[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7893-7899]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPROVAL OF FARM SERVICE AGENCY EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING NEEDED 
                                  NOW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is springtime in America. Normally that 
means that there is great optimism, great excitement, particularly 
among our agriculture community. Our farmers know that now is the time 
to put the seed in the ground and prepare for the fall's harvest, to 
prepare to feed this country and a good portion of the rest of the 
world.
  But, regrettably, it is a sad time in the farm community this year. 
Prices are low. We just had terrible disasters last year. We had a bad 
crop. The agriculture income is down some 28 percent.
  As I traveled the First Congressional District that I am privileged 
to represent over the last few weeks to see the distress, the 
discouragement, the despair that exists in our agriculture community 
today, it is a terrible thing.
  I rise today to once again ask the Speaker to move our agriculture 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill and provide the emergency 
loan money that this House and the Senate have both approved. It is 
absolutely unbelievable that the Speaker and the Republican leadership 
would hold America's farmers hostage as they are doing now. It is 
shameful.
  Our farmers are good, honest, hardworking people. They had a farm 
bill forced upon them in 1996 that they knew was going to be a 
disaster, and it has been. The administration, as my distinguished 
colleague from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) just mentioned, made a great step 
forward yesterday by lifting sanctions on some of our markets, and that 
is going to be very helpful. But you do not get but one chance a year 
to make a crop, and if our farmers are not provided loans and those 
loans are not provided almost immediately, within the next few weeks, 
they will not get a chance to make a crop this year. Many of them have 
already missed that opportunity.
  You cannot wait until the middle of the summer to plant a crop. It 
will be too late. You have to plant it in April and May.
  It is time for our farmers to put the seed in the ground. It is time 
for our Speaker and the Republican leadership to let this emergency 
supplemental bill be conferenced and give our farmers an even break.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the House 
Committee on Agriculture, a great friend of America's farmers and a 
great leader for America and for agriculture, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
would amplify a little more on what he has just said regarding the 
conference that should be going on between the House and the Senate 
regarding the emergency agriculture appropriation, a request sent here 
to this body 62 days ago from the Secretary of Agriculture, 
acknowledging that we were going to have some credit problems, that the 
amount budgeted for credit was not going to be sufficient, and, 
therefore, an emergency supplemental was going to be required.
  Everyone knows this. The House Committee on Agriculture, both sides 
of the aisle, are in agreement that these monies are needed and must be 
forthcoming, but it is very frustrating when we have already had to 
have two stopgap proposals in order to just get us to the next point, 
that we have had to have the Secretary of Agriculture juggling various 
accounts just to continue to be able to provide the service in our 
various FSA offices.
  But we are now kind of at the end of our rope. The Secretary this 
morning informed us that at the end of the close of business today 
there would no longer be the ability to accept applications for loans. 
This week we have averaged 150 applications per day. This is four times 
the normal demand for FSA loans.
  It is really inexcusable that, for whatever reasons, the conferees 
have not been able to come up with an acceptable compromise that would 
allow the House to work its will. I know that there are budget 
considerations, and I remind everyone, including myself, when we are 
talking about expenditure of emergency funds, whether it be for 
agriculture, for Kosovo, or for any other purpose, for Central America, 
the emergency that has already been created there and which is also 
pending, something which needs to be taken care of, all of these 
dollars are Social Security Trust Fund dollars.

                              {time}  1415

  I see we have been joined by our friend from Michigan (Mr. Smith), 
and he and I and others have been working and trying to come up with 
proposals in which we might deal with the Social Security problem. I 
welcome his efforts there, and I appreciate his welcoming of mine.
  But when we talk about this particular proposal today and the state 
of agriculture, we go into it with our eyes open. That is why the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I, and I believe the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Smith) joined us in this, in support of the Blue Dog 
budget, if memory serves me correctly, and recognizing that there were 
going to be some additional needs, and we proposed to budget for them. 
The good news was that we

[[Page 7894]]

had a majority of Democrat supporters, 26 Republican supporters; the 
bad news is it takes 218 votes to do it. I understand that.
  But having said all of this, that gets us right back to what the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) was saying a moment ago. We have a 
crisis, it is really inexcusable, and it is one of the reasons the 
American people get so frustrated with all of us, because of our 
seeming inability to make timely decisions.
  One of the decisions that could be is that we do not want to fund 
this. That would be one of the decisions. If a majority of the House 
say these are monies we should not expend, these are loans we should 
not make, therefore let us not approve it, I can accept that. Mr. 
Speaker, a 218-vote decision by this body saying these loans should not 
be made would be a perfectly logical, legitimate decision of this body 
to be made. But what is inexcusable is to not make the decision because 
somebody is not able to please somebody within somebody's conference or 
caucus, and that is what is going on. We would like to see this come 
forward, deal with it in an open and honest way.
  I yield back now to the gentleman from Arkansas, and if there is any 
time additionally I will have a few other comments to be made.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the great State of 
Texas. I now yield to our distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for conducting this 
Special Order. I am delighted to see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Smith) is joining us, as we work together on a budget on Social 
Security.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, I 
just want to say that I come in support of preserving American 
agriculture, because generally in this Congress, in this Nation, it is 
not a partisan issue. I say this with some emotion, because we have a 
serious challenge facing traditional agriculture in the United States.
  Other countries are doing everything they can to protect their 
farmers. We have been somewhat carefree in saying we should go to a 
market system and therefore, it is up to whatever the market might bear 
on American farmers. That is fine if the, if you will, playing field 
were level, but if other countries are going to subsidize their farmers 
to protect their farmers, that becomes an ultimate competitive 
disadvantage to our farmers, and then we have to be more aggressive in 
making sure that we preserve our agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues allowing me to interrupt.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the 
distinguished Member from the State of Michigan.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
leadership in this area and for providing this forum for us to urge the 
House and the leadership of the House to act.
  I think we all recognize that there is an emergency. We all 
acknowledge that our farmers are very important to us. We all 
acknowledge that they provide the basics for life, food and fiber, and 
we know they are suffering. In fact, there is a farm resource center 
which is a national crisis line for farmers where they call to get 
help. However, when the farmers call, the line is busy because so many 
farmers are calling for help. And this Congress also shows a busy 
signal. We are not listening to our farmers.
  I share the observations of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
who said there is a level of frustration and a belief that we are 
insensitive to their plight. I urge this Congress, I cannot beg any 
more severely than I know how, that our farmers are hurting, they are 
hurting. It will be too late to wait until they go out of business to 
help them. We want to help them to be viable farmers, vigorous, 
profitable people who can make a contribution.
  Farmers do not want to be dependent on the United States; however, 
they would like to think that the government understands their value in 
this economy. They would like to think that their government has not 
turned their back on them. They would like to think that they can 
prosper in this robust economy, which they are not. All they are 
asking, all the President has asked is for $1.1 billion to speak to the 
credit crisis, a credit crisis that will speak to the current need.
  Now, I want to tell my colleagues there is a credit crisis even more 
severe than the current need, and later on I certainly will be 
considering again a credit provision in the legislation that would 
speak to some of the disadvantages written into the 1996 farm bill that 
denies people a second chance, denies that they might have been in a 
disastrous area, denies them having an opportunity for a direct 
operational loan, and also to amend the shared appreciation agreement. 
Those are structural things that we need to do.
  But the emergency, the emergency is now, and in fact I was told 
earlier this morning this is the 62nd day, I say to my colleagues, that 
this has been on the floor. The House passed it, the Senate passed it. 
We just cannot get together. So I want to urge Members of Congress who 
care about farmers, but if they do not care about farmers, just care 
about themselves, care about being able to have available food, quality 
food at an affordable price. These farmers provide that for us. The 
consumers are interdependent on the survivability of farm families and 
farm communities. We are one Nation, and food adds to our national 
security. So we should not be misled.
  This is not something we can put under the rug; this is not something 
we can ignore. Everyday we ignore it, we ignore it at our peril. 
Certainly our farmers are going under, but we are tied to them, and to 
the extent we understand that, we would have a chorus of people crying 
out, saying help our farmers, because when we help our farmers, we help 
ourselves and we help our Nation.
  Again, I say to the gentleman, I just appreciate his leadership and 
allowing us to cry out to say we really need this emergency 
supplemental and we need it now. We do not need it 2 months from now. 
Planting time is going on right now.
  I can tell my colleagues, the census was taken recently, the farm 
census, and in 1997 they found out from a 5-year period in North 
Carolina, and North Carolina may be handling this crisis a little 
better than some, but over a 5-year period we were losing one farm per 
day. That has nothing to do with the suppression and the depression of 
prices. Add that to the mix.
  Then we begin to understand the severity of the problem of big 
farmers, small farmers, family farmers, individual farmers, young 
farmers, old farmers, black farmers, minority farmers. All of them are 
suffering, and to the extent that we can understand that we are tied to 
their survival or the lack thereof, I think we would be incensed. There 
is a time when we should be outraged at something, and I am trying to 
build that outrage in this Congress that we ought to all join together 
and make sure we have an opportunity to respond.
  This is truly a crisis; it is a crisis, it is an emergency. It is 
truly an emergency. We should treat it as an emergency. We do not just 
say it in words, we act it out. We say we love our farmers. Well, where 
is the proof of that? And if it is an emergency, why are we talking 
about an offset? Why are we putting this emergency behind all of the 
other emergencies? Now, truly our military and our national defense is 
an emergency, but I do think that farmers should, which was already on 
a schedule, should now be set aside for this. We can do both. We have 
the capacity to respond to both of those. We are not limited. The only 
thing we are limited by is our political will. The only thing we are 
limited by is our vision of how we are so tied together.
  So I cannot urge my colleagues strongly enough that this is indeed a 
serious matter and we are all tied to this. Not just those of us who 
live in rural areas, but our national security is tied to our ability 
for our farmers to grow and produce very basic food and fiber that they 
do so well, not only for this country but much of the world.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina,

[[Page 7895]]

not only for her remarks but for her great leadership as the ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  I now yield to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
echo the comments so ably made in the course of this Special Order 
about the crisis in agriculture. The crisis is a deep, threatening 
crisis that will in North Dakota cause more families to leave their 
farms in search of other work than we have seen in many, many years. I 
have with me just some photocopies of auction bills.
  We are seeing an awful lot of these auction bills, and for those not 
from farm country, they may not realize that each of these represents 
the end of a family tradition, heritage, history. Farms that have been 
in the land and under constant cultivation for more than the last 100 
years, farms continuously held by families since the prairie on the 
Northern Plains was broken, now going under because of inadequate 
prices, because of a farm program that is not working anywhere near 
what was promised when it was passed in the 104th Congress. As a 
result, as a result of the loss of profitability in agriculture, we do 
not just have people selling out, we have other people knocking on the 
door of their banks for credit and being turned away.
  Now, the funds that are at issue for agriculture lending, that we so 
critically need in this supplemental appropriation, are required 
because they are available to guarantee credit privately offered 
through banks to farmers, as per the Federal programs to provide that 
kind of credit guarantee, keep the credit available for farmers, or 
funds directly lent by the farm service agency itself, the lender of 
last resort for farmers. Well, believe me, this is the last resort, and 
that is why they are calling, calling to the tune of 150 a week.
  In fact, the statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture are 
that they have received more than 8,000 loan applications since the 
supplemental request for additional loan money was sent up to Congress 
on February 26, 62 days ago.
  Our new Speaker, Dennis Hastert, is from Illinois. He knows 
agriculture. They have an awful lot of agriculture in Illinois. He 
knows one thing, that between now and February 26 when this first 
request came up, that has been planting season, a very critical time in 
a farmer's year. You go to the bank and get the loan, the operating 
loan. With that loan you buy seed, fertilizer, gas for the tractor. You 
go and put in the crop, but you can only put in the crop if you get the 
essential operating capital for the beginning of the crop year. What 
happens if Congress continues to wait, if Speaker Hastert continues to 
fail to lead, to bring this bill to the floor so we can get the money 
out there, is the window will close.
  I represent North Dakota. It has one of the latest planting periods 
in the country because of our northern location, and yet even in North 
Dakota we are seeing the window come perilously close to shutting 
altogether because we have failed to act on this supplemental.

                              {time}  1430

  I cannot think of a more heedless, tone-deaf signal for the Congress 
to send to the farmers of this country than to dilly-dally around, play 
politics, wring our hands so piously during our trips back to the 
district during the weekend about our concern for farmers, but fail to 
pass the essential operating loan money they need until after the 
period has passed and they can no longer get their crops in the ground.
  That would really be the limit. Unfortunately, we are reaching the 
edge of that limit by Congress' failure to bring up the agriculture 
appropriations supplemental. We are putting farmers, individual 
families that have farmed for generations, in the circumstance where, 
even as the clock is tolling relative to making essential spring 
planting decisions, they do not even know whether they will have the 
financing capital.
  I cannot think of a more cruel hoax to play for farmers, dangling the 
prospect out there that we will be there to help them, but then somehow 
getting too politically distracted in our own internal partisan warfare 
that seems to have taken on its own reality, irrespective of the real 
needs of this country and the people we represent.
  I ask the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), I hope the 
gentleman is listening, because he owes this body more, he owes our 
Nation's farmers more. When the gentleman fails to lead, others take 
over. The way others are running this place, they are not responding to 
the very real needs of the American people that we represent, and in 
this case, the needs of the American farmer, farmers that the Speaker 
knows very well because of his long, distinguished representation of 
the State of Illinois.
  I cannot for the life of me understand what is going on in the 
Speaker's mind to let this situation linger and to leave our farmers in 
this kind of predicament.
  I have now heard that they are seriously considering bringing funding 
for the Kosovo campaign to the floor without addressing the needs of 
our farms. I think that, without question, the NATO involvement, the 
expense of U.S. participation in the NATO involvement is a legitimate 
exercise and obviously requires additional financial support, 
appropriately passed on an emergency basis.
  But this crisis halfway around the world is no more important in the 
scheme of things to our country than the crisis right here at home on 
our farms. To leave the plight of our farmers behind as we respond to 
situations across the world would be the absolute height of 
foolishness.
  I would implore majority leadership to think again and not address 
Kosovo without addressing our farmers. On April 26 of this year we sent 
a letter to the Speaker, signed by almost 30 members of both political 
parties, urging the action on the agriculture supplemental 
appropriations.
  This is a bipartisan appeal from farm country, Mr. Speaker, so that 
the Speaker might be able to bring up the appropriations so desperately 
needed by our farmers. Do not leave our farmers out, even while we 
respond to situations halfway across the world.
  I would be happy to entertain a dialogue with the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), a further discussion on the critical need facing 
our farmers and why Congress has to act now.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
North Dakota, and I appreciate the comments he just made. Certainly all 
of us that represent major agriculture-producing areas are mystified by 
the actions of the Speaker and the Republican leaders on this matter, 
and hopefully very soon this will be resolved. It is so irresponsible 
for us to leave America's farmers twisting in the wind while we play 
partisan politics.
  Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, these 
loan applications have been mounting in the FSA offices in counties 
across North Dakota. Farmers turn away from their banker, come in to 
FSA, put in the application, and they evaluate whether the application 
is creditworthy or not. We cannot make loans that are not creditworthy, 
but so often the case is they are creditworthy loans that should be 
financed if the loan money was available.
  We now have stockpiled, in other words, applications filed that 
cannot be funded, $45 million worth of loan requests. If the gentleman 
wants to calculate how many farmers are waiting, holding their breath, 
not knowing whether they will be in the field or selling out in just a 
month, we just have to figure how many loans, how many farmers can be 
served by $45 million.
  Farming is an expensive business, but there are a whole lot of 
operating loans represented in that size of capital, and that is just 
North Dakota alone. Across the country, they reckon

[[Page 7896]]

that this $1.1 billion in additional lending authority that funding the 
agriculture supplemental will make available will be literally 
thousands, thousands of family farmers that are either reduced to 
auction sales, or on with the business of farming, the business that is 
their profession, the business that has been their family's heritage. 
That is really what it all comes down to.
  Sometimes I think that we get so wrapped up, and in fact, the venal 
partisanship of this place has absolutely taken over our ability to see 
reality anymore, and we spend all our time thinking about how we can 
jam the other side and utterly quit thinking about what ought to be job 
one for us, and that is serving the interests of the people that 
elected us to these offices.
  There is nothing Republican or Democrat about a farmer being able to 
get the loan money they need to get in the field. There is not a 
Republican ideology or a Democrat ideology on this loan request, this 
funding request sent up by Secretary Glickman in February that would 
make this funding available for these farm loans.
  Why in the world one would take the plight of family farmers and put 
them in the middle of this vicious, disgusting, unworthy partisan 
contest is beyond me.
  But I will tell the Members this, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Speaker Hastert) owes us better. He is the Speaker. He is the leader 
of this Chamber. He is the leader of the Republican Party, not the 
majority whip. It is time for this Speaker to stand up and be counted. 
It is time for this Speaker to lead, and to lead on behalf of the 
farmers that are in his State of Illinois and in my State of North 
Dakota and the gentleman's State of Arkansas and all across this 
country.
  Until he does that, every day the planting deadlines are passing for 
some farmers in more southern latitudes than North Dakota, and if we do 
not act soon, it is going to be too late for all of us.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from North Dakota knows, I 
am a farmer myself. There is not a more frustrating time than in the 
springtime when you cannot get in the field. To be in a position where 
you have the weather to plant but you cannot plant because you have not 
got a production loan is the most frustrating situation that a farmer 
can be in.
  I think that for us to allow them to twist in the wind, not be 
responsive, not fulfill the obligation that this body has to react and 
take care of the business of the country is highly irresponsible.
  As it was just mentioned by our colleague, the gentleman from Texas, 
it is no wonder that the American people question how responsible the 
Congress is, because we do things like this.
  Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I 
wish some of the Members that have worked so hard to keep this from 
coming to the floor would have their own paychecks in the same kind of 
uncertainty that we have placed these farmers.
  I wish they would get up in the morning, sit at the breakfast table 
drinking coffee with their wives, not knowing whether or not they would 
be able to get a crop in the field in a few weeks, whether or not they 
would have their job, whether or not they would be able to provide for 
their family.
  Maybe then some of these Members that are working so hard to ignore 
the plight of our farmers in favor of partisan games, if they had the 
same kinds of uncertainties our farmers were dealing with, they would 
not be quite so cavalier.
  Because what we are doing to people is absolutely cruel. We have got 
people that will not know, they cannot know today whether or not they 
will be able to keep this farm going, the farm that has not just been 
their life's work, but was their daddy's before that and their 
granddaddy's before that; literally generations of family tradition 
resulting in the livelihood for these farmers, the way they provide for 
their families and put shoes on their kids' feet, and they do not even 
know whether they will be able to keep at it one more growing season 
because this Congress is playing party politics instead of kicking out 
the loan money as requested by Secretary Glickman. I simply do not 
understand it.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Dakota, and 
yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it sounds like we might have been a little 
critical of the Speaker and the leadership in the House today. We have. 
I always believe if we are going to be critical, we ought to offer a 
suggestion of what should be done. Let me make one observation of what 
I think should be done. It should have been done today, but we cannot 
do it today. We are out until next Tuesday.
  Next Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Speaker would see fit to 
bring the Kosovo $6 billion emergency request from the administration 
to the floor of the House. It is an emergency, and a legitimate one.
  I would like to see the Speaker bring the Central American emergency 
funds in that same package. I would like to see the Speaker include the 
agricultural fund in that same package, and give this body an 
opportunity to vote on those as emergency spending, which they are, 
under the Rules of the House which we agreed to in the 1997 budget 
agreement.
  There is an additional request now for defense funds that I am 
supportive of, but not as an emergency. I think they ought to be 
considered in the due process of the appropriations process for this 
year, but if we see fit, because there might be a need to do it now, do 
it now, but do not affect the caps. Allow those to be counted against 
the caps, whether we do it next Tuesday or not.
  That would be just my personal suggestion to the leadership of what 
could be done that would resolve this issue, and do it in the way in 
which it ought to be done. Any other spending other than those 
associated with the agriculture request should not be declared an 
emergency.
  I would again point out that those of us who supported the Blue Dog 
budget, the majority of Democrats, we budget for this. This is not 
something that will break the budget, as visioned by the Blue Dog and a 
majority of the Democrats in this House.
  That is a suggestion. I hope the Speaker does it next Tuesday, 
because if we do, hopefully at that point can move quickly and before 
the end of next week we can resolve this question and avoid further 
inconveniencing so many family farmers that will be inconvenienced 
because we have been unable to deal in a rational way with this 
situation.
  If I might, just for a moment, switch subjects and talk about another 
very important happening this week for agriculture, the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I about a year ago requested a meeting with 
the Vice President of the United States to express our concern of the 
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act, something that deals 
with the technology that is used by our farmers and ranchers that 
allows us to always say to the American people and to the world that, 
are we not blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food 
supply, the best quality of food, the safest food supply to our people 
at the lowest cost of any other country in the world? And we do this 
because of the utilization of technology.
  In our visit with the Vice President, we pointed out that there were 
some at EPA that were interpreting the law as passed by the Congress in 
ways that was going to be very detrimental to production agriculture. 
He agreed, and for the last year we have seen continuous improvement. 
We have seen EPA and USDA begin to work together, which the Vice 
President suggested should be done.
  It is amazing to me that we would have to have a Vice President of 
the United States instructing two agencies of the United States 
government to work together. But he did, they did, they are, and it is 
working.
  There was a track committee put together, a committee of about 54 men 
and women, producers, chemical companies, environmentalists, consumers, 
all who have a vested interest in seeing that these decisions are made 
based on sound science and in the best interests

[[Page 7897]]

of consumers. This committee has been working until last week, when for 
some strange reason the environmental community and the consumer 
community decided to pull out of the discussion.
  I encourage them to come back to the table, come back to the table 
and continue to do as they were doing over the last year, working in a 
constructive way in order that we might in fact continue to have this 
most abundant, safe food supply.
  Please, do not be, as some are accusing you of, of saying because you 
cannot have your way, I am going to take my bat and ball and go home. 
Please come back to the table. Please come back to the discussions, and 
let us make sure that all decisions, though, are based on sound 
science, not on an individual interpretation of what is good and bad.
  There are those among us who believe that pesticides, those things 
that kill insects, should not be used because if used improperly, they 
will kill humans. Everyone agrees to that. But everyone does not agree 
that we ought to eliminate pesticides, because if we would eliminate 
the technology, we would not have the best-fed Nation. In fact, we 
would have a starving world in a very short period of time.
  One of the things the Vice President instructed us all to do is to 
have these discussions in the open, in sunshine, in transparency, as 
the word is called. Let everyone present their views.
  This seems to be what is bugging some folks in the environmental 
community. They do not want to have to honestly debate their views with 
others in the scientific community who may have a different view.

                              {time}  1445

  I know the gentleman from Arkansas has been a real leader in this 
effort, for which I have commended him. I was glad to work with him all 
of last year, and I know he shares this frustration. But it is 
something that we need to talk about over and over and as openly as we 
can to make sure that more of the American people understand we cannot 
have this abundant food supply without using technology.
  Both the gentleman from Arkansas and I are farmers in real life. We 
do not wish to use any product that will do harm to ourselves, our 
families, those who work for us, and certainly not to those who consume 
the products which we produce. It is in our best interest that we use 
sound science.
  We were making great progress. I do not understand why some now 
decide that they do not want to even play anymore, but I hope that they 
will reconsider that decision. If not, then I certainly hope that the 
process will go forward without them. But if it goes forward without 
them, it will not work nearly as smoothly and good for the Nation as a 
whole as if they come back to the table and work together.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman once again and thank 
him for his leadership and the great wisdom he brings to this body and 
the always thoughtful suggestions and effort that he makes.
  I would like now to read a statement from our colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge). He says: ``I rise today to 
highlight the long delay in passing the emergency supplemental funding 
for the Farm Service Agency lending programs and FSA staffing budget.
  ``This is truly an emergency in every sense of the word. Tracy 
Beckman, FSA Director in the State of Minnesota, has told me that he 
will be forced to lay off FSA employees because of the delay in passing 
the emergency supplemental. The demand for loans and other FSA services 
is skyrocketing because of the commercial banks' concern about 
declining farm incomes. Many producers are having a difficult time 
securing private sector operating loans. FSA has to step in to fill the 
gap with guaranteed and direct loans to producers. Demands for loans 
this year is up 75 percent from a year ago, the Secretary of 
Agriculture tells me.
  ``Minnesota FSA will approve more loan applications by the end of the 
fiscal year than they have funding. If this supplemental is not 
approved, they will be unable to deliver the funds to the farmers 
because their accounts can have run dry. Planting season has arrived, 
and those farmers without operating loans are going to be left high and 
dry.
  ``Mr. Speaker, now is the time to approve these truly emergency 
funds. We must not delay action on this matter because of disputes 
between Congress and the White House on other matters. The supplemental 
bill threatens to be bogged down with millions of nonemergency 
spending, and I worry that this may sink the ship.
  ``The President requested $6 billion to fund the air campaign against 
Yugoslavia. Some on the other side of the aisle want to pass as much as 
$20 billion. The Senate majority leader suggested $10 or $11 billion. I 
do not understand how funds the administration has not even requested 
could be remotely considered emergency spending. We must remember these 
are Social Security funds that we are spending. If we are going to 
continue to claim to be fiscally responsible, we must be honest with 
ourselves about what is emergency funding and what is desirable 
funding. Whatever happened to not opening the Social Security lock box 
unless it is an absolute emergency?
  ``I propose that we develop and pass in the shortest possible time 
frame a freestanding emergency agriculture spending bill to provide 
critical guaranteed and direct operating loans that our farmers need to 
get into the field and the FSA staff to deliver these programs. These 
are truly emergency funding needs. We must move forward with a clean 
bill for agriculture now, and not hold hostage these funds for 
America's farmers in a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund to 
benefit nonemergency defense spending.''
  That is the statement from our distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. David Minge), and I know that he has great concern 
for America's farmers and for the future of American agriculture.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just once again make the plea to the 
Speaker to let this legislation move forward and treat America's 
farmers fairly. America's farmers are very resilient. They have great 
capacity for hard work to overcome obstacles and to achieve greatness. 
There has never been a producer of anything in this world that is as 
successful as the American farmer. They have done such an outstanding 
job that we take them for granted. They are the golden goose of 
America's economy and we should be very careful how we take care of it.
  In conclusion, I would also want to thank Secretary Dan Glickman at 
the Department of Agriculture for the great job he has done in every 
possible way to deal with this emergency situation and, at the same 
time, make available as many funds as he can to serve this program. I 
think it is a shameful thing that we have allowed partisan politics to 
bring us to this point, and I urge the Speaker to allow this 
legislation to move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).


       Military and Diplomatic Options With Regard to Yugoslavia

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
addressed the House earlier. I had about 15 minutes of things to say 
and lacked the conciseness and brevity to put it into a 5-minute 
speech. I guess the next thing to the capacity to brevity is to have a 
good friend who is willing to yield time.
  If I may inquire as to the level of generosity of my friend, how much 
time is remaining, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fosella). The gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Berry) has approximately 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHERMAN. If I can inquire of the Chair, is it necessary that Mr. 
Berry remain standing through my speech or can that be waived through 
unanimous consent?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is necessary for the gentleman to remain 
on his feet.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Well, then, perhaps brevity is called for, and I thank 
the gentleman. I did not realize the imposition involved.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier today I stated that we have to reflect on the 
votes of

[[Page 7898]]

yesterday, where by a 2-to-1 majority we voted against a unilateral 
withdrawal. But this was not a ringing endorsement of our current 
military or diplomatic strategy with regard to Yugoslavia nor is it a 
call for the introduction of NATO ground troops; rather, it is 
important that we come up with additional options. I have a few that I 
believe deserve to be considered, and I thank the gentleman from 
Arkansas for giving me the opportunity to present them to this House.
  The first of these involves training, though not necessarily arming 
the Albanians, both those who are citizens of Albania and wish to fight 
for their brethren and the Kosovar refugees who have escaped from 
Kosovo.
  Now, there are objections to this strategy. They point out that there 
is an arms embargo with regard to the nation of Yugoslavia. But this 
arms embargo would not be violated if we simply provided training while 
Americans retained custody of the weapons.
  Second, the idea of just arming the Kosovars with the idea that we 
would just open up a box and distribute rifles does not create an army 
capable of defeating Milosevic. In fact, the KLA already has plenty of 
rifles from a variety of sources.
  Now, I am not saying that the time has come to turn over custody of 
artillery and tanks to the Albanians. But if Milosevic knew that we 
were training an Albanian force to use heavy weapons, then he would 
know that he was up against not only the NATO air armada, not only a 
ragtag band of lightly armed KLA guerillas, but would also know that 
soon we would be able to unleash a force of heavily armed Albanians.
  Second, I think it is important that we look at our diplomatic 
strategy and posturing. At this point we seem too tied to the intense 
vilification of Milosevic. And it is indeed tempting, for he is indeed 
evil. But let us keep in mind that we have to do business with evil 
men.
  The Government of China sent its emissary to this Capitol just a few 
weeks ago. That government is responsible for more deaths than all the 
Albanians that have ever been alive anywhere since the days of the 
ancient Eridians. Saddam Hussein, a man with much blood on his hands, 
has not been deposed by the United States and we have had to reach an 
accommodation with him. Those who say that our objective should be to 
remove Milosevic should contemplate the casualties involved in sending 
American ground troops not only into Kosovo but into Serbia.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt 
Weldon), is leading a group to Vienna, and we should praise those 
efforts, because he is going to reach out to members of the Russian 
Duma in an effort to enlist Russian support for a negotiated peace. We 
should remember that negotiation involves give and take.
  All too often we focus on the results of World War II. Glorious as 
they were, they are not typical. In fact, only one of our foreign wars 
ended with the unconditional surrender of our adversary. And for us to 
expect an unconditional surrender of Serbia, whether it is the 
unconditional surrender of its Kosovo province and all parts of it, or 
whether it is the surrender of that government and the occupation of 
all of Serbia, this should not be the expected result nor is it the 
necessary result.
  I would suggest, and I have suggested this not only to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) but several others who are traveling 
with him, that we propose to the Russians that there be two zones in 
Kosovo and two separate peacekeeping forces. One zone would be along 
the border between Kosovo and Serbia and Kosovo and Montenegro and 
would be patrolled exclusively by Russian peacekeepers.
  This area Serbia would know they would retain rights with regard to. 
And this area should include the ancient battlefield of Kosovo Polyea, 
the famous monastery to the south of Pristina, the City of Pec, which 
was the original site of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and other lands 
of critical significance to the Serb nation.
  The remaining, I would suspect 70 to 80 percent of Kosovo, would be 
subject to NATO occupation, a NATO peacekeeping force, and in this area 
the Albanian Kosovars would live in security and could return from 
their refugee status.
  If we propose this, Milosevic then has a reason to deal. Because 
instead of proposing that he lose all rights in Kosovo, we are 
proposing that he retains rights that he might otherwise lose if he 
continues to battle us and our Albanian allies in the year to come.
  At the same time, we should work toward any acceptable peace. And an 
acceptable peace is one that is workable, and where the Kosovars are 
able to return to Kosovo, or any reasonable part thereof, to live in 
peace and security and, knowing the generosity of the American and 
European people, with the aid and trade concessions they need to live 
prosperous as well as secure lives.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, when I am home traveling in my district and talking to 
farmers in southern Indiana about this farm crisis that we are in, they 
always tell me that they do not want any handouts. What they do tell me 
is they want access to credit.
  I think it is just common sense to provide farmers access to enough 
credit so they can plant their crops, market their products, and pay 
their bills. It does not make any sense to me that this has not been a 
higher priority for this Congress. Every day families across the 
country are losing their farms. I am especially concerned that this 
crisis is taking a hard toll on our next generation of farmers.
  I think it is important that the American people understand how great 
the need is in rural America for this emergency money. The situation in 
my home State of Indiana is not encouraging. For one thing, many of our 
loan programs in Indiana are exhausted, or close to it anyway. Our 
direct operating loan money is, for the most part, exhausted. We are 
completely all out of guaranteed farm ownership loans. We are short 
nearly $800,000 for beginning and non-beginning direct farm ownership 
loans.
  On March 23, the House of Representatives passed a supplemental 
appropriations bill that included much needed emergency credit for 
farmers across this country. I was one of the few Members of my own 
party to vote for the bill. Two days later, the Senate passed the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill and asked for a conference 
committee to come together to work out the differences of the House and 
Senate bills.
  It was only on April 22, almost a month later, that the House 
leadership agreed to send the emergency bill to conference committee 
and appoint conferees. In the meantime, farmers in Indiana and all 
across this country have been waiting for this emergency money.
  Many farmers have not been able to begin spring planting, while 
others have been forced to sell the family farm. While the farmers have 
been waiting, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman has been transferring 
money from different USDA accounts in an attempt to give the States 
more access to credit for farmers.
  Without the supplemental appropriations to restore to these accounts 
we have been borrowing from, we are facing layoffs and furloughs at FSA 
offices. We have had even to borrow money from FSA salary accounts. As 
a last resort, more and more farmers are being forced to appeal to 
their local FSA offices for financial assistance, and demand for farm 
loans has increased by 62 percent over the last year.
  So today I urge the leadership to act on the supplemental bill that 
this body passed over a month ago. I am truly concerned about Hoosier 
farmers. It is difficult for me to see this many farmers in need of 
access to credit. Indiana farmers need our help.

[[Page 7899]]

  Every weekend I go back to Indiana to visit with my constituents, and 
many times my constituents are farmers. I have a lot of them in my 
district. And each time that I go back, I ask these farmers whether or 
not, in their view, they believe that a young man or woman in this 
country can on their own become a farmer, and each and every time all 
the farmers say no.
  Now, there have been many speakers before me talking about the farm 
crisis, but this is a farm tragedy, to think that a young man or woman 
in this country could not fulfill their dream of becoming a farmer. I 
know of no other business, no other industry where this is true.
  So today is the day we must start to begin to help the family farmer.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Indiana for his comments in support of America's farmers and his 
leadership in this area.

                          ____________________