumers; price declines are generally not regarded as a problem. But 
farmers today are drawing attention to the ability of dominant firms to 
abuse their market power to pay lower prices to producers, not 
consumers.
  The Justice Department's recent approval of the Cargill-Continental 
merger raises troubling questions about the future of antitrust 
enforcement in agriculture. If DOJ can't stop the merger of Cargill and 
Continental, what merger will it ever stop? Will it ever be able to 
take any action at all to arrest the trend towards concentration in 
agriculture?
  The Packers and Stockyards Act is a similar story. Enacted in 1921 to 
combat the market abuse of the top five meat packers, it has extremely 
broad and far-reaching language. Under the Packers and Stockyard Act, 
it is unlawful for any packer to ``engage in or use any unfair, 
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.'' It is 
unlawful to ``make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or 
advantage.''
  However, some court decisions have limited its scope, and USDA is 
unwilling to test its regulatory authority in court. Meanwhile, 
concentration in the meat-packing industry today is higher than it was 
when the FTC issued its original report leading to enactment of the 
1921 Act.
  Clearly, we cannot simply rely on the current antitrust statutes and 
antitrust authorities to address the rapid consolidation of the 
agricultural sector. We must change our antitrust laws. Whether or not 
our antitrust agencies have authority that they are unwilling to 
exercise, we need to force their hand. And we must develop a new farm 
policy. Realistically, however, we know that doing these things may 
take some time. We must act now.
  There is something we can do in the short term. I am offering 
legislation with Senator Dorgan that would impose a moratorium on 
mergers and acquisitions among agribusinesses that must already submit 
pre-merger filings under current law (annual net revenue

[[Page 25056]]

or assets over $100 million for one party and $10 million for the 
other). This moratorium would remain in effect for 18 months, or until 
Congress enacts legislation to address the problem of concentration in 
agriculture, whichever comes first.
  Over the longer term, however, we need to focus on equalizing the 
bargaining power between farmers and the global agribusiness giants. A 
growing disparity of economic power is shifting a larger share of farm 
income to agribusiness. We need to reverse that trend and level the 
playing field. Unless we ensure that farmers and ranchers receive a 
fair share of the profit of the food system, little else we do to 
maintain family-size farms is likely to succeed.
  Of course, there's more than one way to attack the problem of unequal 
bargaining power. The antitrust statutes helped equalize bargaining 
power by increasing competition, thereby reducing the market power of 
monopolies. The formation of agricultural cooperatives under the 
Capper-Volstead Act helped equalize bargaining power from the opposite 
direction--by increasing the market power of farmers. Under either 
approach, farmers improve their bargaining position and are likely to 
obtain a greater share of farm income.
  Yet there are some inherent disparities in market power that can only 
be remedied through farm policy. Because there are so many farmers, no 
single farmer can influence price on his or her own. On their own, 
farmers cannot limit production waiting for prices to rise or until 
they can shift crops. Farmers are unable to reduce supply without 
assistance from the government, which is where farm policy can play a 
role.
  Farm policy can also remedy inherent disparities in market power by 
placing a floor on prices. Laws guaranteeing workers the right to 
bargain collectively and a minimum wage are based on the same idea. The 
minimum wage law recognizes that there is unequal bargaining power 
between employers and workers, and that wage negotiation would often 
lead to wages that are too low. The bargaining power between 
agribusiness conglomerates and farmers is similarly unequal, and it is 
resulting in farmer prices that are too low. Farmers today essentially 
need the equivalent of a minimum wage.
  Of course, bolstering the market power of family farmers is inimical 
to the economic interests of corporate agribusiness, and it will be 
fiercely resisted. But in the past we have managed to tame 
concentrations of economic and political power, and I refuse to believe 
we cannot do so again. For this reason, the examples of the Populist 
movement and the Progressive Era are enormously instructive and 
encouraging.
  Finally, I want to mention the fiery closing speech at the People's 
Party convention in 1892, which reads like it could have been written 
yesterday. It was delivered by a remarkable Minnesotan--an implacable 
foe of monopoly power named Ignatius Donnelly. Donnelly affirmed that 
``the interests of rural and urban labor are the same,'' and he called 
for a return to America's egalitarian founding principles. ``We seek to 
restore the government of the Republic to the hands of the `plain 
people' with whom it originated,'' he said.
  We should do no less. If we want to sustain a vibrant rural economy 
and a thriving democracy, we need urgent reform of our farm and 
antitrust laws. We must act now. We can start by passing an 18-month 
moratorium on the largest agribusiness mergers.
  I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of our time for the 
minority.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I do not 
intend to object--that the time consumed by the Senator be charged 
equally to all time under the order on the appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am not going to take much time. I 
certainly hope the Senator from Minnesota did not cut his remarks short 
because he certainly is articulating something in which we are all very 
interested. I would do what I could to protect his rights to get a vote 
if he needed a vote, the same as I ask my rights be protected to either 
get a vote or to object to a unanimous consent request, which I have 
been doing with regularity in the last few days.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

                          ____________________