Summary:

All articles in Senate section

AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT
(Senate - October 05, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S11411-S11436] AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the report will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4101), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees. The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report. (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of October 2, 1998.) Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, pending before the Senate at this time is the conference report on the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. We present this conference report for the Senate's approval this afternoon. The agreement provides total new budget authority of $55.7 billion for programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-- except for the Forest Service, which is funded by the Interior appropriations bill--the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and expenses and payments of the farm credit system. This is $6 billion more than the fiscal year 1998 enacted level; it is $1.9 billion less than the President's request level; it is $192 million less than the House-passed bill, and it is $1.1 billion less than the Senate-passed bill level. The changes that were made in conference on mandatory funding requirements account for the overall increase from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, principally reflecting a $2.6 billion lower estimate for Food Stamp Program funding requirements, higher Child Nutrition Program expenses, and a $7.6 billion increase in the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses. The conference report also provides an additional $4.2 billion in emergency appropriations to assist agricultural producers and others who have suffered financial hardship due to adverse weather conditions and loss of markets. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior [[Page S11412]] year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total discretionary spending for fiscal year 1999 of $13.651 billion in budget authority and $14.050 billion in outlays. These amounts are consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations established for this conference agreement under the Budget Act. It was a very difficult conference. As Members may recall, a number of legislative provisions were added to the bill when it was considered in the Senate in July. Not only did the conference committee have to reach agreement with the House on these issues, but it had to resolve funding differences within a more constrained discretionary spending allocation for the conference than originally established in the Senate bill. Special recognition is due and deserved by the ranking member of the subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers. In addition, the chairman of the House subcommittee, Congressman Skeen from New Mexico, and ranking minority member of the House subcommittee, Congresswoman Kaptur from Ohio, turned in hard work and cooperated with our efforts to make this conference agreement possible. The report includes credit relief for farmers, a 6-month extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact, sanctions relief for exports to India and Pakistan, a waiver of the statute of limitations for certain discrimination claims filed against the Department of Agriculture, and a number of other legislative provisions that were included in the Senate and House-passed bills. In addition, at the request of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, chaired by Senator Lugar here and Congressman Smith in the House, the conference report includes a moratorium on the rulemaking authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over swaps and derivatives, as well as language requested by the administration authorizing the creation of an Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs position at the Department of Agriculture. That change also had the approval of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over that subject. During consideration of the bill in the Senate, an amendment was adopted providing increased funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative. A major portion of this additional spending was offset by an ``assessment'' on the purchasers and importers of tobacco. This was subsequently determined by the House Ways and Means Committee to be a ``tax,'' and therefore off limits to the Appropriations Committee and was not included in the conference report. I am pleased to report to the Senate, however, that the conference report provides increased funding of $51.9 million for activities and programs which are part of the administration's Food Safety Initiative. In addition, the conference report provides $609 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, an agency critical to maintaining the safety of our food supply. That is $20 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and $460 million more than the President requested in his budget. As most of my colleagues are aware, one of the major differences between the House and Senate-passed bill was a House bill provision to prevent fiscal year 1999 funding for the new Competitive Agriculture Research Program established by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. I did not support the proposal to remove or prevent the funding going forward as directed in that legislation. However, with a total discretionary budget authority allocation for the conference that was $64 million below the level we had for the Senate bill, it was a House position that the Senate conferees had little choice but to accept. Without that offset, drastic cuts would have been necessary in funding for other discretionary programs and activities in the bill. In view of this 1-year delay in funding for the new Agriculture Research Competitive Grant Program, the conference provided increased appropriations for existing agricultural research programs. Here are some examples: There is an appropriation of $782 million for the Agriculture Research Service. That represents a $38 million increase from the 1998 fiscal year level, and it is $14 million more than was included in the Senate-passed bill. There is total funding of $481 million for research and education activities of the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service. That is $50 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and it is $48 million more than was in the Senate-passed bill. Included in this amount is a 7-percent increase from the fiscal year 1998 level for payments under the Hatch Act, cooperative forestry research, payments to the 1890 and 1994 institutions, including Tuskegee and animal and health disease grants. Also included is a $22.1 million increase for the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. In addition, the bill recommends $434 million for extension activities which preserves the 3-percent increase recommended by the Senate for Smith-Lever formula funds, as well as extension payments to the 1994 and 1890 institutions, including Tuskegee University. Approximately $36.1 billion, close to 65 percent of the total new budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the school lunch and breakfast programs. The Senate receded to the House- recommended appropriations level for the WIC program because recent data on actual participation rates and food package costs indicate that this amount should be sufficient to maintain current program participation levels in fiscal year 1999. For farm assistance programs, including the Farm Service Agency and farm ownership and operation loan subsidies, the conference report provides $1.1 billion in appropriations. Appropriations for conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service total $793 million, $9 million more than the House bill level and $1 million more than the level recommended by the Senate. For rural economic and community development programs, the conference report provides appropriations of $2.2 billion to support a total loan level of $6.2 billion. Included in this amount is $723 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, $583 million for the rental assistance program, and a total rural housing loan program level of $4.25 billion. A total of $1.2 billion is provided for foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of Agriculture, including $136 million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service and a total program level of $1.1 billion for the P.L. 480 Food for Peace Program. Total new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration is $977 million, $11.5 million more than the level recommended by the House and $24.5 million more than the Senate bill level, along with an additional $132 million in Prescription Drug Act and $14 million in mammography clinics user fee collections. Included in the appropriation for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is a $20 million increase for food safety. For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $61 million is provided; and a limitation of $35.8 million is established on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. Titles XI-XIII of this conference report provide emergency relief to agricultural producers and others who have suffered weather-related and economic losses. As Members will recall, a number of amendments were adopted to this bill when the Senate considered it in July to address disaster-related requirements with the understanding that additional relief would be necessary once actual losses were determined by the Department of Agriculture and a supplemental request was submitted by the Administration. No request was submitted to the Congress until September 23. On September 23, the Administration submitted a $1.8 billion budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs. In the interim, the Republicans released a $3.9 billion relief package to assist agricultural producers. This emergency agricultural relief package is included in this conference report, along with additional [[Page S11413]] emergency supplemental appropriations, to make a total of $4.2 billion in emergency assistance available. A total of $1.5 billion is made available to assist producers who have been hit by crop losses in 1998, and an additional $675 million for producers who have suffered from multiple-year crop losses. Also included is $175 million for emergency livestock feed assistance, and $1.65 billion to assist producers with market losses. In addition, the conference report provides temporary recourse loans for honey and mohair; $5 million for cotton indemnity payments; an increase of $25 million for the Food for Progress program to help move more grain out of the country; and expanded non-insured crop assistance for raisin producers. Additional supplemental emergency appropriations provided by the conference report include the $40 million to cover additional costs to the Farm Service Agency of administering this assistance, $10 million for the Forestry Incentives Program; and $31 million in subsidy appropriations to fund an additional $541 million in farm operating loans. Madam President, this conference report was filed on Friday and was passed by the House of Representatives that day by an overwhelming vote of 333 yeas to 53 nays. Senate passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to the President for signature into law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report. Many of our farmers and ranchers are facing the worst crisis in agriculture that they can remember. The economic collapse in Asia has resulted in lost markets. Producers in some states have suffered severe weather conditions. Others have been hit hard by crop diseases. The farmers need help now, and it is time to quit playing politics with disaster relief and adopt this conference report. Madam President, this is the last Agriculture Appropriations bill my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, will manage in the Senate after serving on the Appropriations Committee for 20 years and this Subcommittee for 13 years. Senator Bumpers has been an advocate of American agriculture and a proponent of the programs in this bill to improve the quality of life and help bring jobs to rural areas. His expertise and many contributions to this process and this bill will indeed be missed. In summary, let me point out, Madam President, that there has been raised the specter of a Presidential veto over this conference report because of the inadequacy of the provision relating to disaster assistance payments. I am very disturbed by that suggestion, and I hope that it is more rumor than promise. I know the President spent some time on Saturday in his weekly radio address speaking to that subject. I recall that 2 weeks ago, I was asked to deliver the Republican response to the President's weekly radio address, and my subject was the need for a more aggressive and meaningful disaster assistance program for farmers. I think everyone can agree that both the President and the Congress have been speaking out and making very clear the fact that we need a helpful, sensitive, generous program of disaster assistance to help deal with the realities of weather-related disasters that have struck many parts of the country, market loss problems because of the Asian economic crisis, and other factors that have worked together to make this a very difficult year for agriculture. The question is, Are we going to resolve this in a way that is consistent with the legislative process that makes sense for farmers, that serves to establish policies that are thoughtful and consistent with the needs of American agriculture, or are we going to continue to treat this as a political football and just kick it around and have us skirmish every day or every week over this issue, leading to delay, leading to uncertainties, leading to anxieties? Farmers in America certainly deserve better. I would like just for a moment or two to think back on the date when we had the bill on the floor of the Senate and the subject of disaster assistance was first raised. We adopted in the Senate a sense-of-the- Senate resolution calling on the President and the Congress to work together to come up with a proposal that would meet the needs for emergency action to respond ``to the economic hardships facing agriculture producers and their communities.'' The Senate adopted that on July 15 by a vote of 99 to 0. The next day, there was an amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and others who suggested we establish a $500 million indemnity program to compensate farmers for income losses that had been suffered due to various adverse conditions--weather and otherwise--throughout the country, although mainly the benefits were directed to the upper plains and other selected areas, not countrywide benefits or a program designed to be national in scope. During my remarks on that occasion, I recall on the Senate floor saying that we needed to have the President and the Department of Agriculture get involved and provide the Congress with a complete and accurate assessment of the funds that were needed for a program of this kind. We hadn't had a proposal from the administration for any specific benefit program for agriculture, although there had been meetings on the Hill with farm groups, with Senators and Congressmen trying to, first, get the facts and get a sense of what the agriculture leadership throughout the country thought would be an appropriate response by the Federal Government. There was no question at the time we were debating the bill that there was great interest in developing a disaster assistance program to meet the needs of American agriculture. As a matter of fact, during the discussion, I asked Senators if they had any better ideas, if they had suggestions for anything other than this $500 million indemnity program, and no one came forward to offer any amendments and no one expressed opposition to adopting that amendment. We checked with the legislative chairman in the Senate, and others, and without objection, we suggested that the Senate adopt the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota on a voice vote, and that is what we did. We accepted the amendment. After that was done, it became clear that through gathering information, that the situation was more widespread. I remember going to Georgia, for example, with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell. I had an opportunity to meet with farmers in southern Georgia and became convinced that we had a problem that was bigger than the upper plains and Texas. Everybody knew about the drought in Texas and the severe complications that were resulting from that for agriculture producers and ranchers in that area. But I do not think it was well known that in south Georgia, which had had a series of weather-related disasters over a period of years, the agriculture sector there was really hurting. And the $500 million indemnity program, suggested by the Senators from North Dakota and others, was not going to be sufficient to deal with that problem and others as well. I know in my State of Mississippi, for example, when I was home right after we adopted this bill in July--we had a break during the August recess--I had an opportunity to visit some areas of my State that were devastated because of isolated weather patterns that had ruined corn crops in the northwest part of Mississippi, and others had been damaged to the extent that diseases were infesting the crops. Aflatoxin was attacking the corn crops. There was no provision in any Federal disaster assistance program for yield losses, for crop losses. Those who were suggesting an indemnity program based on lifting loan caps had to realize that was not going to help somebody who had a total crop failure. It would not help them a bit. So we came back, started working on a new proposal, got with the leadership of the House and Senate, and asked the administration they were going to request supplemental funding. They did come back with a $1.8 billion supplemental budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs, without a lot of specificity about how those benefits would be determined, how the eligibility would be determined, who would administer the program. But, nonetheless, it was a step in the right direction, and I applauded the President for responding in that way. [[Page S11414]] But based on that supplemental request--and working with the knowledge that other Members had generated from their States--we proposed to the conference committee a $4.1 billion disaster assistance program, and it was accepted in the conference committee with some changes. We accepted some amendments proposed by House Members in conference. We added some money proposed by the Senate in response to specific amendments that were urged in conference to the managers' proposal. So the end result was the conference committee agreed to provide emergency benefits totaling about $4.2 billion. So I come to the Senate today very pleased to be able to report that, instead of a $500 million indemnity program that the Senate adopted as a way to deal with the crisis in agriculture, working with farmers, producers, and ranchers from around the country, and other Members of the Congress, including the House, we now have a conference report that is much more generous, much more responsive to the real needs that exist in our country today in production agriculture, and designed to more nearly bring farmers to a point where they can continue to operate without going broke, without the devastating effects that would have been the reality of the situation had not this package of changes been agreed upon. We hear now that the Democratic leadership has urged the President to veto the bill. And I got a letter suggesting that he would if the conference agreement on disaster assistance was inconsistent with the proposal just recently made by the Democratic leader of the Senate to remove the loan caps under the current farm program for the commodities that are subsidized, in effect, by the Federal Government--no ifs, ands, buts about it. The letter said--and I took this up with the Secretary of Agriculture to be sure I understood that that was the meaning--that the President said he would veto the bill if the conference report was inconsistent with a proposal made by the Democratic leader to remove the loan caps for those commodities that are subsidized by the Government. I am very disappointed by that. I certainly hope that there is room for the President to change his mind on that subject, because it seems to me that rather than argue over whether or not this program is really going to do a good job and is thoughtfully crafted to try to put farmers back on their feet who have been devastated by bad weather and market conditions beyond their control, it just seems to me that this is not an appropriate response for the President to be making, given the other opportunities for positive things. Here are some examples of positive things that I think could be done which are beyond the jurisdiction of this committee today that brings you this conference report. The House of Representatives just passed recently a tax bill making a lot of changes in the Tax Code, but I specifically recall that some of those tax changes are designed to benefit farmers and farm families, and I am told that we are not going to have a chance to vote on that tax bill here in the Senate because we cannot get the bill cleared to bring up. We cannot get the House-passed tax bill cleared. So in order to bring it up, the majority leader would have to move to the consideration of the bill, the motion would become debatable, and then in order to get the bill on the floor for consideration and debate and passage, 60 votes to invoke cloture would have to be undertaken because the Democrats are promising to filibuster the bill. Here are the changes that it bothers me we will not even get a chance to approve that would help farmers. There is a 5-year net loss carryback of losses that you can carry back and set against income for 5 previous years. That is in the House- passed bill. The House-passed bill makes permanent income averaging, which permits farmers and ranchers to average income, high years against low years, and even out the tax burden, which is very beneficial to many. There is a provision that makes deductible, to 100 percent of the cost, health insurance premiums by those who are self-employed. If you are in agriculture and you have a farm and you are your own boss, under this change you will be able to deduct 100 percent of the cost of your health insurance. That helps farmers. That helps farm families. There is also an acceleration of the exemption for death taxes and gift taxes. One of the most difficult things facing agriculture today is the obligation to come up with cash money to pay the Federal Government so-called inheritance taxes on the death of a family member who has an interest in the land or the other property that goes into making up the decedent's estate. We have passed rules that phase in some higher exemptions for small farms and for businesses. What this House-passed bill does is accelerate the phasing in of those exemptions. That would be a big help to many farm families who are going to have to liquidate assets in real estate to pay death taxes. Another thing that this administration has been slow to react to is the trade problems that we are having in this hemisphere, with Canada, with Mexico, and beyond, barriers to trade so that our farmers and our exporters are having to deal with unfair tariff situations and other difficulties that are erected to keep America from selling what we are producing in the world marketplace and at the same time importing, in violation of some existing rules, I am told, some foodstuffs, live cattle, from other countries. Finally the administration is beginning to act. We see the Trade Representative engaging Canada in trade talks now about steps that can be taken to solve the problems that have developed in that area. But we were hearing this on the Senate floor and urging the administration to take action. Being the chief negotiator in the executive branch, the President has an obligation to assume some leadership. Frankly, there has been a breakdown in leadership on that subject. We hope we haven't waited too late to make changes and reach agreements and work out problems in the trade area for the farmers who have suffered this year. That is one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to include direct payments that are bonus payments under the transition. We think the market transition program to compensate producers directly for income losses due to the economic crisis and trade problems that we have is very important. The administration does not propose and has not suggested that as an appropriate step to aid America's farmers. I make those comments, Madam President, not to pick a fight with anybody here on the floor of the Senate today, but to simply express my concern that we not see this bill held up, delayed, postponed, vetoed, whatever may happen to it, because of an interest in being able to say the Democrats are for a $7 billion disaster program, the Republican bill is only $4 billion. I bet it will be the same folks who said we want $500 million in an indemnity program to help meet the needs of the agriculture crisis. That is what the story was in July. We all agreed at that time that was probably temporary, that more needs to be done. So I am not belittling that suggestion. It was the suggestion on the floor of the Senate at the time and no one had any better idea at that time. Since then it seems we have been engaged in a show of one-upsmanship. The Republicans then come up with, with Democrat input in many cases, this $4 billion program of disaster assistance. Now, all of a sudden, that is not enough; we need $7 billion. How much has the President requested? I have the exact amount: $1.76 billion in budget authority has been requested by the President for agriculture producers and ranchers. That will support $2.3 billion program level. The other suggestion is removing the loan caps. Then CBO is called on to answer the question, what will that cost? The answer is that will probably cost--and it is speculation, it is a guess, nobody knows because nobody knows what commodity prices will be in the future--it is guessed it will be $5.5 billion. The proponents of that proposal say we are for spending $5.5 billion plus $2.3 billion, so we are for spending almost $8 billion. So this is a more generous plan. What is not disclosed is the effect that policy change of raising the loan caps will have on prices of those commodities next year or the next. The [[Page S11415]] fact is there are many who tell us that we are buying into a program that is going to have a continuing depressing effect on market price of these commodities that are covered by the loan programs. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't think anybody could have guessed that corn and wheat prices would have been as low as they are right now a year ago. So nobody knows what the prices are going to be in the future. I am told they will be lower because of that change in policy. So are we doing farmers a favor by making that policy change? It is really not a question, in my view, of who is willing to spend more money on farmers, the Republicans or the Democrats. Both are being very generous. That is the fact. Both are being very, very generous in terms of where we started, existing programs, precedent, previous disaster benefit efforts. The fact is the Democrats are in favor of making a policy change and substituting a change for an existing farm bill provision that set up the market transition payments and the phasing in to a market economy. We are in the second year of that farm bill. There are 3 more years left under the authority of the 1996 bill. I m hopeful that we can find a way to provide the benefits to American agriculture producers without rewriting or trying to rewrite portions of the 1996 farm bill. So we have a difference of opinion on that. Let me simply conclude my remarks by thanking everyone who helped us write this conference report. It has been a very challenging experience. I don't know that we had a more contentious or at least long drawn out conference on agriculture appropriations since I have been in the Congress. I don't recall having any more difficult time putting the bill together. We had a lot of disagreements that were discussed, but we worked them all out. We have a conference agreement. That is the good news. The other body has passed the conference report by a very large vote. Privilege of the Floor Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4101, and during any votes that may occur in relation to this measure: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, and Rachelle Graves. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized. Mr. KERREY. Madam President, first of all, let me compliment the Senator from Mississippi for his usual articulate and persuasive fashion--always a gentleman, always wanting to work with us, regardless of momentary disagreements. I regret to say this is one of those momentary disagreements. I come to the floor today to offer arguments against this conference report. I had initially intended to offer a motion to recommit the report back to conference, but now that motion would be out of order since the House has reported it. I prefer that it go back to the conference rather than going on to the President. I appreciate very much the President indicating he will veto this bill. Perhaps if we can dispose of this conference report in a hurry, get the President's veto, the conferees can direct their attention to the objections the President has raised. Those objections are similar to the ones I will offer here this afternoon. Let me say, first of all, I do appreciate that there is bipartisan agreement that rural America is facing a real crisis. That is very good news. What the Senator from Mississippi said is quite right. There has been, throughout the year, a process of developing proposals, but there has been significant disagreement on one particular point; that is, taking the caps off the loan rate. We voted twice on that. It did not pass here in the Senate. I will talk about that later. I think, unfortunately, that ideological argument is getting in the way of our ability to be able to reach agreement. This conference report, I believe, fails in two areas: First, it does not achieve the goal of providing support, both to the farmers who grow the crop who are in serious trouble due to the prices, and those who are in trouble as a consequence of weather disasters. For livestock, this conference report fails to put the law on the sides of the producers and take action to make our markets work better. First, as to the amount of income support for grains, it is simply not enough. It is not targeted as it should be to the people growing our food. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial that appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star praising Congressman Doug Bereuter, a Republican from Nebraska, who represents the First Congressional District. Congressman Bereuter also objected to the plan in the conference report as not sufficiently generous to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions; that the $4 billion in aid should be closer to $7 billion in aid that the budget has requested. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Oct. 2, 1998] Bereuter Path on Farm Aid Best Approach First District Rep. Doug Bereuter has a sound, responsible approach to helping farmers at a time when commodity prices have plunged to lows not seen since the 1980s. Breaking with his GOP cohorts, Bereuter said this week the Republican plan ``is not sufficiently generous'' to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions. House and Senate conferees Wednesday chose the Republican plan, which would provide $4 billion in aid, over a Democratic plan which would have provided $7.1 billion in tax subsidies to farmers. Agriculture was one of the first sectors of the economy to be buffeted by the Asian financial crisis. Export markets in some Asian nations have virtually evaporated. Now markets in Latin America also are being affected. In addition to providing a cushion against low prices, the aid package under consideration in Congress is intended to help farmers who have been hit by drought and other adverse weather conditions. Debate over the size of an aid package for farmers unfortunately has bogged down in partisan rhetoric and a running debate over the five-year Freedom to Farm act approved by Congress in 1996. The Republican aid package unfortunately also rejects other measures that would provide substantial benefit to agriculture. For example, it does not require mandatory price reporting, which would allow cattle producers to know what packing plants are paying for beef. It also does not include a provision to require labeling showing the national origin of meat. The measure would allow consumers to select beef produced in the U.S. rather than other countries. While pushing for more financial help for farmers, Bereuter rightly resists a return to previous ag policies that are part of the Democratic approach, which would base subsidies for grain farmers on the so-called loan rate. Previous farm policy was based on a heavily bureaucratic approach with strict government dictates. Proponents of the Freedom to Farm act left more decision-making to farmers, at the same time leaving them more subject to market pressures. In the long run, the market-oriented approach under Freedom to Farm will benefit agriculture, although it certainly should be open for modification and improvement. But now, while farmers are facing a double whammy of record harvests and low prices, is not the time to get bogged down in partisan debate over basic philosophy. Providing aid under the payment system of the existing farm bill makes sense. But, as Bereuter suggested, the amount should be more generous than Republicans have agreed to so far to preserve the stability and capability of the sector of the economy that feeds the nation. Mr. KERREY. Madam President, as to the income, the proposal in the conference report would be, approximately, for corn, 7 cents a bushel. That does not get the farmer much closer to either recovering the cost of production nor providing his banker confidence to lend him money again next year, and significantly, of all the tests that I trust as to whether or not the President's proposal should be a part of the conference report or not, economists will come forward and argue on both sides of practically any proposal you come out with. The Independent Bankers of America have endorsed taking the caps off the loan rate, not because it provides more income, and by no means does it provide a sufficient amount of income that we won't still have significant people going broke, but because it is attached to a marketing loan, it increases the chances that farmers who will need operating loans will be able to get them. Likewise, this conference report is inadequate because provisions were dropped that were passed in the Senate [[Page S11416]] in July, which were to require price reporting for beef, and meat labeling requirements as well. The conferees have said to farmers and ranchers that they think the livestock markets work just fine. But I am here in a brief period of time to say that the markets are not working. Cattle feeders and ranchers have lost more than $2 billion in equity this year, with millions more being lost every week. When I am home-- typically every weekend--the people in Nebraska are worried about their financial stability and they believe that this Agriculture appropriations bill, with the disaster package attached to it, will be terribly important for their financial stability. More deeply than just the money, they are worried about their way of life, because, in the final analysis, this debate is about much more than just the size and makeup of a relief package; it is about the future of rural America. We can see the future of our small towns and rural areas very clearly right now, and it doesn't look good, with prices low and economic conditions as hard as they are on our farms and ranches. Those who are not driven off the land in this crisis have already found that their children are not interested in the life farming has to offer. Two weeks ago, in Scottsbluff, I held a town hall meeting, and 60 people were in the room who are involved directly in production agriculture. I asked how many of them had children who would take over the farms, and I didn't get a single affirmative answer. Those with grown children had already lost them to the cities. Others said, ``There is no opportunity out here.'' That is what this Congress has the ability to change, and we can start with this piece of legislation. We need an agricultural sector that offers some opportunity, but first we must bring some stability to that agricultural sector. Again, I am pleased the President is going to veto it. Let me talk of the differences, specifically to our States. Again, I heard the distinguished Senator from Mississippi talk about economists who are saying taking the caps off of loan rates could have a depressing impact on price. I have not come to the floor and said that Freedom to Farm produced these lower prices. I think the lower prices are clearly there as a consequence of a declining demand in the international marketplace. Nobody is forecasting that demand is going to come back in 1999. Nobody expects the decline in exports to increase. I wish this Congress had been able to pass fast-track legislation. I have supported it in the past. I believe that, long term, it would help. But in the short term, we see substantial declines in income that are there as a consequence of this decline in demand and increased production that has occurred here in America. This package in the conference report versus what the President asked for is substantially different. I pointed this out before, and it bears repeating. In Nebraska, the difference is $434 million of income--this does not go to State government or county government; it goes to individual farm families--versus $177 million, almost a quarter of a million dollars. In Mississippi, it is $145 million versus $71 million. In Minnesota, it is $483 million versus $227 million. I ask unanimous consent that this table, which shows the differences between the package in the conference report and what the President has asked for be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: DEMOCRATIC VERSUS REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS, BY STATE (CBO ESTIMATE) [In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Democratic Republican Difference ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama.......................... 96 64 32 Arizona.......................... 39 19 20 Arkansas......................... 194 105 89 California....................... 227 142 85 Colorado......................... 120 53 67 Connecticut...................... 2 1 1 Delaware......................... 6 2 4 Florida.......................... 58 47 11 Georgia.......................... 218 147 71 Idaho............................ 127 37 90 Illinois......................... 527 186 341 Indiana.......................... 277 95 182 Iowa............................. 600 235 365 Kansas........................... 371 176 195 Kentucky......................... 65 30 35 Louisiana........................ 99 84 16 Maine............................ 3 2 1 Maryland......................... 21 7 14 Massachusetts.................... 1 1 0 Michigan......................... 109 47 62 Minnesota........................ 483 227 256 Mississippi...................... 145 71 74 Missouri......................... 205 81 124 Montana.......................... 160 71 89 Nebraska......................... 434 177 257 Nevada........................... 1 0 1 New Hampshire.................... 1 0 1 New Jersey....................... 5 1 4 New Mexico....................... 40 27 14 New York......................... 41 12 29 North Carolina................... 185 115 70 North Dakota..................... 431 316 115 Ohio............................. 197 64 133 Oklahoma......................... 170 109 60 Oregon........................... 74 14 60 Pennsylvania..................... 46 10 36 South Carolina................... 46 28 18 South Dakota..................... 363 214 149 Tennessee........................ 73 29 44 Texas............................ 896 813 83 Utah............................. 11 3 8 Vermont.......................... 26 11 16 Virginia......................... 39 19 20 West Virginia.................... 153 42 111 Washington....................... 12 2 10 Wisconsin........................ 139 60 79 Wyoming.......................... 10 4 6 -------------------------------------- Total.......................... 7,546 4,000 3,546 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. KERREY. Madam President, again, not only are our grain farmers adversely affected, but cattle producers and cattle processors have been as well. We have met extensively with our ranchers and our feeders, and they say to us two things need to happen, and they need to happen in order to improve our prices and increase the chances that we are going to get a market bid that is higher than what we are getting now. The first is mandatory reporting of prices, regardless of whether the prices occur in cattle that are owned by the feeder or cattle controlled through formula feeding, or some other contract by the packinghouse. Those prices today are not reported. We had extensive debate here on the floor about that issue. Unfortunately, the conferees dropped that. I believe that provision, all by itself, would increase prices for cattle in the United States, for beef, and would have a very positive impact as a consequence on our rural communities. Likewise, the meat labeling requirement included in the Senate bill was dropped by the conferees, and it is supported by almost all of the cattle organizations. There is some dispute on price reporting, although I think we can deal with the changes that we had in the conference language. There is almost no dispute, from the standpoint of the producer, on the need to put on the label information that allows the consumer to determine from where that product came. It is allowing the market to work. Rather than saying that the Government is going to impose a solution, we say inform the consumer where the product came from and let them decide. I hope, as I said in the beginning, that the President's veto of this conference report will lead to the conferees coming back quickly and looking, as no doubt they will, for ways to improve it along the lines of what the President has recommended. Not only are there tens of thousands of farmers who will survive if we can get this legislation passed and on to the President for his signature, as he has asked us to, but it will give us a chance to take a step in the direction of giving our rural communities a chance to survive. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is a custom in the Senate to speak well of someone you are about to oppose. So let me speak well of the Senator from Mississippi. We have worked together on a wide range of issues. He is a very effective Senator and somebody I enjoy working with a great deal. He has a very effective staff and we work on a lot of issues together. But I come to the floor today opposing the conference report and to do so as aggressively as I possibly can. I want to explain to him and other Members why I feel so strongly about this. First of all, it is not the case that all that was offered in July was the $500 million indemnity program that was introduced as an amendment by Senator Conrad and myself. It is the case that we also proposed, and had a vote on an amendment to increase the price supports by lifting the caps on the loan rate. We did it then; and we did it a second time. We lost twice in those efforts. We proposed a series of steps, one of which was lifting the loan rate, and another of which dealt with disaster issues. I want to describe why I feel so strongly about this. I received a letter from the head of the Farm Service Agency in our State. I asked him, ``If things don't change, what should we [[Page S11417]] expect in the next few months in North Dakota with respect to family farms?'' He points out that North Dakota in the judgment of the Farm Service Agency, will lose over 3,500 farms by this spring without some significant assistance. That is probably some 14,000 people. I assume there is an average of three or four persons on each of those family farmers, including a spouse and a couple of children. So at least 3,500 family farms will not get credit and will not be able to continue farming this coming year. That means 12,000 to 14,000 North Dakota farm people will be told that their dream is over. They tried, but they failed. Let me describe the reasons they are not making it. There are two main reasons. One, is the disaster. We had the 500-year flood of the Red River, and people know about that. They remember the flood at Grand Forks. For a number of years we have been in a wet weather cycle in eastern North Dakota. We have had massive quantities of standing water that have inundated acres and acres of farmland in North Dakota. This wet cycle has caused and exacerbated a crop disease known as fusarium head blight, or scab. This combination has devastated the quality of farm life in North Dakota. I have a chart here. If you are a North Dakota farmer and you are in these red counties on this chart in the eastern part of the State, you have had 5 straight years of disaster declaration. The red counties are not 1, 2, or 3, but every year for 5 straight years that these counties have been declared a disaster. Why? Because of weather-related events, and other events, their production has been devastated. So that is the disaster portion of this problem. You can see that with the orange counties and yellow counties, that these counties have had disasters 3 out of 5 years. In fact two thirds of the counties in my State have been declared a disaster area 3, 4 or 5 years out of 5 years. Now, in addition to the disaster, what also has happened to these farmers is that Congress passed a new farm bill. The Senator from Nebraska might be right that this might have nothing at all to do with price. The new farm bill might not be related to the collapse in price. But it might be; I don't know. I am not asserting that today, I am just saying that we passed a new farm bill. This chart shows what has happened to the price of wheat since Congress passed the farm bill. It is down by almost 60 percent. There has been a 60-percent drop in the price of wheat since Congress passed the new farm bill. The price of wheat has fallen from $5.75 a bushel to $2.36. Add together the significant disasters year after year and the collapse of prices and here is what you have. In my State, in North Dakota, which is the hardest hit, in 1 year there was a 98-percent drop in net farm income. These are U.S. Government figures. We had a 98- percent drop in net farm income. With respect to this group of North Dakotans, their income has virtually been wiped away. Is it any wonder they are in deep trouble? We are not a State of big corporate agrifactories. We are a State largely composed of family farms. When they suffer a loss of virtually all of their income, many of them just do not make it. The current farm bill doesn't provide a bridge across price valleys. The philosophy of the current farm bill is that you ought to operate in the free market. If there is a price valley, the farmer is told, ``Tough luck; try and find your way across the valley.'' So because we don't have that pricing bridge under this economic philosophy, family farmers certainly don't get to the other side. The head of our Farm Service Agency says 3,500 farms will not be in the field next spring in North Dakota. I am betting that if any other Member of this body had the same set of statistics in front of them concerning what is happening to their family farmers would also be here. They would be here with as much energy and as much passion as I have to see if we can't change this result and to do whatever we need to do to change it. The underlying bill has disaster assistance. I am very appreciative of that. We might argue about who provides more. But overall, frankly, I think the underlying bill, and the administration, and virtually everyone who is party to this has offered a fairly decent package with respect to disaster assistance. The Senator from Mississippi correctly pointed out that he and Senator Lott accepted the $500 million indemnity program amendment that we put into in the bill in the Senate in the first instance to deal with the initial estimate of damages from the disaster in the Northern Plains. That amendment was done prior to the almost complete collapse of the cotton crop in Texas and the devastation in Louisiana, Oklahoma and other States. At that time we all understood that the disaster indemnity program was going to have to be increased at some point along the way. The disaster package in this appropriations bill started with the acceptance by the Senator from Mississippi to put in the $500 million indemnity for the Northern Plains. I appreciate that. I am not here to argue about which disaster proposal for this bill is better than the other. Both the President and the conference report addressed this disaster issue in a very significant way. But, I am here to say that is not enough. On top of the disaster provision, as the Senator from Mississippi indicated, the majority party added a 18-cents-a-bushel payment for wheat. This additional AMTA payment really only means that farmers will get 13 cents a bushel for wheat when it is all figured out. That is because AMTA payments are made on only 85 percent of contract acreage on the frozen historic yields. So the real assistance to deal with price collapse in this bill amounts to 13 cents a bushel for wheat. And it is not enough. It won't allow farmers enough cashflow. It won't allow their bankers to decide that they will get another loan to go to the fields next spring to plant crops. They simply won't be able to do it. That is the dilemma. This is not enough. And there isn't any way to argue to say that it is enough, or that it will solve this problem. If numbers are to be believed with respect to the estimates in North Dakota, at least 3,500 farm families are going to be washed away. These farm families are not going to be able to farm next spring. I am not willing to accept that result. It is not a fair result. Family farmers are not getting their share of this country's national income. They should be expected to get a decent share of that. Let me show you what family farms face. They are told that they should just go ahead and operate in the free market and whatever happens, happens. What is that free market about? Everywhere they look, they confront near monopolies, or at least enormous concentrations of economic power. The top four firms in this country control 62 percent of flour milling. The top four firms in dry corn milling control 57 percent. In wet corn milling, the top four control 76 percent. In soybean crushing, the top four have 76 percent. If a farmer happens to produce livestock and he markets that cow, he finds that 87 percent of the beef slaughter is controlled by the top four firms. The top four control 73 percent of sheep slaughter. It is 60 percent for pork. Or, if farmers want to haul their grain to market on a railroad--and most of them have to--they stick it on a rail car somewhere in my State, and they get double charged at least because there is no competition. I have mentioned this before and I will say it again. If you put a carload of wheat on the rail track in Bismarck and haul it to Minneapolis, they charge you $2,300. If you put it on a car in Minneapolis, and haul it to Chicago, which is about the same distance, it costs you $1,000. Why do we get double charged? Because there is no rail competition in North Dakota, while there are multiple lines between Minneapolis and Chicago. So it is not just concentration among processors. It is also the transportation components of the grain trade that are highly concentrated. This isn't a circumstance where there is a free market. Yet farmers are told to operate in the free market. If prices collapse, they are told tough luck, and we will give you 13 cents. If they can't make it with that, tougher luck. Those want to pass this bill also contemplate tax cuts that they say will help farmers. Tax cuts don't help people without income. The problem in [[Page S11418]] farm country is lack of income. The first thing we should do is to restore income. I happen to support most of those tax proposals that I have heard about. In fact, some that the Senator from Mississippi described today have great merit. I support fully deductible health insurance for sole proprietorships and income averaging. I can go down a whole list of proposals that I support. My point is that first we need to restore income to these family farmers. They need to get a fair share of this Nation's income. The fact is that everybody who touches products produced by these farmers is virtually making record profits. The railroads? You bet your life they are doing fine. They haul the farmers' products. How about the slaughterhouses? Are they doing fine? You bet they have solid profits. They are the ones who slaughter the livestock that is sent to market by those farmers. How about the cereal manufacturers who put the snap, crackle and pop into a cereal. They take a kernel of wheat, put it in a plant some place, put it in a bright-colored box, ship it to a grocery store, and sell it at $4 a box. The company that puts the puff in puffed wheat makes far more than the person who gassed the tractor, planted the seed, and harvested that wheat. In fact, the person that harvested the wheat that they planted is going broke. And the people who are puffing it, crackling it, and snapping it are having record profits. I don't understand the notion that somehow, if we just do nothing, things will work out. When we look at all of the evidence here, we are going to lose tens and tens of thousands of family farmers across this country unless this Congress does what it needs to do now. We need to provide some decent price supports to get farmers across this price valley. I am not standing here asking that we tip the current farm program upside down. I didn't vote for the current farm program. I am not going to stand here and provide a litany of why I think it is not a good program. I am not suggesting we tip it upside down. I am simply saying what this farm program did in the big print it took away in the small print. This farm program, passed by this Congress, said we would provide farmers 85 percent of the five-year Olympic average price as a price support in the form of a loan rate. That is what it said in the big print. In the small print it said that the 85 percent of the five- year Olympic average price would be capped. The small print says we will put an artificial cap on it to bring the loan rates way down. All we are saying is that we should take the artificial cap off. Do what the big print said the farm bill will do. Get rid of the small print that took away that help to the family farmers. In North Dakota it means a $156 million difference just on the price support mechanism. The difference for the farmers in my State alone is $156 million. That could well mean the difference between making it and not making it. It can mean the difference between succeeding and failing. A young fellow wrote to me recently. I have referred to his letter previously in the last couple of days. His name is Wyatt. He is a sophomore in high school at Stanley, ND. He wrote this plaintive cry for help on behalf of his family farm. He is a young boy who loves to farm. He knows his dad and mom do as well. He wrote me a letter that says, ``My dad can feed 180 people. And he can't feed his family.'' He was describing a circumstance where his family's income has been washed out. Their family farm may not be able to make it and he wonders whether that is fair, and whether that is good economic policy for this country. The answer clearly is no, that is not fair. And clearly it is not good economic policy for our country. Both the independent community bankers in my State and the North Dakota Bankers Association tell me that if we don't pass some meaningful assistance this year these farmers won't be in the field next spring. That is from the lenders. This weekend, I was reading some of President Truman's speeches in 1948. I want to read a couple of pieces from President Truman in 1948. Old Harry was doing a whistle stop tour on a train back then. I like Harry Truman. Harry spoke plainly and never minced any words. I thought maybe we would celebrate just a bit of what Harry Truman said about family farmers and what this debate is about today. Harry Truman said at the National Plowing Match in Dexter, IA, September 18, 1948: [I] believe that farmers are entitled to share equally with others in our national income. [I] believe a prosperous and productive agriculture is essential to [this country's] national welfare. He said: Those who are wilfully trying to discredit the price support program for farmers don't want the farmers to be prosperous. They believe in low prices for farmers, cheap wages for labor, and high profits for big corporations. And then he said: The big money [interests look] on agriculture and labor as merely an expense item in a business venture. [They try] to push their share of the national income down as low as possible and increase [their] own profits. And [they] look upon the Government as a tool to accomplish this purpose. That was 1948, 50 years ago. Isn't it interesting that as we stand here debating agriculture, in North Dakota there are probably 12,000 to 14,000 citizens who will not get into the fields next spring unless this Congress does the right thing. At least 3,500 farms will go belly up. That is 12,000 to 14,000 people, who will lose their livelihood unless we do the right thing. Yet, surrounding those farmers are the bigger economic interests that are all making money. There are the railroads, slaughterhouses, grain trader, cereal manufacturers, grocery manufacturers, and you can name all the others that are all making record profits. Does that say something about whether the system is fair? And you might say, well, what business is it of ours? The business for this country is that if we do not act, we will not have people living in the country. We will not have people living out on the land. We won't have yard lights illuminating those family f

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT
(Senate - October 05, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S11411-S11436] AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the report will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4101), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees. The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report. (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of October 2, 1998.) Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, pending before the Senate at this time is the conference report on the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. We present this conference report for the Senate's approval this afternoon. The agreement provides total new budget authority of $55.7 billion for programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-- except for the Forest Service, which is funded by the Interior appropriations bill--the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and expenses and payments of the farm credit system. This is $6 billion more than the fiscal year 1998 enacted level; it is $1.9 billion less than the President's request level; it is $192 million less than the House-passed bill, and it is $1.1 billion less than the Senate-passed bill level. The changes that were made in conference on mandatory funding requirements account for the overall increase from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, principally reflecting a $2.6 billion lower estimate for Food Stamp Program funding requirements, higher Child Nutrition Program expenses, and a $7.6 billion increase in the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses. The conference report also provides an additional $4.2 billion in emergency appropriations to assist agricultural producers and others who have suffered financial hardship due to adverse weather conditions and loss of markets. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior [[Page S11412]] year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total discretionary spending for fiscal year 1999 of $13.651 billion in budget authority and $14.050 billion in outlays. These amounts are consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations established for this conference agreement under the Budget Act. It was a very difficult conference. As Members may recall, a number of legislative provisions were added to the bill when it was considered in the Senate in July. Not only did the conference committee have to reach agreement with the House on these issues, but it had to resolve funding differences within a more constrained discretionary spending allocation for the conference than originally established in the Senate bill. Special recognition is due and deserved by the ranking member of the subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers. In addition, the chairman of the House subcommittee, Congressman Skeen from New Mexico, and ranking minority member of the House subcommittee, Congresswoman Kaptur from Ohio, turned in hard work and cooperated with our efforts to make this conference agreement possible. The report includes credit relief for farmers, a 6-month extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact, sanctions relief for exports to India and Pakistan, a waiver of the statute of limitations for certain discrimination claims filed against the Department of Agriculture, and a number of other legislative provisions that were included in the Senate and House-passed bills. In addition, at the request of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, chaired by Senator Lugar here and Congressman Smith in the House, the conference report includes a moratorium on the rulemaking authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over swaps and derivatives, as well as language requested by the administration authorizing the creation of an Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs position at the Department of Agriculture. That change also had the approval of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over that subject. During consideration of the bill in the Senate, an amendment was adopted providing increased funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative. A major portion of this additional spending was offset by an ``assessment'' on the purchasers and importers of tobacco. This was subsequently determined by the House Ways and Means Committee to be a ``tax,'' and therefore off limits to the Appropriations Committee and was not included in the conference report. I am pleased to report to the Senate, however, that the conference report provides increased funding of $51.9 million for activities and programs which are part of the administration's Food Safety Initiative. In addition, the conference report provides $609 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, an agency critical to maintaining the safety of our food supply. That is $20 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and $460 million more than the President requested in his budget. As most of my colleagues are aware, one of the major differences between the House and Senate-passed bill was a House bill provision to prevent fiscal year 1999 funding for the new Competitive Agriculture Research Program established by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. I did not support the proposal to remove or prevent the funding going forward as directed in that legislation. However, with a total discretionary budget authority allocation for the conference that was $64 million below the level we had for the Senate bill, it was a House position that the Senate conferees had little choice but to accept. Without that offset, drastic cuts would have been necessary in funding for other discretionary programs and activities in the bill. In view of this 1-year delay in funding for the new Agriculture Research Competitive Grant Program, the conference provided increased appropriations for existing agricultural research programs. Here are some examples: There is an appropriation of $782 million for the Agriculture Research Service. That represents a $38 million increase from the 1998 fiscal year level, and it is $14 million more than was included in the Senate-passed bill. There is total funding of $481 million for research and education activities of the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service. That is $50 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and it is $48 million more than was in the Senate-passed bill. Included in this amount is a 7-percent increase from the fiscal year 1998 level for payments under the Hatch Act, cooperative forestry research, payments to the 1890 and 1994 institutions, including Tuskegee and animal and health disease grants. Also included is a $22.1 million increase for the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. In addition, the bill recommends $434 million for extension activities which preserves the 3-percent increase recommended by the Senate for Smith-Lever formula funds, as well as extension payments to the 1994 and 1890 institutions, including Tuskegee University. Approximately $36.1 billion, close to 65 percent of the total new budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the school lunch and breakfast programs. The Senate receded to the House- recommended appropriations level for the WIC program because recent data on actual participation rates and food package costs indicate that this amount should be sufficient to maintain current program participation levels in fiscal year 1999. For farm assistance programs, including the Farm Service Agency and farm ownership and operation loan subsidies, the conference report provides $1.1 billion in appropriations. Appropriations for conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service total $793 million, $9 million more than the House bill level and $1 million more than the level recommended by the Senate. For rural economic and community development programs, the conference report provides appropriations of $2.2 billion to support a total loan level of $6.2 billion. Included in this amount is $723 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, $583 million for the rental assistance program, and a total rural housing loan program level of $4.25 billion. A total of $1.2 billion is provided for foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of Agriculture, including $136 million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service and a total program level of $1.1 billion for the P.L. 480 Food for Peace Program. Total new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration is $977 million, $11.5 million more than the level recommended by the House and $24.5 million more than the Senate bill level, along with an additional $132 million in Prescription Drug Act and $14 million in mammography clinics user fee collections. Included in the appropriation for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is a $20 million increase for food safety. For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $61 million is provided; and a limitation of $35.8 million is established on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. Titles XI-XIII of this conference report provide emergency relief to agricultural producers and others who have suffered weather-related and economic losses. As Members will recall, a number of amendments were adopted to this bill when the Senate considered it in July to address disaster-related requirements with the understanding that additional relief would be necessary once actual losses were determined by the Department of Agriculture and a supplemental request was submitted by the Administration. No request was submitted to the Congress until September 23. On September 23, the Administration submitted a $1.8 billion budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs. In the interim, the Republicans released a $3.9 billion relief package to assist agricultural producers. This emergency agricultural relief package is included in this conference report, along with additional [[Page S11413]] emergency supplemental appropriations, to make a total of $4.2 billion in emergency assistance available. A total of $1.5 billion is made available to assist producers who have been hit by crop losses in 1998, and an additional $675 million for producers who have suffered from multiple-year crop losses. Also included is $175 million for emergency livestock feed assistance, and $1.65 billion to assist producers with market losses. In addition, the conference report provides temporary recourse loans for honey and mohair; $5 million for cotton indemnity payments; an increase of $25 million for the Food for Progress program to help move more grain out of the country; and expanded non-insured crop assistance for raisin producers. Additional supplemental emergency appropriations provided by the conference report include the $40 million to cover additional costs to the Farm Service Agency of administering this assistance, $10 million for the Forestry Incentives Program; and $31 million in subsidy appropriations to fund an additional $541 million in farm operating loans. Madam President, this conference report was filed on Friday and was passed by the House of Representatives that day by an overwhelming vote of 333 yeas to 53 nays. Senate passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to the President for signature into law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report. Many of our farmers and ranchers are facing the worst crisis in agriculture that they can remember. The economic collapse in Asia has resulted in lost markets. Producers in some states have suffered severe weather conditions. Others have been hit hard by crop diseases. The farmers need help now, and it is time to quit playing politics with disaster relief and adopt this conference report. Madam President, this is the last Agriculture Appropriations bill my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, will manage in the Senate after serving on the Appropriations Committee for 20 years and this Subcommittee for 13 years. Senator Bumpers has been an advocate of American agriculture and a proponent of the programs in this bill to improve the quality of life and help bring jobs to rural areas. His expertise and many contributions to this process and this bill will indeed be missed. In summary, let me point out, Madam President, that there has been raised the specter of a Presidential veto over this conference report because of the inadequacy of the provision relating to disaster assistance payments. I am very disturbed by that suggestion, and I hope that it is more rumor than promise. I know the President spent some time on Saturday in his weekly radio address speaking to that subject. I recall that 2 weeks ago, I was asked to deliver the Republican response to the President's weekly radio address, and my subject was the need for a more aggressive and meaningful disaster assistance program for farmers. I think everyone can agree that both the President and the Congress have been speaking out and making very clear the fact that we need a helpful, sensitive, generous program of disaster assistance to help deal with the realities of weather-related disasters that have struck many parts of the country, market loss problems because of the Asian economic crisis, and other factors that have worked together to make this a very difficult year for agriculture. The question is, Are we going to resolve this in a way that is consistent with the legislative process that makes sense for farmers, that serves to establish policies that are thoughtful and consistent with the needs of American agriculture, or are we going to continue to treat this as a political football and just kick it around and have us skirmish every day or every week over this issue, leading to delay, leading to uncertainties, leading to anxieties? Farmers in America certainly deserve better. I would like just for a moment or two to think back on the date when we had the bill on the floor of the Senate and the subject of disaster assistance was first raised. We adopted in the Senate a sense-of-the- Senate resolution calling on the President and the Congress to work together to come up with a proposal that would meet the needs for emergency action to respond ``to the economic hardships facing agriculture producers and their communities.'' The Senate adopted that on July 15 by a vote of 99 to 0. The next day, there was an amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and others who suggested we establish a $500 million indemnity program to compensate farmers for income losses that had been suffered due to various adverse conditions--weather and otherwise--throughout the country, although mainly the benefits were directed to the upper plains and other selected areas, not countrywide benefits or a program designed to be national in scope. During my remarks on that occasion, I recall on the Senate floor saying that we needed to have the President and the Department of Agriculture get involved and provide the Congress with a complete and accurate assessment of the funds that were needed for a program of this kind. We hadn't had a proposal from the administration for any specific benefit program for agriculture, although there had been meetings on the Hill with farm groups, with Senators and Congressmen trying to, first, get the facts and get a sense of what the agriculture leadership throughout the country thought would be an appropriate response by the Federal Government. There was no question at the time we were debating the bill that there was great interest in developing a disaster assistance program to meet the needs of American agriculture. As a matter of fact, during the discussion, I asked Senators if they had any better ideas, if they had suggestions for anything other than this $500 million indemnity program, and no one came forward to offer any amendments and no one expressed opposition to adopting that amendment. We checked with the legislative chairman in the Senate, and others, and without objection, we suggested that the Senate adopt the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota on a voice vote, and that is what we did. We accepted the amendment. After that was done, it became clear that through gathering information, that the situation was more widespread. I remember going to Georgia, for example, with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell. I had an opportunity to meet with farmers in southern Georgia and became convinced that we had a problem that was bigger than the upper plains and Texas. Everybody knew about the drought in Texas and the severe complications that were resulting from that for agriculture producers and ranchers in that area. But I do not think it was well known that in south Georgia, which had had a series of weather-related disasters over a period of years, the agriculture sector there was really hurting. And the $500 million indemnity program, suggested by the Senators from North Dakota and others, was not going to be sufficient to deal with that problem and others as well. I know in my State of Mississippi, for example, when I was home right after we adopted this bill in July--we had a break during the August recess--I had an opportunity to visit some areas of my State that were devastated because of isolated weather patterns that had ruined corn crops in the northwest part of Mississippi, and others had been damaged to the extent that diseases were infesting the crops. Aflatoxin was attacking the corn crops. There was no provision in any Federal disaster assistance program for yield losses, for crop losses. Those who were suggesting an indemnity program based on lifting loan caps had to realize that was not going to help somebody who had a total crop failure. It would not help them a bit. So we came back, started working on a new proposal, got with the leadership of the House and Senate, and asked the administration they were going to request supplemental funding. They did come back with a $1.8 billion supplemental budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs, without a lot of specificity about how those benefits would be determined, how the eligibility would be determined, who would administer the program. But, nonetheless, it was a step in the right direction, and I applauded the President for responding in that way. [[Page S11414]] But based on that supplemental request--and working with the knowledge that other Members had generated from their States--we proposed to the conference committee a $4.1 billion disaster assistance program, and it was accepted in the conference committee with some changes. We accepted some amendments proposed by House Members in conference. We added some money proposed by the Senate in response to specific amendments that were urged in conference to the managers' proposal. So the end result was the conference committee agreed to provide emergency benefits totaling about $4.2 billion. So I come to the Senate today very pleased to be able to report that, instead of a $500 million indemnity program that the Senate adopted as a way to deal with the crisis in agriculture, working with farmers, producers, and ranchers from around the country, and other Members of the Congress, including the House, we now have a conference report that is much more generous, much more responsive to the real needs that exist in our country today in production agriculture, and designed to more nearly bring farmers to a point where they can continue to operate without going broke, without the devastating effects that would have been the reality of the situation had not this package of changes been agreed upon. We hear now that the Democratic leadership has urged the President to veto the bill. And I got a letter suggesting that he would if the conference agreement on disaster assistance was inconsistent with the proposal just recently made by the Democratic leader of the Senate to remove the loan caps under the current farm program for the commodities that are subsidized, in effect, by the Federal Government--no ifs, ands, buts about it. The letter said--and I took this up with the Secretary of Agriculture to be sure I understood that that was the meaning--that the President said he would veto the bill if the conference report was inconsistent with a proposal made by the Democratic leader to remove the loan caps for those commodities that are subsidized by the Government. I am very disappointed by that. I certainly hope that there is room for the President to change his mind on that subject, because it seems to me that rather than argue over whether or not this program is really going to do a good job and is thoughtfully crafted to try to put farmers back on their feet who have been devastated by bad weather and market conditions beyond their control, it just seems to me that this is not an appropriate response for the President to be making, given the other opportunities for positive things. Here are some examples of positive things that I think could be done which are beyond the jurisdiction of this committee today that brings you this conference report. The House of Representatives just passed recently a tax bill making a lot of changes in the Tax Code, but I specifically recall that some of those tax changes are designed to benefit farmers and farm families, and I am told that we are not going to have a chance to vote on that tax bill here in the Senate because we cannot get the bill cleared to bring up. We cannot get the House-passed tax bill cleared. So in order to bring it up, the majority leader would have to move to the consideration of the bill, the motion would become debatable, and then in order to get the bill on the floor for consideration and debate and passage, 60 votes to invoke cloture would have to be undertaken because the Democrats are promising to filibuster the bill. Here are the changes that it bothers me we will not even get a chance to approve that would help farmers. There is a 5-year net loss carryback of losses that you can carry back and set against income for 5 previous years. That is in the House- passed bill. The House-passed bill makes permanent income averaging, which permits farmers and ranchers to average income, high years against low years, and even out the tax burden, which is very beneficial to many. There is a provision that makes deductible, to 100 percent of the cost, health insurance premiums by those who are self-employed. If you are in agriculture and you have a farm and you are your own boss, under this change you will be able to deduct 100 percent of the cost of your health insurance. That helps farmers. That helps farm families. There is also an acceleration of the exemption for death taxes and gift taxes. One of the most difficult things facing agriculture today is the obligation to come up with cash money to pay the Federal Government so-called inheritance taxes on the death of a family member who has an interest in the land or the other property that goes into making up the decedent's estate. We have passed rules that phase in some higher exemptions for small farms and for businesses. What this House-passed bill does is accelerate the phasing in of those exemptions. That would be a big help to many farm families who are going to have to liquidate assets in real estate to pay death taxes. Another thing that this administration has been slow to react to is the trade problems that we are having in this hemisphere, with Canada, with Mexico, and beyond, barriers to trade so that our farmers and our exporters are having to deal with unfair tariff situations and other difficulties that are erected to keep America from selling what we are producing in the world marketplace and at the same time importing, in violation of some existing rules, I am told, some foodstuffs, live cattle, from other countries. Finally the administration is beginning to act. We see the Trade Representative engaging Canada in trade talks now about steps that can be taken to solve the problems that have developed in that area. But we were hearing this on the Senate floor and urging the administration to take action. Being the chief negotiator in the executive branch, the President has an obligation to assume some leadership. Frankly, there has been a breakdown in leadership on that subject. We hope we haven't waited too late to make changes and reach agreements and work out problems in the trade area for the farmers who have suffered this year. That is one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to include direct payments that are bonus payments under the transition. We think the market transition program to compensate producers directly for income losses due to the economic crisis and trade problems that we have is very important. The administration does not propose and has not suggested that as an appropriate step to aid America's farmers. I make those comments, Madam President, not to pick a fight with anybody here on the floor of the Senate today, but to simply express my concern that we not see this bill held up, delayed, postponed, vetoed, whatever may happen to it, because of an interest in being able to say the Democrats are for a $7 billion disaster program, the Republican bill is only $4 billion. I bet it will be the same folks who said we want $500 million in an indemnity program to help meet the needs of the agriculture crisis. That is what the story was in July. We all agreed at that time that was probably temporary, that more needs to be done. So I am not belittling that suggestion. It was the suggestion on the floor of the Senate at the time and no one had any better idea at that time. Since then it seems we have been engaged in a show of one-upsmanship. The Republicans then come up with, with Democrat input in many cases, this $4 billion program of disaster assistance. Now, all of a sudden, that is not enough; we need $7 billion. How much has the President requested? I have the exact amount: $1.76 billion in budget authority has been requested by the President for agriculture producers and ranchers. That will support $2.3 billion program level. The other suggestion is removing the loan caps. Then CBO is called on to answer the question, what will that cost? The answer is that will probably cost--and it is speculation, it is a guess, nobody knows because nobody knows what commodity prices will be in the future--it is guessed it will be $5.5 billion. The proponents of that proposal say we are for spending $5.5 billion plus $2.3 billion, so we are for spending almost $8 billion. So this is a more generous plan. What is not disclosed is the effect that policy change of raising the loan caps will have on prices of those commodities next year or the next. The [[Page S11415]] fact is there are many who tell us that we are buying into a program that is going to have a continuing depressing effect on market price of these commodities that are covered by the loan programs. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't think anybody could have guessed that corn and wheat prices would have been as low as they are right now a year ago. So nobody knows what the prices are going to be in the future. I am told they will be lower because of that change in policy. So are we doing farmers a favor by making that policy change? It is really not a question, in my view, of who is willing to spend more money on farmers, the Republicans or the Democrats. Both are being very generous. That is the fact. Both are being very, very generous in terms of where we started, existing programs, precedent, previous disaster benefit efforts. The fact is the Democrats are in favor of making a policy change and substituting a change for an existing farm bill provision that set up the market transition payments and the phasing in to a market economy. We are in the second year of that farm bill. There are 3 more years left under the authority of the 1996 bill. I m hopeful that we can find a way to provide the benefits to American agriculture producers without rewriting or trying to rewrite portions of the 1996 farm bill. So we have a difference of opinion on that. Let me simply conclude my remarks by thanking everyone who helped us write this conference report. It has been a very challenging experience. I don't know that we had a more contentious or at least long drawn out conference on agriculture appropriations since I have been in the Congress. I don't recall having any more difficult time putting the bill together. We had a lot of disagreements that were discussed, but we worked them all out. We have a conference agreement. That is the good news. The other body has passed the conference report by a very large vote. Privilege of the Floor Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4101, and during any votes that may occur in relation to this measure: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, and Rachelle Graves. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized. Mr. KERREY. Madam President, first of all, let me compliment the Senator from Mississippi for his usual articulate and persuasive fashion--always a gentleman, always wanting to work with us, regardless of momentary disagreements. I regret to say this is one of those momentary disagreements. I come to the floor today to offer arguments against this conference report. I had initially intended to offer a motion to recommit the report back to conference, but now that motion would be out of order since the House has reported it. I prefer that it go back to the conference rather than going on to the President. I appreciate very much the President indicating he will veto this bill. Perhaps if we can dispose of this conference report in a hurry, get the President's veto, the conferees can direct their attention to the objections the President has raised. Those objections are similar to the ones I will offer here this afternoon. Let me say, first of all, I do appreciate that there is bipartisan agreement that rural America is facing a real crisis. That is very good news. What the Senator from Mississippi said is quite right. There has been, throughout the year, a process of developing proposals, but there has been significant disagreement on one particular point; that is, taking the caps off the loan rate. We voted twice on that. It did not pass here in the Senate. I will talk about that later. I think, unfortunately, that ideological argument is getting in the way of our ability to be able to reach agreement. This conference report, I believe, fails in two areas: First, it does not achieve the goal of providing support, both to the farmers who grow the crop who are in serious trouble due to the prices, and those who are in trouble as a consequence of weather disasters. For livestock, this conference report fails to put the law on the sides of the producers and take action to make our markets work better. First, as to the amount of income support for grains, it is simply not enough. It is not targeted as it should be to the people growing our food. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial that appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star praising Congressman Doug Bereuter, a Republican from Nebraska, who represents the First Congressional District. Congressman Bereuter also objected to the plan in the conference report as not sufficiently generous to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions; that the $4 billion in aid should be closer to $7 billion in aid that the budget has requested. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Oct. 2, 1998] Bereuter Path on Farm Aid Best Approach First District Rep. Doug Bereuter has a sound, responsible approach to helping farmers at a time when commodity prices have plunged to lows not seen since the 1980s. Breaking with his GOP cohorts, Bereuter said this week the Republican plan ``is not sufficiently generous'' to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions. House and Senate conferees Wednesday chose the Republican plan, which would provide $4 billion in aid, over a Democratic plan which would have provided $7.1 billion in tax subsidies to farmers. Agriculture was one of the first sectors of the economy to be buffeted by the Asian financial crisis. Export markets in some Asian nations have virtually evaporated. Now markets in Latin America also are being affected. In addition to providing a cushion against low prices, the aid package under consideration in Congress is intended to help farmers who have been hit by drought and other adverse weather conditions. Debate over the size of an aid package for farmers unfortunately has bogged down in partisan rhetoric and a running debate over the five-year Freedom to Farm act approved by Congress in 1996. The Republican aid package unfortunately also rejects other measures that would provide substantial benefit to agriculture. For example, it does not require mandatory price reporting, which would allow cattle producers to know what packing plants are paying for beef. It also does not include a provision to require labeling showing the national origin of meat. The measure would allow consumers to select beef produced in the U.S. rather than other countries. While pushing for more financial help for farmers, Bereuter rightly resists a return to previous ag policies that are part of the Democratic approach, which would base subsidies for grain farmers on the so-called loan rate. Previous farm policy was based on a heavily bureaucratic approach with strict government dictates. Proponents of the Freedom to Farm act left more decision-making to farmers, at the same time leaving them more subject to market pressures. In the long run, the market-oriented approach under Freedom to Farm will benefit agriculture, although it certainly should be open for modification and improvement. But now, while farmers are facing a double whammy of record harvests and low prices, is not the time to get bogged down in partisan debate over basic philosophy. Providing aid under the payment system of the existing farm bill makes sense. But, as Bereuter suggested, the amount should be more generous than Republicans have agreed to so far to preserve the stability and capability of the sector of the economy that feeds the nation. Mr. KERREY. Madam President, as to the income, the proposal in the conference report would be, approximately, for corn, 7 cents a bushel. That does not get the farmer much closer to either recovering the cost of production nor providing his banker confidence to lend him money again next year, and significantly, of all the tests that I trust as to whether or not the President's proposal should be a part of the conference report or not, economists will come forward and argue on both sides of practically any proposal you come out with. The Independent Bankers of America have endorsed taking the caps off the loan rate, not because it provides more income, and by no means does it provide a sufficient amount of income that we won't still have significant people going broke, but because it is attached to a marketing loan, it increases the chances that farmers who will need operating loans will be able to get them. Likewise, this conference report is inadequate because provisions were dropped that were passed in the Senate [[Page S11416]] in July, which were to require price reporting for beef, and meat labeling requirements as well. The conferees have said to farmers and ranchers that they think the livestock markets work just fine. But I am here in a brief period of time to say that the markets are not working. Cattle feeders and ranchers have lost more than $2 billion in equity this year, with millions more being lost every week. When I am home-- typically every weekend--the people in Nebraska are worried about their financial stability and they believe that this Agriculture appropriations bill, with the disaster package attached to it, will be terribly important for their financial stability. More deeply than just the money, they are worried about their way of life, because, in the final analysis, this debate is about much more than just the size and makeup of a relief package; it is about the future of rural America. We can see the future of our small towns and rural areas very clearly right now, and it doesn't look good, with prices low and economic conditions as hard as they are on our farms and ranches. Those who are not driven off the land in this crisis have already found that their children are not interested in the life farming has to offer. Two weeks ago, in Scottsbluff, I held a town hall meeting, and 60 people were in the room who are involved directly in production agriculture. I asked how many of them had children who would take over the farms, and I didn't get a single affirmative answer. Those with grown children had already lost them to the cities. Others said, ``There is no opportunity out here.'' That is what this Congress has the ability to change, and we can start with this piece of legislation. We need an agricultural sector that offers some opportunity, but first we must bring some stability to that agricultural sector. Again, I am pleased the President is going to veto it. Let me talk of the differences, specifically to our States. Again, I heard the distinguished Senator from Mississippi talk about economists who are saying taking the caps off of loan rates could have a depressing impact on price. I have not come to the floor and said that Freedom to Farm produced these lower prices. I think the lower prices are clearly there as a consequence of a declining demand in the international marketplace. Nobody is forecasting that demand is going to come back in 1999. Nobody expects the decline in exports to increase. I wish this Congress had been able to pass fast-track legislation. I have supported it in the past. I believe that, long term, it would help. But in the short term, we see substantial declines in income that are there as a consequence of this decline in demand and increased production that has occurred here in America. This package in the conference report versus what the President asked for is substantially different. I pointed this out before, and it bears repeating. In Nebraska, the difference is $434 million of income--this does not go to State government or county government; it goes to individual farm families--versus $177 million, almost a quarter of a million dollars. In Mississippi, it is $145 million versus $71 million. In Minnesota, it is $483 million versus $227 million. I ask unanimous consent that this table, which shows the differences between the package in the conference report and what the President has asked for be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: DEMOCRATIC VERSUS REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS, BY STATE (CBO ESTIMATE) [In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Democratic Republican Difference ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama.......................... 96 64 32 Arizona.......................... 39 19 20 Arkansas......................... 194 105 89 California....................... 227 142 85 Colorado......................... 120 53 67 Connecticut...................... 2 1 1 Delaware......................... 6 2 4 Florida.......................... 58 47 11 Georgia.......................... 218 147 71 Idaho............................ 127 37 90 Illinois......................... 527 186 341 Indiana.......................... 277 95 182 Iowa............................. 600 235 365 Kansas........................... 371 176 195 Kentucky......................... 65 30 35 Louisiana........................ 99 84 16 Maine............................ 3 2 1 Maryland......................... 21 7 14 Massachusetts.................... 1 1 0 Michigan......................... 109 47 62 Minnesota........................ 483 227 256 Mississippi...................... 145 71 74 Missouri......................... 205 81 124 Montana.......................... 160 71 89 Nebraska......................... 434 177 257 Nevada........................... 1 0 1 New Hampshire.................... 1 0 1 New Jersey....................... 5 1 4 New Mexico....................... 40 27 14 New York......................... 41 12 29 North Carolina................... 185 115 70 North Dakota..................... 431 316 115 Ohio............................. 197 64 133 Oklahoma......................... 170 109 60 Oregon........................... 74 14 60 Pennsylvania..................... 46 10 36 South Carolina................... 46 28 18 South Dakota..................... 363 214 149 Tennessee........................ 73 29 44 Texas............................ 896 813 83 Utah............................. 11 3 8 Vermont.......................... 26 11 16 Virginia......................... 39 19 20 West Virginia.................... 153 42 111 Washington....................... 12 2 10 Wisconsin........................ 139 60 79 Wyoming.......................... 10 4 6 -------------------------------------- Total.......................... 7,546 4,000 3,546 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. KERREY. Madam President, again, not only are our grain farmers adversely affected, but cattle producers and cattle processors have been as well. We have met extensively with our ranchers and our feeders, and they say to us two things need to happen, and they need to happen in order to improve our prices and increase the chances that we are going to get a market bid that is higher than what we are getting now. The first is mandatory reporting of prices, regardless of whether the prices occur in cattle that are owned by the feeder or cattle controlled through formula feeding, or some other contract by the packinghouse. Those prices today are not reported. We had extensive debate here on the floor about that issue. Unfortunately, the conferees dropped that. I believe that provision, all by itself, would increase prices for cattle in the United States, for beef, and would have a very positive impact as a consequence on our rural communities. Likewise, the meat labeling requirement included in the Senate bill was dropped by the conferees, and it is supported by almost all of the cattle organizations. There is some dispute on price reporting, although I think we can deal with the changes that we had in the conference language. There is almost no dispute, from the standpoint of the producer, on the need to put on the label information that allows the consumer to determine from where that product came. It is allowing the market to work. Rather than saying that the Government is going to impose a solution, we say inform the consumer where the product came from and let them decide. I hope, as I said in the beginning, that the President's veto of this conference report will lead to the conferees coming back quickly and looking, as no doubt they will, for ways to improve it along the lines of what the President has recommended. Not only are there tens of thousands of farmers who will survive if we can get this legislation passed and on to the President for his signature, as he has asked us to, but it will give us a chance to take a step in the direction of giving our rural communities a chance to survive. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is a custom in the Senate to speak well of someone you are about to oppose. So let me speak well of the Senator from Mississippi. We have worked together on a wide range of issues. He is a very effective Senator and somebody I enjoy working with a great deal. He has a very effective staff and we work on a lot of issues together. But I come to the floor today opposing the conference report and to do so as aggressively as I possibly can. I want to explain to him and other Members why I feel so strongly about this. First of all, it is not the case that all that was offered in July was the $500 million indemnity program that was introduced as an amendment by Senator Conrad and myself. It is the case that we also proposed, and had a vote on an amendment to increase the price supports by lifting the caps on the loan rate. We did it then; and we did it a second time. We lost twice in those efforts. We proposed a series of steps, one of which was lifting the loan rate, and another of which dealt with disaster issues. I want to describe why I feel so strongly about this. I received a letter from the head of the Farm Service Agency in our State. I asked him, ``If things don't change, what should we [[Page S11417]] expect in the next few months in North Dakota with respect to family farms?'' He points out that North Dakota in the judgment of the Farm Service Agency, will lose over 3,500 farms by this spring without some significant assistance. That is probably some 14,000 people. I assume there is an average of three or four persons on each of those family farmers, including a spouse and a couple of children. So at least 3,500 family farms will not get credit and will not be able to continue farming this coming year. That means 12,000 to 14,000 North Dakota farm people will be told that their dream is over. They tried, but they failed. Let me describe the reasons they are not making it. There are two main reasons. One, is the disaster. We had the 500-year flood of the Red River, and people know about that. They remember the flood at Grand Forks. For a number of years we have been in a wet weather cycle in eastern North Dakota. We have had massive quantities of standing water that have inundated acres and acres of farmland in North Dakota. This wet cycle has caused and exacerbated a crop disease known as fusarium head blight, or scab. This combination has devastated the quality of farm life in North Dakota. I have a chart here. If you are a North Dakota farmer and you are in these red counties on this chart in the eastern part of the State, you have had 5 straight years of disaster declaration. The red counties are not 1, 2, or 3, but every year for 5 straight years that these counties have been declared a disaster. Why? Because of weather-related events, and other events, their production has been devastated. So that is the disaster portion of this problem. You can see that with the orange counties and yellow counties, that these counties have had disasters 3 out of 5 years. In fact two thirds of the counties in my State have been declared a disaster area 3, 4 or 5 years out of 5 years. Now, in addition to the disaster, what also has happened to these farmers is that Congress passed a new farm bill. The Senator from Nebraska might be right that this might have nothing at all to do with price. The new farm bill might not be related to the collapse in price. But it might be; I don't know. I am not asserting that today, I am just saying that we passed a new farm bill. This chart shows what has happened to the price of wheat since Congress passed the farm bill. It is down by almost 60 percent. There has been a 60-percent drop in the price of wheat since Congress passed the new farm bill. The price of wheat has fallen from $5.75 a bushel to $2.36. Add together the significant disasters year after year and the collapse of prices and here is what you have. In my State, in North Dakota, which is the hardest hit, in 1 year there was a 98-percent drop in net farm income. These are U.S. Government figures. We had a 98- percent drop in net farm income. With respect to this group of North Dakotans, their income has virtually been wiped away. Is it any wonder they are in deep trouble? We are not a State of big corporate agrifactories. We are a State largely composed of family farms. When they suffer a loss of virtually all of their income, many of them just do not make it. The current farm bill doesn't provide a bridge across price valleys. The philosophy of the current farm bill is that you ought to operate in the free market. If there is a price valley, the farmer is told, ``Tough luck; try and find your way across the valley.'' So because we don't have that pricing bridge under this economic philosophy, family farmers certainly don't get to the other side. The head of our Farm Service Agency says 3,500 farms will not be in the field next spring in North Dakota. I am betting that if any other Member of this body had the same set of statistics in front of them concerning what is happening to their family farmers would also be here. They would be here with as much energy and as much passion as I have to see if we can't change this result and to do whatever we need to do to change it. The underlying bill has disaster assistance. I am very appreciative of that. We might argue about who provides more. But overall, frankly, I think the underlying bill, and the administration, and virtually everyone who is party to this has offered a fairly decent package with respect to disaster assistance. The Senator from Mississippi correctly pointed out that he and Senator Lott accepted the $500 million indemnity program amendment that we put into in the bill in the Senate in the first instance to deal with the initial estimate of damages from the disaster in the Northern Plains. That amendment was done prior to the almost complete collapse of the cotton crop in Texas and the devastation in Louisiana, Oklahoma and other States. At that time we all understood that the disaster indemnity program was going to have to be increased at some point along the way. The disaster package in this appropriations bill started with the acceptance by the Senator from Mississippi to put in the $500 million indemnity for the Northern Plains. I appreciate that. I am not here to argue about which disaster proposal for this bill is better than the other. Both the President and the conference report addressed this disaster issue in a very significant way. But, I am here to say that is not enough. On top of the disaster provision, as the Senator from Mississippi indicated, the majority party added a 18-cents-a-bushel payment for wheat. This additional AMTA payment really only means that farmers will get 13 cents a bushel for wheat when it is all figured out. That is because AMTA payments are made on only 85 percent of contract acreage on the frozen historic yields. So the real assistance to deal with price collapse in this bill amounts to 13 cents a bushel for wheat. And it is not enough. It won't allow farmers enough cashflow. It won't allow their bankers to decide that they will get another loan to go to the fields next spring to plant crops. They simply won't be able to do it. That is the dilemma. This is not enough. And there isn't any way to argue to say that it is enough, or that it will solve this problem. If numbers are to be believed with respect to the estimates in North Dakota, at least 3,500 farm families are going to be washed away. These farm families are not going to be able to farm next spring. I am not willing to accept that result. It is not a fair result. Family farmers are not getting their share of this country's national income. They should be expected to get a decent share of that. Let me show you what family farms face. They are told that they should just go ahead and operate in the free market and whatever happens, happens. What is that free market about? Everywhere they look, they confront near monopolies, or at least enormous concentrations of economic power. The top four firms in this country control 62 percent of flour milling. The top four firms in dry corn milling control 57 percent. In wet corn milling, the top four control 76 percent. In soybean crushing, the top four have 76 percent. If a farmer happens to produce livestock and he markets that cow, he finds that 87 percent of the beef slaughter is controlled by the top four firms. The top four control 73 percent of sheep slaughter. It is 60 percent for pork. Or, if farmers want to haul their grain to market on a railroad--and most of them have to--they stick it on a rail car somewhere in my State, and they get double charged at least because there is no competition. I have mentioned this before and I will say it again. If you put a carload of wheat on the rail track in Bismarck and haul it to Minneapolis, they charge you $2,300. If you put it on a car in Minneapolis, and haul it to Chicago, which is about the same distance, it costs you $1,000. Why do we get double charged? Because there is no rail competition in North Dakota, while there are multiple lines between Minneapolis and Chicago. So it is not just concentration among processors. It is also the transportation components of the grain trade that are highly concentrated. This isn't a circumstance where there is a free market. Yet farmers are told to operate in the free market. If prices collapse, they are told tough luck, and we will give you 13 cents. If they can't make it with that, tougher luck. Those want to pass this bill also contemplate tax cuts that they say will help farmers. Tax cuts don't help people without income. The problem in [[Page S11418]] farm country is lack of income. The first thing we should do is to restore income. I happen to support most of those tax proposals that I have heard about. In fact, some that the Senator from Mississippi described today have great merit. I support fully deductible health insurance for sole proprietorships and income averaging. I can go down a whole list of proposals that I support. My point is that first we need to restore income to these family farmers. They need to get a fair share of this Nation's income. The fact is that everybody who touches products produced by these farmers is virtually making record profits. The railroads? You bet your life they are doing fine. They haul the farmers' products. How about the slaughterhouses? Are they doing fine? You bet they have solid profits. They are the ones who slaughter the livestock that is sent to market by those farmers. How about the cereal manufacturers who put the snap, crackle and pop into a cereal. They take a kernel of wheat, put it in a plant some place, put it in a bright-colored box, ship it to a grocery store, and sell it at $4 a box. The company that puts the puff in puffed wheat makes far more than the person who gassed the tractor, planted the seed, and harvested that wheat. In fact, the person that harvested the wheat that they planted is going broke. And the people who are puffing it, crackling it, and snapping it are having record profits. I don't understand the notion that somehow, if we just do nothing, things will work out. When we look at all of the evidence here, we are going to lose tens and tens of thousands of family farmers across this country unless this Congress does what it needs to do now. We need to provide some decent price supports to get farmers across this price valley. I am not standing here asking that we tip the current farm program upside down. I didn't vote for the current farm program. I am not going to stand here and provide a litany of why I think it is not a good program. I am not suggesting we tip it upside down. I am simply saying what this farm program did in the big print it took away in the small print. This farm program, passed by this Congress, said we would provide farmers 85 percent of the five-year Olympic average price as a price support in the form of a loan rate. That is what it said in the big print. In the small print it said that the 85 percent of the five- year Olympic average price would be capped. The small print says we will put an artificial cap on it to bring the loan rates way down. All we are saying is that we should take the artificial cap off. Do what the big print said the farm bill will do. Get rid of the small print that took away that help to the family farmers. In North Dakota it means a $156 million difference just on the price support mechanism. The difference for the farmers in my State alone is $156 million. That could well mean the difference between making it and not making it. It can mean the difference between succeeding and failing. A young fellow wrote to me recently. I have referred to his letter previously in the last couple of days. His name is Wyatt. He is a sophomore in high school at Stanley, ND. He wrote this plaintive cry for help on behalf of his family farm. He is a young boy who loves to farm. He knows his dad and mom do as well. He wrote me a letter that says, ``My dad can feed 180 people. And he can't feed his family.'' He was describing a circumstance where his family's income has been washed out. Their family farm may not be able to make it and he wonders whether that is fair, and whether that is good economic policy for this country. The answer clearly is no, that is not fair. And clearly it is not good economic policy for our country. Both the independent community bankers in my State and the North Dakota Bankers Association tell me that if we don't pass some meaningful assistance this year these farmers won't be in the field next spring. That is from the lenders. This weekend, I was reading some of President Truman's speeches in 1948. I want to read a couple of pieces from President Truman in 1948. Old Harry was doing a whistle stop tour on a train back then. I like Harry Truman. Harry spoke plainly and never minced any words. I thought maybe we would celebrate just a bit of what Harry Truman said about family farmers and what this debate is about today. Harry Truman said at the National Plowing Match in Dexter, IA, September 18, 1948: [I] believe that farmers are entitled to share equally with others in our national income. [I] believe a prosperous and productive agriculture is essential to [this country's] national welfare. He said: Those who are wilfully trying to discredit the price support program for farmers don't want the farmers to be prosperous. They believe in low prices for farmers, cheap wages for labor, and high profits for big corporations. And then he said: The big money [interests look] on agriculture and labor as merely an expense item in a business venture. [They try] to push their share of the national income down as low as possible and increase [their] own profits. And [they] look upon the Government as a tool to accomplish this purpose. That was 1948, 50 years ago. Isn't it interesting that as we stand here debating agriculture, in North Dakota there are probably 12,000 to 14,000 citizens who will not get into the fields next spring unless this Congress does the right thing. At least 3,500 farms will go belly up. That is 12,000 to 14,000 people, who will lose their livelihood unless we do the right thing. Yet, surrounding those farmers are the bigger economic interests that are all making money. There are the railroads, slaughterhouses, grain trader, cereal manufacturers, grocery manufacturers, and you can name all the others that are all making record profits. Does that say something about whether the system is fair? And you might say, well, what business is it of ours? The business for this country is that if we do not act, we will not have people living in the country. We will not have people living out on the land. We won't have yard lights illuminating thos

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT
(Senate - October 05, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S11411-S11436] AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the report will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4101), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees. The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report. (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of October 2, 1998.) Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, pending before the Senate at this time is the conference report on the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. We present this conference report for the Senate's approval this afternoon. The agreement provides total new budget authority of $55.7 billion for programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-- except for the Forest Service, which is funded by the Interior appropriations bill--the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and expenses and payments of the farm credit system. This is $6 billion more than the fiscal year 1998 enacted level; it is $1.9 billion less than the President's request level; it is $192 million less than the House-passed bill, and it is $1.1 billion less than the Senate-passed bill level. The changes that were made in conference on mandatory funding requirements account for the overall increase from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, principally reflecting a $2.6 billion lower estimate for Food Stamp Program funding requirements, higher Child Nutrition Program expenses, and a $7.6 billion increase in the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses. The conference report also provides an additional $4.2 billion in emergency appropriations to assist agricultural producers and others who have suffered financial hardship due to adverse weather conditions and loss of markets. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior [[Page S11412]] year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total discretionary spending for fiscal year 1999 of $13.651 billion in budget authority and $14.050 billion in outlays. These amounts are consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations established for this conference agreement under the Budget Act. It was a very difficult conference. As Members may recall, a number of legislative provisions were added to the bill when it was considered in the Senate in July. Not only did the conference committee have to reach agreement with the House on these issues, but it had to resolve funding differences within a more constrained discretionary spending allocation for the conference than originally established in the Senate bill. Special recognition is due and deserved by the ranking member of the subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers. In addition, the chairman of the House subcommittee, Congressman Skeen from New Mexico, and ranking minority member of the House subcommittee, Congresswoman Kaptur from Ohio, turned in hard work and cooperated with our efforts to make this conference agreement possible. The report includes credit relief for farmers, a 6-month extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact, sanctions relief for exports to India and Pakistan, a waiver of the statute of limitations for certain discrimination claims filed against the Department of Agriculture, and a number of other legislative provisions that were included in the Senate and House-passed bills. In addition, at the request of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, chaired by Senator Lugar here and Congressman Smith in the House, the conference report includes a moratorium on the rulemaking authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over swaps and derivatives, as well as language requested by the administration authorizing the creation of an Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs position at the Department of Agriculture. That change also had the approval of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over that subject. During consideration of the bill in the Senate, an amendment was adopted providing increased funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative. A major portion of this additional spending was offset by an ``assessment'' on the purchasers and importers of tobacco. This was subsequently determined by the House Ways and Means Committee to be a ``tax,'' and therefore off limits to the Appropriations Committee and was not included in the conference report. I am pleased to report to the Senate, however, that the conference report provides increased funding of $51.9 million for activities and programs which are part of the administration's Food Safety Initiative. In addition, the conference report provides $609 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, an agency critical to maintaining the safety of our food supply. That is $20 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and $460 million more than the President requested in his budget. As most of my colleagues are aware, one of the major differences between the House and Senate-passed bill was a House bill provision to prevent fiscal year 1999 funding for the new Competitive Agriculture Research Program established by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. I did not support the proposal to remove or prevent the funding going forward as directed in that legislation. However, with a total discretionary budget authority allocation for the conference that was $64 million below the level we had for the Senate bill, it was a House position that the Senate conferees had little choice but to accept. Without that offset, drastic cuts would have been necessary in funding for other discretionary programs and activities in the bill. In view of this 1-year delay in funding for the new Agriculture Research Competitive Grant Program, the conference provided increased appropriations for existing agricultural research programs. Here are some examples: There is an appropriation of $782 million for the Agriculture Research Service. That represents a $38 million increase from the 1998 fiscal year level, and it is $14 million more than was included in the Senate-passed bill. There is total funding of $481 million for research and education activities of the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service. That is $50 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and it is $48 million more than was in the Senate-passed bill. Included in this amount is a 7-percent increase from the fiscal year 1998 level for payments under the Hatch Act, cooperative forestry research, payments to the 1890 and 1994 institutions, including Tuskegee and animal and health disease grants. Also included is a $22.1 million increase for the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. In addition, the bill recommends $434 million for extension activities which preserves the 3-percent increase recommended by the Senate for Smith-Lever formula funds, as well as extension payments to the 1994 and 1890 institutions, including Tuskegee University. Approximately $36.1 billion, close to 65 percent of the total new budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the school lunch and breakfast programs. The Senate receded to the House- recommended appropriations level for the WIC program because recent data on actual participation rates and food package costs indicate that this amount should be sufficient to maintain current program participation levels in fiscal year 1999. For farm assistance programs, including the Farm Service Agency and farm ownership and operation loan subsidies, the conference report provides $1.1 billion in appropriations. Appropriations for conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service total $793 million, $9 million more than the House bill level and $1 million more than the level recommended by the Senate. For rural economic and community development programs, the conference report provides appropriations of $2.2 billion to support a total loan level of $6.2 billion. Included in this amount is $723 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, $583 million for the rental assistance program, and a total rural housing loan program level of $4.25 billion. A total of $1.2 billion is provided for foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of Agriculture, including $136 million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service and a total program level of $1.1 billion for the P.L. 480 Food for Peace Program. Total new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration is $977 million, $11.5 million more than the level recommended by the House and $24.5 million more than the Senate bill level, along with an additional $132 million in Prescription Drug Act and $14 million in mammography clinics user fee collections. Included in the appropriation for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is a $20 million increase for food safety. For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $61 million is provided; and a limitation of $35.8 million is established on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. Titles XI-XIII of this conference report provide emergency relief to agricultural producers and others who have suffered weather-related and economic losses. As Members will recall, a number of amendments were adopted to this bill when the Senate considered it in July to address disaster-related requirements with the understanding that additional relief would be necessary once actual losses were determined by the Department of Agriculture and a supplemental request was submitted by the Administration. No request was submitted to the Congress until September 23. On September 23, the Administration submitted a $1.8 billion budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs. In the interim, the Republicans released a $3.9 billion relief package to assist agricultural producers. This emergency agricultural relief package is included in this conference report, along with additional [[Page S11413]] emergency supplemental appropriations, to make a total of $4.2 billion in emergency assistance available. A total of $1.5 billion is made available to assist producers who have been hit by crop losses in 1998, and an additional $675 million for producers who have suffered from multiple-year crop losses. Also included is $175 million for emergency livestock feed assistance, and $1.65 billion to assist producers with market losses. In addition, the conference report provides temporary recourse loans for honey and mohair; $5 million for cotton indemnity payments; an increase of $25 million for the Food for Progress program to help move more grain out of the country; and expanded non-insured crop assistance for raisin producers. Additional supplemental emergency appropriations provided by the conference report include the $40 million to cover additional costs to the Farm Service Agency of administering this assistance, $10 million for the Forestry Incentives Program; and $31 million in subsidy appropriations to fund an additional $541 million in farm operating loans. Madam President, this conference report was filed on Friday and was passed by the House of Representatives that day by an overwhelming vote of 333 yeas to 53 nays. Senate passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to the President for signature into law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report. Many of our farmers and ranchers are facing the worst crisis in agriculture that they can remember. The economic collapse in Asia has resulted in lost markets. Producers in some states have suffered severe weather conditions. Others have been hit hard by crop diseases. The farmers need help now, and it is time to quit playing politics with disaster relief and adopt this conference report. Madam President, this is the last Agriculture Appropriations bill my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, will manage in the Senate after serving on the Appropriations Committee for 20 years and this Subcommittee for 13 years. Senator Bumpers has been an advocate of American agriculture and a proponent of the programs in this bill to improve the quality of life and help bring jobs to rural areas. His expertise and many contributions to this process and this bill will indeed be missed. In summary, let me point out, Madam President, that there has been raised the specter of a Presidential veto over this conference report because of the inadequacy of the provision relating to disaster assistance payments. I am very disturbed by that suggestion, and I hope that it is more rumor than promise. I know the President spent some time on Saturday in his weekly radio address speaking to that subject. I recall that 2 weeks ago, I was asked to deliver the Republican response to the President's weekly radio address, and my subject was the need for a more aggressive and meaningful disaster assistance program for farmers. I think everyone can agree that both the President and the Congress have been speaking out and making very clear the fact that we need a helpful, sensitive, generous program of disaster assistance to help deal with the realities of weather-related disasters that have struck many parts of the country, market loss problems because of the Asian economic crisis, and other factors that have worked together to make this a very difficult year for agriculture. The question is, Are we going to resolve this in a way that is consistent with the legislative process that makes sense for farmers, that serves to establish policies that are thoughtful and consistent with the needs of American agriculture, or are we going to continue to treat this as a political football and just kick it around and have us skirmish every day or every week over this issue, leading to delay, leading to uncertainties, leading to anxieties? Farmers in America certainly deserve better. I would like just for a moment or two to think back on the date when we had the bill on the floor of the Senate and the subject of disaster assistance was first raised. We adopted in the Senate a sense-of-the- Senate resolution calling on the President and the Congress to work together to come up with a proposal that would meet the needs for emergency action to respond ``to the economic hardships facing agriculture producers and their communities.'' The Senate adopted that on July 15 by a vote of 99 to 0. The next day, there was an amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and others who suggested we establish a $500 million indemnity program to compensate farmers for income losses that had been suffered due to various adverse conditions--weather and otherwise--throughout the country, although mainly the benefits were directed to the upper plains and other selected areas, not countrywide benefits or a program designed to be national in scope. During my remarks on that occasion, I recall on the Senate floor saying that we needed to have the President and the Department of Agriculture get involved and provide the Congress with a complete and accurate assessment of the funds that were needed for a program of this kind. We hadn't had a proposal from the administration for any specific benefit program for agriculture, although there had been meetings on the Hill with farm groups, with Senators and Congressmen trying to, first, get the facts and get a sense of what the agriculture leadership throughout the country thought would be an appropriate response by the Federal Government. There was no question at the time we were debating the bill that there was great interest in developing a disaster assistance program to meet the needs of American agriculture. As a matter of fact, during the discussion, I asked Senators if they had any better ideas, if they had suggestions for anything other than this $500 million indemnity program, and no one came forward to offer any amendments and no one expressed opposition to adopting that amendment. We checked with the legislative chairman in the Senate, and others, and without objection, we suggested that the Senate adopt the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota on a voice vote, and that is what we did. We accepted the amendment. After that was done, it became clear that through gathering information, that the situation was more widespread. I remember going to Georgia, for example, with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell. I had an opportunity to meet with farmers in southern Georgia and became convinced that we had a problem that was bigger than the upper plains and Texas. Everybody knew about the drought in Texas and the severe complications that were resulting from that for agriculture producers and ranchers in that area. But I do not think it was well known that in south Georgia, which had had a series of weather-related disasters over a period of years, the agriculture sector there was really hurting. And the $500 million indemnity program, suggested by the Senators from North Dakota and others, was not going to be sufficient to deal with that problem and others as well. I know in my State of Mississippi, for example, when I was home right after we adopted this bill in July--we had a break during the August recess--I had an opportunity to visit some areas of my State that were devastated because of isolated weather patterns that had ruined corn crops in the northwest part of Mississippi, and others had been damaged to the extent that diseases were infesting the crops. Aflatoxin was attacking the corn crops. There was no provision in any Federal disaster assistance program for yield losses, for crop losses. Those who were suggesting an indemnity program based on lifting loan caps had to realize that was not going to help somebody who had a total crop failure. It would not help them a bit. So we came back, started working on a new proposal, got with the leadership of the House and Senate, and asked the administration they were going to request supplemental funding. They did come back with a $1.8 billion supplemental budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs, without a lot of specificity about how those benefits would be determined, how the eligibility would be determined, who would administer the program. But, nonetheless, it was a step in the right direction, and I applauded the President for responding in that way. [[Page S11414]] But based on that supplemental request--and working with the knowledge that other Members had generated from their States--we proposed to the conference committee a $4.1 billion disaster assistance program, and it was accepted in the conference committee with some changes. We accepted some amendments proposed by House Members in conference. We added some money proposed by the Senate in response to specific amendments that were urged in conference to the managers' proposal. So the end result was the conference committee agreed to provide emergency benefits totaling about $4.2 billion. So I come to the Senate today very pleased to be able to report that, instead of a $500 million indemnity program that the Senate adopted as a way to deal with the crisis in agriculture, working with farmers, producers, and ranchers from around the country, and other Members of the Congress, including the House, we now have a conference report that is much more generous, much more responsive to the real needs that exist in our country today in production agriculture, and designed to more nearly bring farmers to a point where they can continue to operate without going broke, without the devastating effects that would have been the reality of the situation had not this package of changes been agreed upon. We hear now that the Democratic leadership has urged the President to veto the bill. And I got a letter suggesting that he would if the conference agreement on disaster assistance was inconsistent with the proposal just recently made by the Democratic leader of the Senate to remove the loan caps under the current farm program for the commodities that are subsidized, in effect, by the Federal Government--no ifs, ands, buts about it. The letter said--and I took this up with the Secretary of Agriculture to be sure I understood that that was the meaning--that the President said he would veto the bill if the conference report was inconsistent with a proposal made by the Democratic leader to remove the loan caps for those commodities that are subsidized by the Government. I am very disappointed by that. I certainly hope that there is room for the President to change his mind on that subject, because it seems to me that rather than argue over whether or not this program is really going to do a good job and is thoughtfully crafted to try to put farmers back on their feet who have been devastated by bad weather and market conditions beyond their control, it just seems to me that this is not an appropriate response for the President to be making, given the other opportunities for positive things. Here are some examples of positive things that I think could be done which are beyond the jurisdiction of this committee today that brings you this conference report. The House of Representatives just passed recently a tax bill making a lot of changes in the Tax Code, but I specifically recall that some of those tax changes are designed to benefit farmers and farm families, and I am told that we are not going to have a chance to vote on that tax bill here in the Senate because we cannot get the bill cleared to bring up. We cannot get the House-passed tax bill cleared. So in order to bring it up, the majority leader would have to move to the consideration of the bill, the motion would become debatable, and then in order to get the bill on the floor for consideration and debate and passage, 60 votes to invoke cloture would have to be undertaken because the Democrats are promising to filibuster the bill. Here are the changes that it bothers me we will not even get a chance to approve that would help farmers. There is a 5-year net loss carryback of losses that you can carry back and set against income for 5 previous years. That is in the House- passed bill. The House-passed bill makes permanent income averaging, which permits farmers and ranchers to average income, high years against low years, and even out the tax burden, which is very beneficial to many. There is a provision that makes deductible, to 100 percent of the cost, health insurance premiums by those who are self-employed. If you are in agriculture and you have a farm and you are your own boss, under this change you will be able to deduct 100 percent of the cost of your health insurance. That helps farmers. That helps farm families. There is also an acceleration of the exemption for death taxes and gift taxes. One of the most difficult things facing agriculture today is the obligation to come up with cash money to pay the Federal Government so-called inheritance taxes on the death of a family member who has an interest in the land or the other property that goes into making up the decedent's estate. We have passed rules that phase in some higher exemptions for small farms and for businesses. What this House-passed bill does is accelerate the phasing in of those exemptions. That would be a big help to many farm families who are going to have to liquidate assets in real estate to pay death taxes. Another thing that this administration has been slow to react to is the trade problems that we are having in this hemisphere, with Canada, with Mexico, and beyond, barriers to trade so that our farmers and our exporters are having to deal with unfair tariff situations and other difficulties that are erected to keep America from selling what we are producing in the world marketplace and at the same time importing, in violation of some existing rules, I am told, some foodstuffs, live cattle, from other countries. Finally the administration is beginning to act. We see the Trade Representative engaging Canada in trade talks now about steps that can be taken to solve the problems that have developed in that area. But we were hearing this on the Senate floor and urging the administration to take action. Being the chief negotiator in the executive branch, the President has an obligation to assume some leadership. Frankly, there has been a breakdown in leadership on that subject. We hope we haven't waited too late to make changes and reach agreements and work out problems in the trade area for the farmers who have suffered this year. That is one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to include direct payments that are bonus payments under the transition. We think the market transition program to compensate producers directly for income losses due to the economic crisis and trade problems that we have is very important. The administration does not propose and has not suggested that as an appropriate step to aid America's farmers. I make those comments, Madam President, not to pick a fight with anybody here on the floor of the Senate today, but to simply express my concern that we not see this bill held up, delayed, postponed, vetoed, whatever may happen to it, because of an interest in being able to say the Democrats are for a $7 billion disaster program, the Republican bill is only $4 billion. I bet it will be the same folks who said we want $500 million in an indemnity program to help meet the needs of the agriculture crisis. That is what the story was in July. We all agreed at that time that was probably temporary, that more needs to be done. So I am not belittling that suggestion. It was the suggestion on the floor of the Senate at the time and no one had any better idea at that time. Since then it seems we have been engaged in a show of one-upsmanship. The Republicans then come up with, with Democrat input in many cases, this $4 billion program of disaster assistance. Now, all of a sudden, that is not enough; we need $7 billion. How much has the President requested? I have the exact amount: $1.76 billion in budget authority has been requested by the President for agriculture producers and ranchers. That will support $2.3 billion program level. The other suggestion is removing the loan caps. Then CBO is called on to answer the question, what will that cost? The answer is that will probably cost--and it is speculation, it is a guess, nobody knows because nobody knows what commodity prices will be in the future--it is guessed it will be $5.5 billion. The proponents of that proposal say we are for spending $5.5 billion plus $2.3 billion, so we are for spending almost $8 billion. So this is a more generous plan. What is not disclosed is the effect that policy change of raising the loan caps will have on prices of those commodities next year or the next. The [[Page S11415]] fact is there are many who tell us that we are buying into a program that is going to have a continuing depressing effect on market price of these commodities that are covered by the loan programs. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't think anybody could have guessed that corn and wheat prices would have been as low as they are right now a year ago. So nobody knows what the prices are going to be in the future. I am told they will be lower because of that change in policy. So are we doing farmers a favor by making that policy change? It is really not a question, in my view, of who is willing to spend more money on farmers, the Republicans or the Democrats. Both are being very generous. That is the fact. Both are being very, very generous in terms of where we started, existing programs, precedent, previous disaster benefit efforts. The fact is the Democrats are in favor of making a policy change and substituting a change for an existing farm bill provision that set up the market transition payments and the phasing in to a market economy. We are in the second year of that farm bill. There are 3 more years left under the authority of the 1996 bill. I m hopeful that we can find a way to provide the benefits to American agriculture producers without rewriting or trying to rewrite portions of the 1996 farm bill. So we have a difference of opinion on that. Let me simply conclude my remarks by thanking everyone who helped us write this conference report. It has been a very challenging experience. I don't know that we had a more contentious or at least long drawn out conference on agriculture appropriations since I have been in the Congress. I don't recall having any more difficult time putting the bill together. We had a lot of disagreements that were discussed, but we worked them all out. We have a conference agreement. That is the good news. The other body has passed the conference report by a very large vote. Privilege of the Floor Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4101, and during any votes that may occur in relation to this measure: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, and Rachelle Graves. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized. Mr. KERREY. Madam President, first of all, let me compliment the Senator from Mississippi for his usual articulate and persuasive fashion--always a gentleman, always wanting to work with us, regardless of momentary disagreements. I regret to say this is one of those momentary disagreements. I come to the floor today to offer arguments against this conference report. I had initially intended to offer a motion to recommit the report back to conference, but now that motion would be out of order since the House has reported it. I prefer that it go back to the conference rather than going on to the President. I appreciate very much the President indicating he will veto this bill. Perhaps if we can dispose of this conference report in a hurry, get the President's veto, the conferees can direct their attention to the objections the President has raised. Those objections are similar to the ones I will offer here this afternoon. Let me say, first of all, I do appreciate that there is bipartisan agreement that rural America is facing a real crisis. That is very good news. What the Senator from Mississippi said is quite right. There has been, throughout the year, a process of developing proposals, but there has been significant disagreement on one particular point; that is, taking the caps off the loan rate. We voted twice on that. It did not pass here in the Senate. I will talk about that later. I think, unfortunately, that ideological argument is getting in the way of our ability to be able to reach agreement. This conference report, I believe, fails in two areas: First, it does not achieve the goal of providing support, both to the farmers who grow the crop who are in serious trouble due to the prices, and those who are in trouble as a consequence of weather disasters. For livestock, this conference report fails to put the law on the sides of the producers and take action to make our markets work better. First, as to the amount of income support for grains, it is simply not enough. It is not targeted as it should be to the people growing our food. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial that appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star praising Congressman Doug Bereuter, a Republican from Nebraska, who represents the First Congressional District. Congressman Bereuter also objected to the plan in the conference report as not sufficiently generous to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions; that the $4 billion in aid should be closer to $7 billion in aid that the budget has requested. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Oct. 2, 1998] Bereuter Path on Farm Aid Best Approach First District Rep. Doug Bereuter has a sound, responsible approach to helping farmers at a time when commodity prices have plunged to lows not seen since the 1980s. Breaking with his GOP cohorts, Bereuter said this week the Republican plan ``is not sufficiently generous'' to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions. House and Senate conferees Wednesday chose the Republican plan, which would provide $4 billion in aid, over a Democratic plan which would have provided $7.1 billion in tax subsidies to farmers. Agriculture was one of the first sectors of the economy to be buffeted by the Asian financial crisis. Export markets in some Asian nations have virtually evaporated. Now markets in Latin America also are being affected. In addition to providing a cushion against low prices, the aid package under consideration in Congress is intended to help farmers who have been hit by drought and other adverse weather conditions. Debate over the size of an aid package for farmers unfortunately has bogged down in partisan rhetoric and a running debate over the five-year Freedom to Farm act approved by Congress in 1996. The Republican aid package unfortunately also rejects other measures that would provide substantial benefit to agriculture. For example, it does not require mandatory price reporting, which would allow cattle producers to know what packing plants are paying for beef. It also does not include a provision to require labeling showing the national origin of meat. The measure would allow consumers to select beef produced in the U.S. rather than other countries. While pushing for more financial help for farmers, Bereuter rightly resists a return to previous ag policies that are part of the Democratic approach, which would base subsidies for grain farmers on the so-called loan rate. Previous farm policy was based on a heavily bureaucratic approach with strict government dictates. Proponents of the Freedom to Farm act left more decision-making to farmers, at the same time leaving them more subject to market pressures. In the long run, the market-oriented approach under Freedom to Farm will benefit agriculture, although it certainly should be open for modification and improvement. But now, while farmers are facing a double whammy of record harvests and low prices, is not the time to get bogged down in partisan debate over basic philosophy. Providing aid under the payment system of the existing farm bill makes sense. But, as Bereuter suggested, the amount should be more generous than Republicans have agreed to so far to preserve the stability and capability of the sector of the economy that feeds the nation. Mr. KERREY. Madam President, as to the income, the proposal in the conference report would be, approximately, for corn, 7 cents a bushel. That does not get the farmer much closer to either recovering the cost of production nor providing his banker confidence to lend him money again next year, and significantly, of all the tests that I trust as to whether or not the President's proposal should be a part of the conference report or not, economists will come forward and argue on both sides of practically any proposal you come out with. The Independent Bankers of America have endorsed taking the caps off the loan rate, not because it provides more income, and by no means does it provide a sufficient amount of income that we won't still have significant people going broke, but because it is attached to a marketing loan, it increases the chances that farmers who will need operating loans will be able to get them. Likewise, this conference report is inadequate because provisions were dropped that were passed in the Senate [[Page S11416]] in July, which were to require price reporting for beef, and meat labeling requirements as well. The conferees have said to farmers and ranchers that they think the livestock markets work just fine. But I am here in a brief period of time to say that the markets are not working. Cattle feeders and ranchers have lost more than $2 billion in equity this year, with millions more being lost every week. When I am home-- typically every weekend--the people in Nebraska are worried about their financial stability and they believe that this Agriculture appropriations bill, with the disaster package attached to it, will be terribly important for their financial stability. More deeply than just the money, they are worried about their way of life, because, in the final analysis, this debate is about much more than just the size and makeup of a relief package; it is about the future of rural America. We can see the future of our small towns and rural areas very clearly right now, and it doesn't look good, with prices low and economic conditions as hard as they are on our farms and ranches. Those who are not driven off the land in this crisis have already found that their children are not interested in the life farming has to offer. Two weeks ago, in Scottsbluff, I held a town hall meeting, and 60 people were in the room who are involved directly in production agriculture. I asked how many of them had children who would take over the farms, and I didn't get a single affirmative answer. Those with grown children had already lost them to the cities. Others said, ``There is no opportunity out here.'' That is what this Congress has the ability to change, and we can start with this piece of legislation. We need an agricultural sector that offers some opportunity, but first we must bring some stability to that agricultural sector. Again, I am pleased the President is going to veto it. Let me talk of the differences, specifically to our States. Again, I heard the distinguished Senator from Mississippi talk about economists who are saying taking the caps off of loan rates could have a depressing impact on price. I have not come to the floor and said that Freedom to Farm produced these lower prices. I think the lower prices are clearly there as a consequence of a declining demand in the international marketplace. Nobody is forecasting that demand is going to come back in 1999. Nobody expects the decline in exports to increase. I wish this Congress had been able to pass fast-track legislation. I have supported it in the past. I believe that, long term, it would help. But in the short term, we see substantial declines in income that are there as a consequence of this decline in demand and increased production that has occurred here in America. This package in the conference report versus what the President asked for is substantially different. I pointed this out before, and it bears repeating. In Nebraska, the difference is $434 million of income--this does not go to State government or county government; it goes to individual farm families--versus $177 million, almost a quarter of a million dollars. In Mississippi, it is $145 million versus $71 million. In Minnesota, it is $483 million versus $227 million. I ask unanimous consent that this table, which shows the differences between the package in the conference report and what the President has asked for be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: DEMOCRATIC VERSUS REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS, BY STATE (CBO ESTIMATE) [In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Democratic Republican Difference ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama.......................... 96 64 32 Arizona.......................... 39 19 20 Arkansas......................... 194 105 89 California....................... 227 142 85 Colorado......................... 120 53 67 Connecticut...................... 2 1 1 Delaware......................... 6 2 4 Florida.......................... 58 47 11 Georgia.......................... 218 147 71 Idaho............................ 127 37 90 Illinois......................... 527 186 341 Indiana.......................... 277 95 182 Iowa............................. 600 235 365 Kansas........................... 371 176 195 Kentucky......................... 65 30 35 Louisiana........................ 99 84 16 Maine............................ 3 2 1 Maryland......................... 21 7 14 Massachusetts.................... 1 1 0 Michigan......................... 109 47 62 Minnesota........................ 483 227 256 Mississippi...................... 145 71 74 Missouri......................... 205 81 124 Montana.......................... 160 71 89 Nebraska......................... 434 177 257 Nevada........................... 1 0 1 New Hampshire.................... 1 0 1 New Jersey....................... 5 1 4 New Mexico....................... 40 27 14 New York......................... 41 12 29 North Carolina................... 185 115 70 North Dakota..................... 431 316 115 Ohio............................. 197 64 133 Oklahoma......................... 170 109 60 Oregon........................... 74 14 60 Pennsylvania..................... 46 10 36 South Carolina................... 46 28 18 South Dakota..................... 363 214 149 Tennessee........................ 73 29 44 Texas............................ 896 813 83 Utah............................. 11 3 8 Vermont.......................... 26 11 16 Virginia......................... 39 19 20 West Virginia.................... 153 42 111 Washington....................... 12 2 10 Wisconsin........................ 139 60 79 Wyoming.......................... 10 4 6 -------------------------------------- Total.......................... 7,546 4,000 3,546 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. KERREY. Madam President, again, not only are our grain farmers adversely affected, but cattle producers and cattle processors have been as well. We have met extensively with our ranchers and our feeders, and they say to us two things need to happen, and they need to happen in order to improve our prices and increase the chances that we are going to get a market bid that is higher than what we are getting now. The first is mandatory reporting of prices, regardless of whether the prices occur in cattle that are owned by the feeder or cattle controlled through formula feeding, or some other contract by the packinghouse. Those prices today are not reported. We had extensive debate here on the floor about that issue. Unfortunately, the conferees dropped that. I believe that provision, all by itself, would increase prices for cattle in the United States, for beef, and would have a very positive impact as a consequence on our rural communities. Likewise, the meat labeling requirement included in the Senate bill was dropped by the conferees, and it is supported by almost all of the cattle organizations. There is some dispute on price reporting, although I think we can deal with the changes that we had in the conference language. There is almost no dispute, from the standpoint of the producer, on the need to put on the label information that allows the consumer to determine from where that product came. It is allowing the market to work. Rather than saying that the Government is going to impose a solution, we say inform the consumer where the product came from and let them decide. I hope, as I said in the beginning, that the President's veto of this conference report will lead to the conferees coming back quickly and looking, as no doubt they will, for ways to improve it along the lines of what the President has recommended. Not only are there tens of thousands of farmers who will survive if we can get this legislation passed and on to the President for his signature, as he has asked us to, but it will give us a chance to take a step in the direction of giving our rural communities a chance to survive. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is a custom in the Senate to speak well of someone you are about to oppose. So let me speak well of the Senator from Mississippi. We have worked together on a wide range of issues. He is a very effective Senator and somebody I enjoy working with a great deal. He has a very effective staff and we work on a lot of issues together. But I come to the floor today opposing the conference report and to do so as aggressively as I possibly can. I want to explain to him and other Members why I feel so strongly about this. First of all, it is not the case that all that was offered in July was the $500 million indemnity program that was introduced as an amendment by Senator Conrad and myself. It is the case that we also proposed, and had a vote on an amendment to increase the price supports by lifting the caps on the loan rate. We did it then; and we did it a second time. We lost twice in those efforts. We proposed a series of steps, one of which was lifting the loan rate, and another of which dealt with disaster issues. I want to describe why I feel so strongly about this. I received a letter from the head of the Farm Service Agency in our State. I asked him, ``If things don't change, what should we [[Page S11417]] expect in the next few months in North Dakota with respect to family farms?'' He points out that North Dakota in the judgment of the Farm Service Agency, will lose over 3,500 farms by this spring without some significant assistance. That is probably some 14,000 people. I assume there is an average of three or four persons on each of those family farmers, including a spouse and a couple of children. So at least 3,500 family farms will not get credit and will not be able to continue farming this coming year. That means 12,000 to 14,000 North Dakota farm people will be told that their dream is over. They tried, but they failed. Let me describe the reasons they are not making it. There are two main reasons. One, is the disaster. We had the 500-year flood of the Red River, and people know about that. They remember the flood at Grand Forks. For a number of years we have been in a wet weather cycle in eastern North Dakota. We have had massive quantities of standing water that have inundated acres and acres of farmland in North Dakota. This wet cycle has caused and exacerbated a crop disease known as fusarium head blight, or scab. This combination has devastated the quality of farm life in North Dakota. I have a chart here. If you are a North Dakota farmer and you are in these red counties on this chart in the eastern part of the State, you have had 5 straight years of disaster declaration. The red counties are not 1, 2, or 3, but every year for 5 straight years that these counties have been declared a disaster. Why? Because of weather-related events, and other events, their production has been devastated. So that is the disaster portion of this problem. You can see that with the orange counties and yellow counties, that these counties have had disasters 3 out of 5 years. In fact two thirds of the counties in my State have been declared a disaster area 3, 4 or 5 years out of 5 years. Now, in addition to the disaster, what also has happened to these farmers is that Congress passed a new farm bill. The Senator from Nebraska might be right that this might have nothing at all to do with price. The new farm bill might not be related to the collapse in price. But it might be; I don't know. I am not asserting that today, I am just saying that we passed a new farm bill. This chart shows what has happened to the price of wheat since Congress passed the farm bill. It is down by almost 60 percent. There has been a 60-percent drop in the price of wheat since Congress passed the new farm bill. The price of wheat has fallen from $5.75 a bushel to $2.36. Add together the significant disasters year after year and the collapse of prices and here is what you have. In my State, in North Dakota, which is the hardest hit, in 1 year there was a 98-percent drop in net farm income. These are U.S. Government figures. We had a 98- percent drop in net farm income. With respect to this group of North Dakotans, their income has virtually been wiped away. Is it any wonder they are in deep trouble? We are not a State of big corporate agrifactories. We are a State largely composed of family farms. When they suffer a loss of virtually all of their income, many of them just do not make it. The current farm bill doesn't provide a bridge across price valleys. The philosophy of the current farm bill is that you ought to operate in the free market. If there is a price valley, the farmer is told, ``Tough luck; try and find your way across the valley.'' So because we don't have that pricing bridge under this economic philosophy, family farmers certainly don't get to the other side. The head of our Farm Service Agency says 3,500 farms will not be in the field next spring in North Dakota. I am betting that if any other Member of this body had the same set of statistics in front of them concerning what is happening to their family farmers would also be here. They would be here with as much energy and as much passion as I have to see if we can't change this result and to do whatever we need to do to change it. The underlying bill has disaster assistance. I am very appreciative of that. We might argue about who provides more. But overall, frankly, I think the underlying bill, and the administration, and virtually everyone who is party to this has offered a fairly decent package with respect to disaster assistance. The Senator from Mississippi correctly pointed out that he and Senator Lott accepted the $500 million indemnity program amendment that we put into in the bill in the Senate in the first instance to deal with the initial estimate of damages from the disaster in the Northern Plains. That amendment was done prior to the almost complete collapse of the cotton crop in Texas and the devastation in Louisiana, Oklahoma and other States. At that time we all understood that the disaster indemnity program was going to have to be increased at some point along the way. The disaster package in this appropriations bill started with the acceptance by the Senator from Mississippi to put in the $500 million indemnity for the Northern Plains. I appreciate that. I am not here to argue about which disaster proposal for this bill is better than the other. Both the President and the conference report addressed this disaster issue in a very significant way. But, I am here to say that is not enough. On top of the disaster provision, as the Senator from Mississippi indicated, the majority party added a 18-cents-a-bushel payment for wheat. This additional AMTA payment really only means that farmers will get 13 cents a bushel for wheat when it is all figured out. That is because AMTA payments are made on only 85 percent of contract acreage on the frozen historic yields. So the real assistance to deal with price collapse in this bill amounts to 13 cents a bushel for wheat. And it is not enough. It won't allow farmers enough cashflow. It won't allow their bankers to decide that they will get another loan to go to the fields next spring to plant crops. They simply won't be able to do it. That is the dilemma. This is not enough. And there isn't any way to argue to say that it is enough, or that it will solve this problem. If numbers are to be believed with respect to the estimates in North Dakota, at least 3,500 farm families are going to be washed away. These farm families are not going to be able to farm next spring. I am not willing to accept that result. It is not a fair result. Family farmers are not getting their share of this country's national income. They should be expected to get a decent share of that. Let me show you what family farms face. They are told that they should just go ahead and operate in the free market and whatever happens, happens. What is that free market about? Everywhere they look, they confront near monopolies, or at least enormous concentrations of economic power. The top four firms in this country control 62 percent of flour milling. The top four firms in dry corn milling control 57 percent. In wet corn milling, the top four control 76 percent. In soybean crushing, the top four have 76 percent. If a farmer happens to produce livestock and he markets that cow, he finds that 87 percent of the beef slaughter is controlled by the top four firms. The top four control 73 percent of sheep slaughter. It is 60 percent for pork. Or, if farmers want to haul their grain to market on a railroad--and most of them have to--they stick it on a rail car somewhere in my State, and they get double charged at least because there is no competition. I have mentioned this before and I will say it again. If you put a carload of wheat on the rail track in Bismarck and haul it to Minneapolis, they charge you $2,300. If you put it on a car in Minneapolis, and haul it to Chicago, which is about the same distance, it costs you $1,000. Why do we get double charged? Because there is no rail competition in North Dakota, while there are multiple lines between Minneapolis and Chicago. So it is not just concentration among processors. It is also the transportation components of the grain trade that are highly concentrated. This isn't a circumstance where there is a free market. Yet farmers are told to operate in the free market. If prices collapse, they are told tough luck, and we will give you 13 cents. If they can't make it with that, tougher luck. Those want to pass this bill also contemplate tax cuts that they say will help farmers. Tax cuts don't help people without income. The problem in [[Page S11418]] farm country is lack of income. The first thing we should do is to restore income. I happen to support most of those tax proposals that I have heard about. In fact, some that the Senator from Mississippi described today have great merit. I support fully deductible health insurance for sole proprietorships and income averaging. I can go down a whole list of proposals that I support. My point is that first we need to restore income to these family farmers. They need to get a fair share of this Nation's income. The fact is that everybody who touches products produced by these farmers is virtually making record profits. The railroads? You bet your life they are doing fine. They haul the farmers' products. How about the slaughterhouses? Are they doing fine? You bet they have solid profits. They are the ones who slaughter the livestock that is sent to market by those farmers. How about the cereal manufacturers who put the snap, crackle and pop into a cereal. They take a kernel of wheat, put it in a plant some place, put it in a bright-colored box, ship it to a grocery store, and sell it at $4 a box. The company that puts the puff in puffed wheat makes far more than the person who gassed the tractor, planted the seed, and harvested that wheat. In fact, the person that harvested the wheat that they planted is going broke. And the people who are puffing it, crackling it, and snapping it are having record profits. I don't understand the notion that somehow, if we just do nothing, things will work out. When we look at all of the evidence here, we are going to lose tens and tens of thousands of family farmers across this country unless this Congress does what it needs to do now. We need to provide some decent price supports to get farmers across this price valley. I am not standing here asking that we tip the current farm program upside down. I didn't vote for the current farm program. I am not going to stand here and provide a litany of why I think it is not a good program. I am not suggesting we tip it upside down. I am simply saying what this farm program did in the big print it took away in the small print. This farm program, passed by this Congress, said we would provide farmers 85 percent of the five-year Olympic average price as a price support in the form of a loan rate. That is what it said in the big print. In the small print it said that the 85 percent of the five- year Olympic average price would be capped. The small print says we will put an artificial cap on it to bring the loan rates way down. All we are saying is that we should take the artificial cap off. Do what the big print said the farm bill will do. Get rid of the small print that took away that help to the family farmers. In North Dakota it means a $156 million difference just on the price support mechanism. The difference for the farmers in my State alone is $156 million. That could well mean the difference between making it and not making it. It can mean the difference between succeeding and failing. A young fellow wrote to me recently. I have referred to his letter previously in the last couple of days. His name is Wyatt. He is a sophomore in high school at Stanley, ND. He wrote this plaintive cry for help on behalf of his family farm. He is a young boy who loves to farm. He knows his dad and mom do as well. He wrote me a letter that says, ``My dad can feed 180 people. And he can't feed his family.'' He was describing a circumstance where his family's income has been washed out. Their family farm may not be able to make it and he wonders whether that is fair, and whether that is good economic policy for this country. The answer clearly is no, that is not fair. And clearly it is not good economic policy for our country. Both the independent community bankers in my State and the North Dakota Bankers Association tell me that if we don't pass some meaningful assistance this year these farmers won't be in the field next spring. That is from the lenders. This weekend, I was reading some of President Truman's speeches in 1948. I want to read a couple of pieces from President Truman in 1948. Old Harry was doing a whistle stop tour on a train back then. I like Harry Truman. Harry spoke plainly and never minced any words. I thought maybe we would celebrate just a bit of what Harry Truman said about family farmers and what this debate is about today. Harry Truman said at the National Plowing Match in Dexter, IA, September 18, 1948: [I] believe that farmers are entitled to share equally with others in our national income. [I] believe a prosperous and productive agriculture is essential to [this country's] national welfare. He said: Those who are wilfully trying to discredit the price support program for farmers don't want the farmers to be prosperous. They believe in low prices for farmers, cheap wages for labor, and high profits for big corporations. And then he said: The big money [interests look] on agriculture and labor as merely an expense item in a business venture. [They try] to push their share of the national income down as low as possible and increase [their] own profits. And [they] look upon the Government as a tool to accomplish this purpose. That was 1948, 50 years ago. Isn't it interesting that as we stand here debating agriculture, in North Dakota there are probably 12,000 to 14,000 citizens who will not get into the fields next spring unless this Congress does the right thing. At least 3,500 farms will go belly up. That is 12,000 to 14,000 people, who will lose their livelihood unless we do the right thing. Yet, surrounding those farmers are the bigger economic interests that are all making money. There are the railroads, slaughterhouses, grain trader, cereal manufacturers, grocery manufacturers, and you can name all the others that are all making record profits. Does that say something about whether the system is fair? And you might say, well, what business is it of ours? The business for this country is that if we do not act, we will not have people living in the country. We will not have people living out on the land. We won't have yard lights illuminating those family f

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT
(Senate - October 05, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S11411-S11436] AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the report will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4101), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees. The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report. (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of October 2, 1998.) Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, pending before the Senate at this time is the conference report on the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. We present this conference report for the Senate's approval this afternoon. The agreement provides total new budget authority of $55.7 billion for programs and activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture-- except for the Forest Service, which is funded by the Interior appropriations bill--the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and expenses and payments of the farm credit system. This is $6 billion more than the fiscal year 1998 enacted level; it is $1.9 billion less than the President's request level; it is $192 million less than the House-passed bill, and it is $1.1 billion less than the Senate-passed bill level. The changes that were made in conference on mandatory funding requirements account for the overall increase from the fiscal year 1998 enacted level, principally reflecting a $2.6 billion lower estimate for Food Stamp Program funding requirements, higher Child Nutrition Program expenses, and a $7.6 billion increase in the payment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses. The conference report also provides an additional $4.2 billion in emergency appropriations to assist agricultural producers and others who have suffered financial hardship due to adverse weather conditions and loss of markets. Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior [[Page S11412]] year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total discretionary spending for fiscal year 1999 of $13.651 billion in budget authority and $14.050 billion in outlays. These amounts are consistent with the revised discretionary spending allocations established for this conference agreement under the Budget Act. It was a very difficult conference. As Members may recall, a number of legislative provisions were added to the bill when it was considered in the Senate in July. Not only did the conference committee have to reach agreement with the House on these issues, but it had to resolve funding differences within a more constrained discretionary spending allocation for the conference than originally established in the Senate bill. Special recognition is due and deserved by the ranking member of the subcommittee, my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers. In addition, the chairman of the House subcommittee, Congressman Skeen from New Mexico, and ranking minority member of the House subcommittee, Congresswoman Kaptur from Ohio, turned in hard work and cooperated with our efforts to make this conference agreement possible. The report includes credit relief for farmers, a 6-month extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact, sanctions relief for exports to India and Pakistan, a waiver of the statute of limitations for certain discrimination claims filed against the Department of Agriculture, and a number of other legislative provisions that were included in the Senate and House-passed bills. In addition, at the request of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, chaired by Senator Lugar here and Congressman Smith in the House, the conference report includes a moratorium on the rulemaking authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over swaps and derivatives, as well as language requested by the administration authorizing the creation of an Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs position at the Department of Agriculture. That change also had the approval of the legislative committees with jurisdiction over that subject. During consideration of the bill in the Senate, an amendment was adopted providing increased funding for the President's Food Safety Initiative. A major portion of this additional spending was offset by an ``assessment'' on the purchasers and importers of tobacco. This was subsequently determined by the House Ways and Means Committee to be a ``tax,'' and therefore off limits to the Appropriations Committee and was not included in the conference report. I am pleased to report to the Senate, however, that the conference report provides increased funding of $51.9 million for activities and programs which are part of the administration's Food Safety Initiative. In addition, the conference report provides $609 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, an agency critical to maintaining the safety of our food supply. That is $20 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and $460 million more than the President requested in his budget. As most of my colleagues are aware, one of the major differences between the House and Senate-passed bill was a House bill provision to prevent fiscal year 1999 funding for the new Competitive Agriculture Research Program established by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. I did not support the proposal to remove or prevent the funding going forward as directed in that legislation. However, with a total discretionary budget authority allocation for the conference that was $64 million below the level we had for the Senate bill, it was a House position that the Senate conferees had little choice but to accept. Without that offset, drastic cuts would have been necessary in funding for other discretionary programs and activities in the bill. In view of this 1-year delay in funding for the new Agriculture Research Competitive Grant Program, the conference provided increased appropriations for existing agricultural research programs. Here are some examples: There is an appropriation of $782 million for the Agriculture Research Service. That represents a $38 million increase from the 1998 fiscal year level, and it is $14 million more than was included in the Senate-passed bill. There is total funding of $481 million for research and education activities of the Cooperative Research, Education and Extension Service. That is $50 million more than the fiscal year 1998 level, and it is $48 million more than was in the Senate-passed bill. Included in this amount is a 7-percent increase from the fiscal year 1998 level for payments under the Hatch Act, cooperative forestry research, payments to the 1890 and 1994 institutions, including Tuskegee and animal and health disease grants. Also included is a $22.1 million increase for the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program. In addition, the bill recommends $434 million for extension activities which preserves the 3-percent increase recommended by the Senate for Smith-Lever formula funds, as well as extension payments to the 1994 and 1890 institutions, including Tuskegee University. Approximately $36.1 billion, close to 65 percent of the total new budget authority provided by this conference report, is for domestic food programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These include food stamps; commodity assistance; the special supplemental food program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the school lunch and breakfast programs. The Senate receded to the House- recommended appropriations level for the WIC program because recent data on actual participation rates and food package costs indicate that this amount should be sufficient to maintain current program participation levels in fiscal year 1999. For farm assistance programs, including the Farm Service Agency and farm ownership and operation loan subsidies, the conference report provides $1.1 billion in appropriations. Appropriations for conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service total $793 million, $9 million more than the House bill level and $1 million more than the level recommended by the Senate. For rural economic and community development programs, the conference report provides appropriations of $2.2 billion to support a total loan level of $6.2 billion. Included in this amount is $723 million for the Rural Community Advancement Program, $583 million for the rental assistance program, and a total rural housing loan program level of $4.25 billion. A total of $1.2 billion is provided for foreign assistance and related programs of the Department of Agriculture, including $136 million in new budget authority for the Foreign Agricultural Service and a total program level of $1.1 billion for the P.L. 480 Food for Peace Program. Total new budget authority for the Food and Drug Administration is $977 million, $11.5 million more than the level recommended by the House and $24.5 million more than the Senate bill level, along with an additional $132 million in Prescription Drug Act and $14 million in mammography clinics user fee collections. Included in the appropriation for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug Administration is a $20 million increase for food safety. For the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, $61 million is provided; and a limitation of $35.8 million is established on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration. Titles XI-XIII of this conference report provide emergency relief to agricultural producers and others who have suffered weather-related and economic losses. As Members will recall, a number of amendments were adopted to this bill when the Senate considered it in July to address disaster-related requirements with the understanding that additional relief would be necessary once actual losses were determined by the Department of Agriculture and a supplemental request was submitted by the Administration. No request was submitted to the Congress until September 23. On September 23, the Administration submitted a $1.8 billion budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs. In the interim, the Republicans released a $3.9 billion relief package to assist agricultural producers. This emergency agricultural relief package is included in this conference report, along with additional [[Page S11413]] emergency supplemental appropriations, to make a total of $4.2 billion in emergency assistance available. A total of $1.5 billion is made available to assist producers who have been hit by crop losses in 1998, and an additional $675 million for producers who have suffered from multiple-year crop losses. Also included is $175 million for emergency livestock feed assistance, and $1.65 billion to assist producers with market losses. In addition, the conference report provides temporary recourse loans for honey and mohair; $5 million for cotton indemnity payments; an increase of $25 million for the Food for Progress program to help move more grain out of the country; and expanded non-insured crop assistance for raisin producers. Additional supplemental emergency appropriations provided by the conference report include the $40 million to cover additional costs to the Farm Service Agency of administering this assistance, $10 million for the Forestry Incentives Program; and $31 million in subsidy appropriations to fund an additional $541 million in farm operating loans. Madam President, this conference report was filed on Friday and was passed by the House of Representatives that day by an overwhelming vote of 333 yeas to 53 nays. Senate passage of this conference report today is the final step necessary to send this fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill to the President for signature into law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report. Many of our farmers and ranchers are facing the worst crisis in agriculture that they can remember. The economic collapse in Asia has resulted in lost markets. Producers in some states have suffered severe weather conditions. Others have been hit hard by crop diseases. The farmers need help now, and it is time to quit playing politics with disaster relief and adopt this conference report. Madam President, this is the last Agriculture Appropriations bill my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, will manage in the Senate after serving on the Appropriations Committee for 20 years and this Subcommittee for 13 years. Senator Bumpers has been an advocate of American agriculture and a proponent of the programs in this bill to improve the quality of life and help bring jobs to rural areas. His expertise and many contributions to this process and this bill will indeed be missed. In summary, let me point out, Madam President, that there has been raised the specter of a Presidential veto over this conference report because of the inadequacy of the provision relating to disaster assistance payments. I am very disturbed by that suggestion, and I hope that it is more rumor than promise. I know the President spent some time on Saturday in his weekly radio address speaking to that subject. I recall that 2 weeks ago, I was asked to deliver the Republican response to the President's weekly radio address, and my subject was the need for a more aggressive and meaningful disaster assistance program for farmers. I think everyone can agree that both the President and the Congress have been speaking out and making very clear the fact that we need a helpful, sensitive, generous program of disaster assistance to help deal with the realities of weather-related disasters that have struck many parts of the country, market loss problems because of the Asian economic crisis, and other factors that have worked together to make this a very difficult year for agriculture. The question is, Are we going to resolve this in a way that is consistent with the legislative process that makes sense for farmers, that serves to establish policies that are thoughtful and consistent with the needs of American agriculture, or are we going to continue to treat this as a political football and just kick it around and have us skirmish every day or every week over this issue, leading to delay, leading to uncertainties, leading to anxieties? Farmers in America certainly deserve better. I would like just for a moment or two to think back on the date when we had the bill on the floor of the Senate and the subject of disaster assistance was first raised. We adopted in the Senate a sense-of-the- Senate resolution calling on the President and the Congress to work together to come up with a proposal that would meet the needs for emergency action to respond ``to the economic hardships facing agriculture producers and their communities.'' The Senate adopted that on July 15 by a vote of 99 to 0. The next day, there was an amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, and others who suggested we establish a $500 million indemnity program to compensate farmers for income losses that had been suffered due to various adverse conditions--weather and otherwise--throughout the country, although mainly the benefits were directed to the upper plains and other selected areas, not countrywide benefits or a program designed to be national in scope. During my remarks on that occasion, I recall on the Senate floor saying that we needed to have the President and the Department of Agriculture get involved and provide the Congress with a complete and accurate assessment of the funds that were needed for a program of this kind. We hadn't had a proposal from the administration for any specific benefit program for agriculture, although there had been meetings on the Hill with farm groups, with Senators and Congressmen trying to, first, get the facts and get a sense of what the agriculture leadership throughout the country thought would be an appropriate response by the Federal Government. There was no question at the time we were debating the bill that there was great interest in developing a disaster assistance program to meet the needs of American agriculture. As a matter of fact, during the discussion, I asked Senators if they had any better ideas, if they had suggestions for anything other than this $500 million indemnity program, and no one came forward to offer any amendments and no one expressed opposition to adopting that amendment. We checked with the legislative chairman in the Senate, and others, and without objection, we suggested that the Senate adopt the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota on a voice vote, and that is what we did. We accepted the amendment. After that was done, it became clear that through gathering information, that the situation was more widespread. I remember going to Georgia, for example, with the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell. I had an opportunity to meet with farmers in southern Georgia and became convinced that we had a problem that was bigger than the upper plains and Texas. Everybody knew about the drought in Texas and the severe complications that were resulting from that for agriculture producers and ranchers in that area. But I do not think it was well known that in south Georgia, which had had a series of weather-related disasters over a period of years, the agriculture sector there was really hurting. And the $500 million indemnity program, suggested by the Senators from North Dakota and others, was not going to be sufficient to deal with that problem and others as well. I know in my State of Mississippi, for example, when I was home right after we adopted this bill in July--we had a break during the August recess--I had an opportunity to visit some areas of my State that were devastated because of isolated weather patterns that had ruined corn crops in the northwest part of Mississippi, and others had been damaged to the extent that diseases were infesting the crops. Aflatoxin was attacking the corn crops. There was no provision in any Federal disaster assistance program for yield losses, for crop losses. Those who were suggesting an indemnity program based on lifting loan caps had to realize that was not going to help somebody who had a total crop failure. It would not help them a bit. So we came back, started working on a new proposal, got with the leadership of the House and Senate, and asked the administration they were going to request supplemental funding. They did come back with a $1.8 billion supplemental budget authority request to support $2.3 billion in emergency agricultural programs, without a lot of specificity about how those benefits would be determined, how the eligibility would be determined, who would administer the program. But, nonetheless, it was a step in the right direction, and I applauded the President for responding in that way. [[Page S11414]] But based on that supplemental request--and working with the knowledge that other Members had generated from their States--we proposed to the conference committee a $4.1 billion disaster assistance program, and it was accepted in the conference committee with some changes. We accepted some amendments proposed by House Members in conference. We added some money proposed by the Senate in response to specific amendments that were urged in conference to the managers' proposal. So the end result was the conference committee agreed to provide emergency benefits totaling about $4.2 billion. So I come to the Senate today very pleased to be able to report that, instead of a $500 million indemnity program that the Senate adopted as a way to deal with the crisis in agriculture, working with farmers, producers, and ranchers from around the country, and other Members of the Congress, including the House, we now have a conference report that is much more generous, much more responsive to the real needs that exist in our country today in production agriculture, and designed to more nearly bring farmers to a point where they can continue to operate without going broke, without the devastating effects that would have been the reality of the situation had not this package of changes been agreed upon. We hear now that the Democratic leadership has urged the President to veto the bill. And I got a letter suggesting that he would if the conference agreement on disaster assistance was inconsistent with the proposal just recently made by the Democratic leader of the Senate to remove the loan caps under the current farm program for the commodities that are subsidized, in effect, by the Federal Government--no ifs, ands, buts about it. The letter said--and I took this up with the Secretary of Agriculture to be sure I understood that that was the meaning--that the President said he would veto the bill if the conference report was inconsistent with a proposal made by the Democratic leader to remove the loan caps for those commodities that are subsidized by the Government. I am very disappointed by that. I certainly hope that there is room for the President to change his mind on that subject, because it seems to me that rather than argue over whether or not this program is really going to do a good job and is thoughtfully crafted to try to put farmers back on their feet who have been devastated by bad weather and market conditions beyond their control, it just seems to me that this is not an appropriate response for the President to be making, given the other opportunities for positive things. Here are some examples of positive things that I think could be done which are beyond the jurisdiction of this committee today that brings you this conference report. The House of Representatives just passed recently a tax bill making a lot of changes in the Tax Code, but I specifically recall that some of those tax changes are designed to benefit farmers and farm families, and I am told that we are not going to have a chance to vote on that tax bill here in the Senate because we cannot get the bill cleared to bring up. We cannot get the House-passed tax bill cleared. So in order to bring it up, the majority leader would have to move to the consideration of the bill, the motion would become debatable, and then in order to get the bill on the floor for consideration and debate and passage, 60 votes to invoke cloture would have to be undertaken because the Democrats are promising to filibuster the bill. Here are the changes that it bothers me we will not even get a chance to approve that would help farmers. There is a 5-year net loss carryback of losses that you can carry back and set against income for 5 previous years. That is in the House- passed bill. The House-passed bill makes permanent income averaging, which permits farmers and ranchers to average income, high years against low years, and even out the tax burden, which is very beneficial to many. There is a provision that makes deductible, to 100 percent of the cost, health insurance premiums by those who are self-employed. If you are in agriculture and you have a farm and you are your own boss, under this change you will be able to deduct 100 percent of the cost of your health insurance. That helps farmers. That helps farm families. There is also an acceleration of the exemption for death taxes and gift taxes. One of the most difficult things facing agriculture today is the obligation to come up with cash money to pay the Federal Government so-called inheritance taxes on the death of a family member who has an interest in the land or the other property that goes into making up the decedent's estate. We have passed rules that phase in some higher exemptions for small farms and for businesses. What this House-passed bill does is accelerate the phasing in of those exemptions. That would be a big help to many farm families who are going to have to liquidate assets in real estate to pay death taxes. Another thing that this administration has been slow to react to is the trade problems that we are having in this hemisphere, with Canada, with Mexico, and beyond, barriers to trade so that our farmers and our exporters are having to deal with unfair tariff situations and other difficulties that are erected to keep America from selling what we are producing in the world marketplace and at the same time importing, in violation of some existing rules, I am told, some foodstuffs, live cattle, from other countries. Finally the administration is beginning to act. We see the Trade Representative engaging Canada in trade talks now about steps that can be taken to solve the problems that have developed in that area. But we were hearing this on the Senate floor and urging the administration to take action. Being the chief negotiator in the executive branch, the President has an obligation to assume some leadership. Frankly, there has been a breakdown in leadership on that subject. We hope we haven't waited too late to make changes and reach agreements and work out problems in the trade area for the farmers who have suffered this year. That is one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to include direct payments that are bonus payments under the transition. We think the market transition program to compensate producers directly for income losses due to the economic crisis and trade problems that we have is very important. The administration does not propose and has not suggested that as an appropriate step to aid America's farmers. I make those comments, Madam President, not to pick a fight with anybody here on the floor of the Senate today, but to simply express my concern that we not see this bill held up, delayed, postponed, vetoed, whatever may happen to it, because of an interest in being able to say the Democrats are for a $7 billion disaster program, the Republican bill is only $4 billion. I bet it will be the same folks who said we want $500 million in an indemnity program to help meet the needs of the agriculture crisis. That is what the story was in July. We all agreed at that time that was probably temporary, that more needs to be done. So I am not belittling that suggestion. It was the suggestion on the floor of the Senate at the time and no one had any better idea at that time. Since then it seems we have been engaged in a show of one-upsmanship. The Republicans then come up with, with Democrat input in many cases, this $4 billion program of disaster assistance. Now, all of a sudden, that is not enough; we need $7 billion. How much has the President requested? I have the exact amount: $1.76 billion in budget authority has been requested by the President for agriculture producers and ranchers. That will support $2.3 billion program level. The other suggestion is removing the loan caps. Then CBO is called on to answer the question, what will that cost? The answer is that will probably cost--and it is speculation, it is a guess, nobody knows because nobody knows what commodity prices will be in the future--it is guessed it will be $5.5 billion. The proponents of that proposal say we are for spending $5.5 billion plus $2.3 billion, so we are for spending almost $8 billion. So this is a more generous plan. What is not disclosed is the effect that policy change of raising the loan caps will have on prices of those commodities next year or the next. The [[Page S11415]] fact is there are many who tell us that we are buying into a program that is going to have a continuing depressing effect on market price of these commodities that are covered by the loan programs. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't think anybody could have guessed that corn and wheat prices would have been as low as they are right now a year ago. So nobody knows what the prices are going to be in the future. I am told they will be lower because of that change in policy. So are we doing farmers a favor by making that policy change? It is really not a question, in my view, of who is willing to spend more money on farmers, the Republicans or the Democrats. Both are being very generous. That is the fact. Both are being very, very generous in terms of where we started, existing programs, precedent, previous disaster benefit efforts. The fact is the Democrats are in favor of making a policy change and substituting a change for an existing farm bill provision that set up the market transition payments and the phasing in to a market economy. We are in the second year of that farm bill. There are 3 more years left under the authority of the 1996 bill. I m hopeful that we can find a way to provide the benefits to American agriculture producers without rewriting or trying to rewrite portions of the 1996 farm bill. So we have a difference of opinion on that. Let me simply conclude my remarks by thanking everyone who helped us write this conference report. It has been a very challenging experience. I don't know that we had a more contentious or at least long drawn out conference on agriculture appropriations since I have been in the Congress. I don't recall having any more difficult time putting the bill together. We had a lot of disagreements that were discussed, but we worked them all out. We have a conference agreement. That is the good news. The other body has passed the conference report by a very large vote. Privilege of the Floor Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the staff of the Appropriations Committee be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4101, and during any votes that may occur in relation to this measure: Rebecca Davies, Martha Scott Poindexter, and Rachelle Graves. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized. Mr. KERREY. Madam President, first of all, let me compliment the Senator from Mississippi for his usual articulate and persuasive fashion--always a gentleman, always wanting to work with us, regardless of momentary disagreements. I regret to say this is one of those momentary disagreements. I come to the floor today to offer arguments against this conference report. I had initially intended to offer a motion to recommit the report back to conference, but now that motion would be out of order since the House has reported it. I prefer that it go back to the conference rather than going on to the President. I appreciate very much the President indicating he will veto this bill. Perhaps if we can dispose of this conference report in a hurry, get the President's veto, the conferees can direct their attention to the objections the President has raised. Those objections are similar to the ones I will offer here this afternoon. Let me say, first of all, I do appreciate that there is bipartisan agreement that rural America is facing a real crisis. That is very good news. What the Senator from Mississippi said is quite right. There has been, throughout the year, a process of developing proposals, but there has been significant disagreement on one particular point; that is, taking the caps off the loan rate. We voted twice on that. It did not pass here in the Senate. I will talk about that later. I think, unfortunately, that ideological argument is getting in the way of our ability to be able to reach agreement. This conference report, I believe, fails in two areas: First, it does not achieve the goal of providing support, both to the farmers who grow the crop who are in serious trouble due to the prices, and those who are in trouble as a consequence of weather disasters. For livestock, this conference report fails to put the law on the sides of the producers and take action to make our markets work better. First, as to the amount of income support for grains, it is simply not enough. It is not targeted as it should be to the people growing our food. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial that appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star praising Congressman Doug Bereuter, a Republican from Nebraska, who represents the First Congressional District. Congressman Bereuter also objected to the plan in the conference report as not sufficiently generous to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions; that the $4 billion in aid should be closer to $7 billion in aid that the budget has requested. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Oct. 2, 1998] Bereuter Path on Farm Aid Best Approach First District Rep. Doug Bereuter has a sound, responsible approach to helping farmers at a time when commodity prices have plunged to lows not seen since the 1980s. Breaking with his GOP cohorts, Bereuter said this week the Republican plan ``is not sufficiently generous'' to meet the needs of agriculture under current economic conditions. House and Senate conferees Wednesday chose the Republican plan, which would provide $4 billion in aid, over a Democratic plan which would have provided $7.1 billion in tax subsidies to farmers. Agriculture was one of the first sectors of the economy to be buffeted by the Asian financial crisis. Export markets in some Asian nations have virtually evaporated. Now markets in Latin America also are being affected. In addition to providing a cushion against low prices, the aid package under consideration in Congress is intended to help farmers who have been hit by drought and other adverse weather conditions. Debate over the size of an aid package for farmers unfortunately has bogged down in partisan rhetoric and a running debate over the five-year Freedom to Farm act approved by Congress in 1996. The Republican aid package unfortunately also rejects other measures that would provide substantial benefit to agriculture. For example, it does not require mandatory price reporting, which would allow cattle producers to know what packing plants are paying for beef. It also does not include a provision to require labeling showing the national origin of meat. The measure would allow consumers to select beef produced in the U.S. rather than other countries. While pushing for more financial help for farmers, Bereuter rightly resists a return to previous ag policies that are part of the Democratic approach, which would base subsidies for grain farmers on the so-called loan rate. Previous farm policy was based on a heavily bureaucratic approach with strict government dictates. Proponents of the Freedom to Farm act left more decision-making to farmers, at the same time leaving them more subject to market pressures. In the long run, the market-oriented approach under Freedom to Farm will benefit agriculture, although it certainly should be open for modification and improvement. But now, while farmers are facing a double whammy of record harvests and low prices, is not the time to get bogged down in partisan debate over basic philosophy. Providing aid under the payment system of the existing farm bill makes sense. But, as Bereuter suggested, the amount should be more generous than Republicans have agreed to so far to preserve the stability and capability of the sector of the economy that feeds the nation. Mr. KERREY. Madam President, as to the income, the proposal in the conference report would be, approximately, for corn, 7 cents a bushel. That does not get the farmer much closer to either recovering the cost of production nor providing his banker confidence to lend him money again next year, and significantly, of all the tests that I trust as to whether or not the President's proposal should be a part of the conference report or not, economists will come forward and argue on both sides of practically any proposal you come out with. The Independent Bankers of America have endorsed taking the caps off the loan rate, not because it provides more income, and by no means does it provide a sufficient amount of income that we won't still have significant people going broke, but because it is attached to a marketing loan, it increases the chances that farmers who will need operating loans will be able to get them. Likewise, this conference report is inadequate because provisions were dropped that were passed in the Senate [[Page S11416]] in July, which were to require price reporting for beef, and meat labeling requirements as well. The conferees have said to farmers and ranchers that they think the livestock markets work just fine. But I am here in a brief period of time to say that the markets are not working. Cattle feeders and ranchers have lost more than $2 billion in equity this year, with millions more being lost every week. When I am home-- typically every weekend--the people in Nebraska are worried about their financial stability and they believe that this Agriculture appropriations bill, with the disaster package attached to it, will be terribly important for their financial stability. More deeply than just the money, they are worried about their way of life, because, in the final analysis, this debate is about much more than just the size and makeup of a relief package; it is about the future of rural America. We can see the future of our small towns and rural areas very clearly right now, and it doesn't look good, with prices low and economic conditions as hard as they are on our farms and ranches. Those who are not driven off the land in this crisis have already found that their children are not interested in the life farming has to offer. Two weeks ago, in Scottsbluff, I held a town hall meeting, and 60 people were in the room who are involved directly in production agriculture. I asked how many of them had children who would take over the farms, and I didn't get a single affirmative answer. Those with grown children had already lost them to the cities. Others said, ``There is no opportunity out here.'' That is what this Congress has the ability to change, and we can start with this piece of legislation. We need an agricultural sector that offers some opportunity, but first we must bring some stability to that agricultural sector. Again, I am pleased the President is going to veto it. Let me talk of the differences, specifically to our States. Again, I heard the distinguished Senator from Mississippi talk about economists who are saying taking the caps off of loan rates could have a depressing impact on price. I have not come to the floor and said that Freedom to Farm produced these lower prices. I think the lower prices are clearly there as a consequence of a declining demand in the international marketplace. Nobody is forecasting that demand is going to come back in 1999. Nobody expects the decline in exports to increase. I wish this Congress had been able to pass fast-track legislation. I have supported it in the past. I believe that, long term, it would help. But in the short term, we see substantial declines in income that are there as a consequence of this decline in demand and increased production that has occurred here in America. This package in the conference report versus what the President asked for is substantially different. I pointed this out before, and it bears repeating. In Nebraska, the difference is $434 million of income--this does not go to State government or county government; it goes to individual farm families--versus $177 million, almost a quarter of a million dollars. In Mississippi, it is $145 million versus $71 million. In Minnesota, it is $483 million versus $227 million. I ask unanimous consent that this table, which shows the differences between the package in the conference report and what the President has asked for be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: DEMOCRATIC VERSUS REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS, BY STATE (CBO ESTIMATE) [In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Democratic Republican Difference ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama.......................... 96 64 32 Arizona.......................... 39 19 20 Arkansas......................... 194 105 89 California....................... 227 142 85 Colorado......................... 120 53 67 Connecticut...................... 2 1 1 Delaware......................... 6 2 4 Florida.......................... 58 47 11 Georgia.......................... 218 147 71 Idaho............................ 127 37 90 Illinois......................... 527 186 341 Indiana.......................... 277 95 182 Iowa............................. 600 235 365 Kansas........................... 371 176 195 Kentucky......................... 65 30 35 Louisiana........................ 99 84 16 Maine............................ 3 2 1 Maryland......................... 21 7 14 Massachusetts.................... 1 1 0 Michigan......................... 109 47 62 Minnesota........................ 483 227 256 Mississippi...................... 145 71 74 Missouri......................... 205 81 124 Montana.......................... 160 71 89 Nebraska......................... 434 177 257 Nevada........................... 1 0 1 New Hampshire.................... 1 0 1 New Jersey....................... 5 1 4 New Mexico....................... 40 27 14 New York......................... 41 12 29 North Carolina................... 185 115 70 North Dakota..................... 431 316 115 Ohio............................. 197 64 133 Oklahoma......................... 170 109 60 Oregon........................... 74 14 60 Pennsylvania..................... 46 10 36 South Carolina................... 46 28 18 South Dakota..................... 363 214 149 Tennessee........................ 73 29 44 Texas............................ 896 813 83 Utah............................. 11 3 8 Vermont.......................... 26 11 16 Virginia......................... 39 19 20 West Virginia.................... 153 42 111 Washington....................... 12 2 10 Wisconsin........................ 139 60 79 Wyoming.......................... 10 4 6 -------------------------------------- Total.......................... 7,546 4,000 3,546 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. KERREY. Madam President, again, not only are our grain farmers adversely affected, but cattle producers and cattle processors have been as well. We have met extensively with our ranchers and our feeders, and they say to us two things need to happen, and they need to happen in order to improve our prices and increase the chances that we are going to get a market bid that is higher than what we are getting now. The first is mandatory reporting of prices, regardless of whether the prices occur in cattle that are owned by the feeder or cattle controlled through formula feeding, or some other contract by the packinghouse. Those prices today are not reported. We had extensive debate here on the floor about that issue. Unfortunately, the conferees dropped that. I believe that provision, all by itself, would increase prices for cattle in the United States, for beef, and would have a very positive impact as a consequence on our rural communities. Likewise, the meat labeling requirement included in the Senate bill was dropped by the conferees, and it is supported by almost all of the cattle organizations. There is some dispute on price reporting, although I think we can deal with the changes that we had in the conference language. There is almost no dispute, from the standpoint of the producer, on the need to put on the label information that allows the consumer to determine from where that product came. It is allowing the market to work. Rather than saying that the Government is going to impose a solution, we say inform the consumer where the product came from and let them decide. I hope, as I said in the beginning, that the President's veto of this conference report will lead to the conferees coming back quickly and looking, as no doubt they will, for ways to improve it along the lines of what the President has recommended. Not only are there tens of thousands of farmers who will survive if we can get this legislation passed and on to the President for his signature, as he has asked us to, but it will give us a chance to take a step in the direction of giving our rural communities a chance to survive. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is a custom in the Senate to speak well of someone you are about to oppose. So let me speak well of the Senator from Mississippi. We have worked together on a wide range of issues. He is a very effective Senator and somebody I enjoy working with a great deal. He has a very effective staff and we work on a lot of issues together. But I come to the floor today opposing the conference report and to do so as aggressively as I possibly can. I want to explain to him and other Members why I feel so strongly about this. First of all, it is not the case that all that was offered in July was the $500 million indemnity program that was introduced as an amendment by Senator Conrad and myself. It is the case that we also proposed, and had a vote on an amendment to increase the price supports by lifting the caps on the loan rate. We did it then; and we did it a second time. We lost twice in those efforts. We proposed a series of steps, one of which was lifting the loan rate, and another of which dealt with disaster issues. I want to describe why I feel so strongly about this. I received a letter from the head of the Farm Service Agency in our State. I asked him, ``If things don't change, what should we [[Page S11417]] expect in the next few months in North Dakota with respect to family farms?'' He points out that North Dakota in the judgment of the Farm Service Agency, will lose over 3,500 farms by this spring without some significant assistance. That is probably some 14,000 people. I assume there is an average of three or four persons on each of those family farmers, including a spouse and a couple of children. So at least 3,500 family farms will not get credit and will not be able to continue farming this coming year. That means 12,000 to 14,000 North Dakota farm people will be told that their dream is over. They tried, but they failed. Let me describe the reasons they are not making it. There are two main reasons. One, is the disaster. We had the 500-year flood of the Red River, and people know about that. They remember the flood at Grand Forks. For a number of years we have been in a wet weather cycle in eastern North Dakota. We have had massive quantities of standing water that have inundated acres and acres of farmland in North Dakota. This wet cycle has caused and exacerbated a crop disease known as fusarium head blight, or scab. This combination has devastated the quality of farm life in North Dakota. I have a chart here. If you are a North Dakota farmer and you are in these red counties on this chart in the eastern part of the State, you have had 5 straight years of disaster declaration. The red counties are not 1, 2, or 3, but every year for 5 straight years that these counties have been declared a disaster. Why? Because of weather-related events, and other events, their production has been devastated. So that is the disaster portion of this problem. You can see that with the orange counties and yellow counties, that these counties have had disasters 3 out of 5 years. In fact two thirds of the counties in my State have been declared a disaster area 3, 4 or 5 years out of 5 years. Now, in addition to the disaster, what also has happened to these farmers is that Congress passed a new farm bill. The Senator from Nebraska might be right that this might have nothing at all to do with price. The new farm bill might not be related to the collapse in price. But it might be; I don't know. I am not asserting that today, I am just saying that we passed a new farm bill. This chart shows what has happened to the price of wheat since Congress passed the farm bill. It is down by almost 60 percent. There has been a 60-percent drop in the price of wheat since Congress passed the new farm bill. The price of wheat has fallen from $5.75 a bushel to $2.36. Add together the significant disasters year after year and the collapse of prices and here is what you have. In my State, in North Dakota, which is the hardest hit, in 1 year there was a 98-percent drop in net farm income. These are U.S. Government figures. We had a 98- percent drop in net farm income. With respect to this group of North Dakotans, their income has virtually been wiped away. Is it any wonder they are in deep trouble? We are not a State of big corporate agrifactories. We are a State largely composed of family farms. When they suffer a loss of virtually all of their income, many of them just do not make it. The current farm bill doesn't provide a bridge across price valleys. The philosophy of the current farm bill is that you ought to operate in the free market. If there is a price valley, the farmer is told, ``Tough luck; try and find your way across the valley.'' So because we don't have that pricing bridge under this economic philosophy, family farmers certainly don't get to the other side. The head of our Farm Service Agency says 3,500 farms will not be in the field next spring in North Dakota. I am betting that if any other Member of this body had the same set of statistics in front of them concerning what is happening to their family farmers would also be here. They would be here with as much energy and as much passion as I have to see if we can't change this result and to do whatever we need to do to change it. The underlying bill has disaster assistance. I am very appreciative of that. We might argue about who provides more. But overall, frankly, I think the underlying bill, and the administration, and virtually everyone who is party to this has offered a fairly decent package with respect to disaster assistance. The Senator from Mississippi correctly pointed out that he and Senator Lott accepted the $500 million indemnity program amendment that we put into in the bill in the Senate in the first instance to deal with the initial estimate of damages from the disaster in the Northern Plains. That amendment was done prior to the almost complete collapse of the cotton crop in Texas and the devastation in Louisiana, Oklahoma and other States. At that time we all understood that the disaster indemnity program was going to have to be increased at some point along the way. The disaster package in this appropriations bill started with the acceptance by the Senator from Mississippi to put in the $500 million indemnity for the Northern Plains. I appreciate that. I am not here to argue about which disaster proposal for this bill is better than the other. Both the President and the conference report addressed this disaster issue in a very significant way. But, I am here to say that is not enough. On top of the disaster provision, as the Senator from Mississippi indicated, the majority party added a 18-cents-a-bushel payment for wheat. This additional AMTA payment really only means that farmers will get 13 cents a bushel for wheat when it is all figured out. That is because AMTA payments are made on only 85 percent of contract acreage on the frozen historic yields. So the real assistance to deal with price collapse in this bill amounts to 13 cents a bushel for wheat. And it is not enough. It won't allow farmers enough cashflow. It won't allow their bankers to decide that they will get another loan to go to the fields next spring to plant crops. They simply won't be able to do it. That is the dilemma. This is not enough. And there isn't any way to argue to say that it is enough, or that it will solve this problem. If numbers are to be believed with respect to the estimates in North Dakota, at least 3,500 farm families are going to be washed away. These farm families are not going to be able to farm next spring. I am not willing to accept that result. It is not a fair result. Family farmers are not getting their share of this country's national income. They should be expected to get a decent share of that. Let me show you what family farms face. They are told that they should just go ahead and operate in the free market and whatever happens, happens. What is that free market about? Everywhere they look, they confront near monopolies, or at least enormous concentrations of economic power. The top four firms in this country control 62 percent of flour milling. The top four firms in dry corn milling control 57 percent. In wet corn milling, the top four control 76 percent. In soybean crushing, the top four have 76 percent. If a farmer happens to produce livestock and he markets that cow, he finds that 87 percent of the beef slaughter is controlled by the top four firms. The top four control 73 percent of sheep slaughter. It is 60 percent for pork. Or, if farmers want to haul their grain to market on a railroad--and most of them have to--they stick it on a rail car somewhere in my State, and they get double charged at least because there is no competition. I have mentioned this before and I will say it again. If you put a carload of wheat on the rail track in Bismarck and haul it to Minneapolis, they charge you $2,300. If you put it on a car in Minneapolis, and haul it to Chicago, which is about the same distance, it costs you $1,000. Why do we get double charged? Because there is no rail competition in North Dakota, while there are multiple lines between Minneapolis and Chicago. So it is not just concentration among processors. It is also the transportation components of the grain trade that are highly concentrated. This isn't a circumstance where there is a free market. Yet farmers are told to operate in the free market. If prices collapse, they are told tough luck, and we will give you 13 cents. If they can't make it with that, tougher luck. Those want to pass this bill also contemplate tax cuts that they say will help farmers. Tax cuts don't help people without income. The problem in [[Page S11418]] farm country is lack of income. The first thing we should do is to restore income. I happen to support most of those tax proposals that I have heard about. In fact, some that the Senator from Mississippi described today have great merit. I support fully deductible health insurance for sole proprietorships and income averaging. I can go down a whole list of proposals that I support. My point is that first we need to restore income to these family farmers. They need to get a fair share of this Nation's income. The fact is that everybody who touches products produced by these farmers is virtually making record profits. The railroads? You bet your life they are doing fine. They haul the farmers' products. How about the slaughterhouses? Are they doing fine? You bet they have solid profits. They are the ones who slaughter the livestock that is sent to market by those farmers. How about the cereal manufacturers who put the snap, crackle and pop into a cereal. They take a kernel of wheat, put it in a plant some place, put it in a bright-colored box, ship it to a grocery store, and sell it at $4 a box. The company that puts the puff in puffed wheat makes far more than the person who gassed the tractor, planted the seed, and harvested that wheat. In fact, the person that harvested the wheat that they planted is going broke. And the people who are puffing it, crackling it, and snapping it are having record profits. I don't understand the notion that somehow, if we just do nothing, things will work out. When we look at all of the evidence here, we are going to lose tens and tens of thousands of family farmers across this country unless this Congress does what it needs to do now. We need to provide some decent price supports to get farmers across this price valley. I am not standing here asking that we tip the current farm program upside down. I didn't vote for the current farm program. I am not going to stand here and provide a litany of why I think it is not a good program. I am not suggesting we tip it upside down. I am simply saying what this farm program did in the big print it took away in the small print. This farm program, passed by this Congress, said we would provide farmers 85 percent of the five-year Olympic average price as a price support in the form of a loan rate. That is what it said in the big print. In the small print it said that the 85 percent of the five- year Olympic average price would be capped. The small print says we will put an artificial cap on it to bring the loan rates way down. All we are saying is that we should take the artificial cap off. Do what the big print said the farm bill will do. Get rid of the small print that took away that help to the family farmers. In North Dakota it means a $156 million difference just on the price support mechanism. The difference for the farmers in my State alone is $156 million. That could well mean the difference between making it and not making it. It can mean the difference between succeeding and failing. A young fellow wrote to me recently. I have referred to his letter previously in the last couple of days. His name is Wyatt. He is a sophomore in high school at Stanley, ND. He wrote this plaintive cry for help on behalf of his family farm. He is a young boy who loves to farm. He knows his dad and mom do as well. He wrote me a letter that says, ``My dad can feed 180 people. And he can't feed his family.'' He was describing a circumstance where his family's income has been washed out. Their family farm may not be able to make it and he wonders whether that is fair, and whether that is good economic policy for this country. The answer clearly is no, that is not fair. And clearly it is not good economic policy for our country. Both the independent community bankers in my State and the North Dakota Bankers Association tell me that if we don't pass some meaningful assistance this year these farmers won't be in the field next spring. That is from the lenders. This weekend, I was reading some of President Truman's speeches in 1948. I want to read a couple of pieces from President Truman in 1948. Old Harry was doing a whistle stop tour on a train back then. I like Harry Truman. Harry spoke plainly and never minced any words. I thought maybe we would celebrate just a bit of what Harry Truman said about family farmers and what this debate is about today. Harry Truman said at the National Plowing Match in Dexter, IA, September 18, 1948: [I] believe that farmers are entitled to share equally with others in our national income. [I] believe a prosperous and productive agriculture is essential to [this country's] national welfare. He said: Those who are wilfully trying to discredit the price support program for farmers don't want the farmers to be prosperous. They believe in low prices for farmers, cheap wages for labor, and high profits for big corporations. And then he said: The big money [interests look] on agriculture and labor as merely an expense item in a business venture. [They try] to push their share of the national income down as low as possible and increase [their] own profits. And [they] look upon the Government as a tool to accomplish this purpose. That was 1948, 50 years ago. Isn't it interesting that as we stand here debating agriculture, in North Dakota there are probably 12,000 to 14,000 citizens who will not get into the fields next spring unless this Congress does the right thing. At least 3,500 farms will go belly up. That is 12,000 to 14,000 people, who will lose their livelihood unless we do the right thing. Yet, surrounding those farmers are the bigger economic interests that are all making money. There are the railroads, slaughterhouses, grain trader, cereal manufacturers, grocery manufacturers, and you can name all the others that are all making record profits. Does that say something about whether the system is fair? And you might say, well, what business is it of ours? The business for this country is that if we do not act, we will not have people living in the country. We will not have people living out on the land. We won't have yard lights illuminating thos