[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7788-7789]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           AGRICULTURE CRISIS

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is interesting the Senator from 
Kansas is in the chair because I know we are in agreement on this, but 
I at least want to make the appeal to my colleagues that, for my own 
part, I believe it is good that in our budget resolution we made 
allowance for additional funding for help and assistance to farmers. It 
was somewhere close to $7 billion.
  My hope is we will not do this in the process of an emergency 
appropriations bill; that we will give care to how we allocate this 
money, how we get assistance out to farmers. My fear is--and maybe it 
will be a good arrangement--that if we double AMTA payments and put it 
into the conference report to accompany the crop insurance bill, we 
will have lost our opportunity to have hearings in the Ag Committee and 
have some focus, some substantive discussion, some careful discussion 
about how we can make sure we target the assistance to those producers 
that need it the most.
  I voted for AMTA payments. I am not intellectually arrogant. I 
figured, what help we could get the people, get it. I had an 
uncomfortable feeling that some of the landowners who were not even 
farmers and some of the largest operators least in need were getting 
more than they needed. The flip side was the people who needed help the 
most were not getting it. I do not want an inverse relationship of 
assistance to need. Some, regarding the AMTA payments, suggest that is 
what is happening.
  At a minimum, I say to my colleagues, we should, between now and the 
end of June--we have time--have some hearings in the Ag Committee. We 
should have some careful discussion and deliberation about how we get 
this assistance out to family farmers. It should be more targeted than 
the AMTA payments have been. I do not believe it is appropriate, again, 
to deal with such an important issue and such an important question by 
putting it into another conference report, this particular one being on 
crop insurance.
  When we went through the budget process and allocated this money, we 
were making a statement that we did not want to be forced into a 
situation

[[Page 7789]]

of one more time getting emergency funding out there without any 
deliberation as to how. I thought this meant we were, on the part of 
the authorization committee, Senator Lugar's committee, going to have 
hearings and an opportunity for Senators and people from the 
countryside to talk about the best way to get this assistance out to 
the countryside to help the people most in need.
  It looks to me, again, that we may be making an end run around that 
process, and that is a mistake. I speak out for the hearings. I speak 
out for deliberations. I speak out for doing something about the price 
crisis other than every year just getting money out to people. Most of 
the producers in the country would far rather get a decent price. That 
is a whole other discussion and debate which I hope we will have.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between 2 and 3 o'clock shall be 
under the control of Senator Thomas from Wyoming, or his designee.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in morning 
business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________