Summary:

All articles in Senate section

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued
(Senate - October 13, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12474-S12504] AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. I regret very much having to do this because I appreciate the fact that all across our country, farmers are in need of assistance. I recognize that it is important to try to get some of these programs out to them. But I am very frank to tell the Senate that I think the conference [[Page S12475]] badly overlooked the pressing problems which the farmers in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic are facing. I can't, in good conscience, support a bill which simply fails to take into account the situation with which we are confronted, a situation which is unparalleled. Steven Weber, President of the Maryland Farm Bureau, was recently quoted as saying: This is not just another crisis. This is the worst string of dry summers and the worst run of crop years since the 1930s. Talk to the old-timers. They haven't seen anything like it since they were young. Our farmers have been absolutely devastated by the weather we have experienced, not only over this past farming season but in previous ones leading up to it as well. We face a very pressing situation.'' In addition, I think this bill fails to address the needs of our dairy farmers. I will discuss that issue subsequently. First, I want to address the disaster assistance. Most of the disaster assistance that is available under existing programs is in the form of low-interest loans for those who have been rejected twice by commercial lenders. What this approach fails to recognize is that our farmers have been hit with a double whammy. First of all, they had the low commodity prices which farmers all across the country have confronted; and in addition, in our particular situation, our farmers were confronted by severe drought problems, as I have indicated, unparalleled in the memory of those now farming for more than half a century. Low-interest loans simply won't work to address the collective and drastic impact of these factors. Recognizing that, we sought substantially more and more direct disaster assistance in the Conference Agreement. And the response that the Conferees made to this request--the $1.2 billion that is in this bill--is clearly inadequate. The Secretary of Agriculture estimated that in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, we needed $1.5 to $2 billion just for those States alone. Never mind, of course, comparable damage, either drought or floods, that have occurred in other parts of the country which also need assistance. Indeed, it should not be our goal to identify an amount of funding where we have to take from one to give to the other. These states need assistance as well. What we are arguing is that this package ought to be comprehensive enough to meet the needs in the agricultural sector all across the country. I appreciate that other parts of the country have been hit with droughts and floods and that we must address these needs as well, but the amount provided in this conference report for disaster assistance is clearly inadequate to accomplish this goal. The amount that this legislation provides and that which will eventually make its way into the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States will not enable us to confront the problem bleakly staring our farmers in the face. We wrote to the conferees, a number of us from this region of the country, asking them to consider the following measures. I regret that very little weight was given to this request. All of them, I think, are exceedingly reasonable requests, and had they been addressed, it would have affected, obviously, the perspective I take on this legislation. We asked the conference committee to consider the following measures: First, crop loss disaster assistance programs that provide direct payments to producers based on actual losses of 1999 plantings. These payments could be drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation funds without an arbitrary limit. The arbitrary limit currently in the agreement precludes comprehensive assistance and delays the availability of the assistance. We asked that yield loss thresholds and payment levels be determined in advance so the payments can be made to producers as soon as they apply, rather than providing a fixed amount which would require all producers to apply before a payment factor can be determined and payments can be issued. We asked for this measure because these farmers need the help now. They need it quickly. They are under terrific pressure. Secondly, we asked the committee to consider sufficient livestock feed assistance, which addresses losses in pasture and forage for livestock operations, provides direct payments to producers based on a percentage of their supplemental feed needs, determined in advance to speed payments and avoids prorating. Thirdly, we requested the conference to consider credit assistance which addresses the needs of producers who have experienced natural and market loss disasters. Fourthly, we asked the conference for adequate funding to employ additional staff for the Farm Service Agency and the National Resource Conservation Service so they could swiftly and expeditiously implement various assistance programs at the State and local level. Finally, we requested cooperative and/or reimbursable agreements that would enable USDA to assist in cases where a State is providing State- funded disaster assistance. All of these, had they been responded to as we sought, would have given us an opportunity to address the situation in our region, not only in a forthright manner but one that would accommodate the pressing crisis which we confront. As we indicated, this crisis has reached overwhelming proportions. We risk losing a substantial part of the region's critical agricultural sector. The measures in this conference report, I regret to say, are not sufficient, nor sufficiently focused on the needs of the Eastern States to address their problems. That is one major reason I oppose this conference report and will vote against it. Secondly, this conference report deals with the dairy issue in a way that is harmful to our region. By failing to adopt option 1-A and disallowing the extension of the authorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact, the conference agreement has left our dairy farmers confronting a situation of instability. Milk prices have been moving up and down as if they were on a roller coaster. Our dairy farmers have been subjected to wide and frequent swings, which place our dairy producers in situations where they don't have the cash-flow to meet their costs in a given month. The price goes up; the price comes down. It takes an enormous toll on the industry in our State and elsewhere in the east. As a result of these fluctuations, the number of dairy farmers in Maryland has been declining markedly over the last 2 decades. We fear that if this process continues, we are going to see the extinction of a critical component of our dairy industry and the farm economy; that is, the family-run dairy farm. Indeed, my concern is primarily focused on family farmers and on sustaining their presence as part of the dairy sector. The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation to enable Maryland to join the Northeast Dairy Compact. They also took measures in that legislation to ensure that the interests of consumers, low-income households and processors, would be protected when a farm milk price was established. In fact, a representative from those groups would be on the compact commission, as well as from the dairy industry itself. Other states that are a part of the Compact or want to participate have taken the measures to protect same interests. And we believe this established a reasonable solution to provide stable income for those in the dairy industry, particularly family dairy farmers. But the conference denied what I regard as a fair and reasoned approach--in refusing to extend the authorization of the compact, and therefore, committed our region's dairy industry to a continuance of this unstable and volatile environment. Mr. President, agriculture is an important economic actor in the state of Maryland. It contributes significantly to our State's economy. It employs hundreds of thousands of people in one way or another. We really are seeking, I think, fair and equitable treatment. I don't think this legislation contains a fair and equitable solution for the crisis that faces farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Indeed, it seems to ignore the fact that we have farmers as well. The only farmers in the country are not in sectors other than the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and the needs of all of our farmers should have been addressed in this legislation. The Farm Bureau has written me a letter urging a vote against adoption of the conference report. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. [[Page S12476]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1.) Mr. SARBANES. They write: Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions in the economic disaster relief package are important and necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative impacts on the State's dairy industry. I agree with that. We should reject this package, go back to conference, and develop a package that addresses the dairy issue, allows us to develop the compact to give some stability and diminished volatility in the industry, and also increases the drought assistance package so it adequately and directly meets the needs of the farmers of our region. The conference agreement should have done better by these very hard- working men and women, these small farm families. And because it has not--as much as I appreciate the pressing needs of agriculture elsewhere in the country, and as much as I, in the past, have been supportive of those needs--we in the region must take measures to have our farmers' needs addressed in the current context. We have experienced a very difficult and rough period for Maryland agriculture, and for agriculture generally in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Because this crisis is not adequately addressed in this conference report, I intend to vote against it. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc., Randallstown, MD, October 12, 1999. Hon. Paul Sarbanes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to urge you to vote against adoption of the conference report on Agricultural Appropriations when it is considered on the floor tomorrow. Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions in the economic disaster relief package are important and necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative impacts on the state's dairy industry. I urge you to vote to send the agricultural appropriations conference report back to the conferees with instructions that they add the Option 1A dairy language and that they increase the drought assistance package to adequately meet the needs of mid-Atlantic farmers. Sincerely, Stephen L. Weber, President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I commend my colleague for his comments. He could have easily been speaking on behalf of the State of Connecticut in talking about the particular concerns of his home State of Maryland. In a moment, I will explain why I also have serious reservations about this bill. But his point that the New England States, the Northeast, contribute significantly to the agricultural well-being of this country is well founded. I know Secretary Glickman came to Maryland and he came to Connecticut during the drought this past summer. The exact number eludes me, but it was surprisingly high, the number of farmers and the significant portion of agricultural production that occurs east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line, or near north of the Mason-Dixon line. So when we talk about these issues, it may seem as if it is more sort of hobby farms to people, but for many people in Maryland and for the 4,000 people in Connecticut who make a living in agriculture--these are not major agricultural centers, but in a State of 3.5 million people, where 4,000 families annually depend upon agriculture as a source of income, it is not insignificant. So when you have a bill that virtually excludes people from Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania from receiving some help during a time of crisis, I hope our colleagues who come from the States that benefit from this bill, who I know have enjoyed the support of the Senator from Maryland, this Senator, and others during times of crisis, because we have seen a flood in the Midwest, or a drought in the Midwest, or cyclones and hurricanes that have devastated agriculture in other parts of our country--I never considered my voting to support people in those areas as somehow a regional vote. When I vote to support a farmer who has lost his livelihood because of a natural disaster, I think I am voting to strengthen my country, not to help out a particular farmer in a State that I don't represent. So when we have a drought in the Northeast, as we did, a record drought this year that wiped out farmers, caused them to lose significant income, to lose farms and the like, and then to have a bill that comes before us that disregards this natural disaster--in my State, $41 million was lost as a result of the drought--I am disappointed. My colleagues may have stronger words to use. I am terribly disappointed, as someone who, year after year, has been supportive of particular agricultural needs, although I didn't directly represent them, that our colleagues in the House and Senate could not see fit to provide some financial help beyond, as my colleague from Maryland said, the loan program, which is not much help. We don't have crop insurance for my row croppers. The small farmers don't get crop insurance. When they get wiped out or lose income, they have to depend upon some direct payment. A loan program is of little or no assistance to them. I am terribly disappointed that this bill excludes those farmers from the eastern part of the United States. It was the worst drought that has hit our region in decades. Congressional delegations throughout the region have consistently supported our colleagues in other regions when their States have suffered catastrophic floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. We don't understand why it is so difficult for the eastern part of the country to convey to our colleagues how massive the devastation has been to our small farmers. As I have said, in my State alone, it is $41 million. In other States, the numbers may be higher. I represent a small State. The dairy industry is one of the major agricultural interests in our region. It has gotten a double hit in this legislation--inadequate drought relief assistance and the exclusion of provisions that would have extended the Northeast Dairy Compact. On top of the drought losses, our farmers will lose an additional $100 million if the new milk marketing pricing goes forward. While I am heartened by the recently issued court injunction postponing the implementation of the new pricing scheme, quite frankly, this is only a short-term solution and is no substitute for affirmative action taken by the Congress. Northeast dairy farmers are deserving of the same kinds of assistance we offer to the agricultural sectors in other parts of the country. I believe it is grossly unfair that this conference report has chosen to ignore their plight. We should not be placing one part of the country against another. I don't want to see a midwestern farmer or a western farmer be adversely affected by votes we cast here. But, likewise, I don't want to see farming interests in my State or my region of the country be harmed as a result of our unwillingness to provide some relief when they absolutely need it to survive. Inadequate drought relief and the exclusion of the Northeast Dairy Compact would be reason enough to vote against the legislation before us today. But I want to raise another issue that has caused a lot of consternation during the debate on this Agriculture appropriations bill. I am referring to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, myself, and Senator Hagel of Nebraska. The House leadership literally hijacked this piece of legislation and denied the normal democratic process to work when it came to this measure that was adopted overwhelmingly in the Senate by a margin of 70-28--by any measure, an overwhelming vote of bipartisanship. This measure would have ended unilateral sanctions on the sale of U.S. food and medicine to countries around the globe. The amendment had broad-based support from farm organizations across the country which, time and time again, have been forced to pay the price of lost income when Congress has decided to ``get tough'' with dictators [[Page S12477]] and bar farm exports. Farmers, over the years, have rightfully noted that, although in some cases sanctions have been in place for 40 years, there is nothing in the way of positive foreign policy results to show for these sanctions. On the other hand, the losses to our farmers are measurable and substantial--in the billions of dollars annually--as a result of these unilateral sanctions on food and medicine we have imposed for years. Church groups and humanitarian organizations have joined farm organizations in strongly opposing use of food and medicine as sanctions weapons on moral grounds. Ironically, U.S. sanctions--particularly ones on food and medicine-- have been used as an instrument by hostile governments to shore up domestic support and retain power, the very power that we are allegedly trying to change through the use of sanctions actually having contributed to these dictators staying in power for as many years as some of them have. Whether or not the United States is fully responsible for the suffering of these men, women, and children in these targeted countries, it is hard to convince many of them that the United States means them no ill will when we deny them the access to foodstuffs, critical medicines, and medical equipment--the reason seventy of our colleagues decided to end this policy of unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership would not allow the process to work in conference. As a result, this bill was tied up for days over this single measure. Again, I compliment my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Hagel, who are leaders on this, along with others in fighting for this provision. This is not a provision that is designed to help dictators. It is a provision to, in fact, change these dictatorial governments and to provide needed relief and opportunity for millions of people who are the innocent victims of these dictators, and not deny our own farm community and business interests the opportunity to sell into these markets and make a difference. They are prepared, of course, to deny, in the case of the major opposition, by the way, which comes from some Members. I want to emphasize that some members of the Cuban American community feel particularly strongly about the government in Cuba. I respect their feelings. I respect it very deeply. These families have lost their homes, jobs, and family members as a result of the government in Cuba under Fidel Castro. There is no way I can fully appreciate the depth of their feelings and passions about this. As I say, I respect that. The exile community is not unfounded in its deep concerns about what has happened on the island of Cuba. Before I make any comments about the island of Cuba and what goes on there, I want it to be as clear as I can possibly make it that my sympathies, my heartfelt sympathies go to the exiled community that lives in this country and elsewhere. Their passions, I understand and accept, and I am tremendously sympathetic. But I must say as well that there are 11 million Cubans who live on that island 90 miles off our shores who are suffering and hurting badly. Arguably, the problem exists with the government there. I don't deny that. But to impose a sanction for 40 years on the same of food and medicine to 11 million people in this country also is not warranted. While we may want to change the government in Cuba--and that may happen in time--we shouldn't be compounding the problem by denying the sale of food and medicine to these people. Many people say they won't set foot on Cuban soil while Castro remains in power. I understand that as well. But don't deny the 11 million people in Cuba the opportunity to at least have basic food supplies and medicine. It seems to me that--in fact I believe--a majority of the Cuban American people in this country have similar feelings. Their voices are not heard as often as is oftentimes the case when a minority view is extremely vocal and can dominate. But I believe the vast majority of Cuban Americans feel strongly about Fidel Castro, want him out of power, and want democracy to come to their country but simultaneously believe the 11 million people with whom they share a common heritage ought not to be denied food and medicine by the United States. To make my point, these Cuban Americans try on their own to do what they can by sending small packages to loved ones and family members and friends who live in Cuba. Others travel to deliver medicines. Some 150,000 Cuban Americans travel annually to go into Cuba to bring whatever they can to help out family members and friends. However, these gestures of generosity are no substitute for commercial sales of such products if the public health and nutritional need of 11 million people are going to be met. Unfortunately, the antidemocratic forces have succeeded in stripping the Ashcroft-Dodd-Hagel amendment from this bill. I hope enough of my colleagues will vote against this legislation to prevent its adoption. We can delay a few days, send this measure back to conference, and reestablish this language that was supported overwhelmingly, and I think supported in the House of Representatives, the other body, as well, and bring the measure back. If this measure goes forward without the inclusion of the Dodd-Hagel- Ashcroft amendment, rest assured we will be back on this floor offering similar amendments at every opportunity that presents itself, and we will continue to do so. The day is going to come when a majority of the Congress and the will of the American people, including the Cuban Americans, I strongly suggest, is going to prevail. On that day, the United States will regain a moral high ground by ceasing forever to use food and medicine as a weapon against innocent people. I argue, as Senators Ashcroft, Hagel, Grams, and others, that the adoption of amendments that would allow for the lifting of unilateral sanctions on food and medicines will also be a major contributing factor to changing governments in these countries. Aside from helping out farmers and businesses that want to sell these products and the innocent people who can't have access to them in these countries, I believe the foreign policy implications of allowing the sale of food and medicine will be significant for our country and for the people who live under dictatorial governments. For those reasons, and what is being denied our farmers and agricultural interests in the State of Connecticut and elsewhere in the Northeast, and the rejection of the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd amendment, I will oppose this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, some of our colleagues have denounced the Agriculture appropriations conference report as inadequate. I must agree. Without a doubt this bill is deficient. It fails to acknowledge the full impact of natural disasters that have been experienced by agricultural producers across the country. It fails to include adequate funding for the drought that has hit the Northeast. It fails to provide adequate funding for the hurricane damage to the Southeast and the Northeast. It fails to include adequate funding for flooded farmland in my own part of the country. This bill is also deficient in the way it got here because in the conference committee when it became clear that there were going to be steps to change the sanctions regime of this country, the minority, the Democrats, were simply shut out. That is wrong. That should not happen. But it did happen. So we are left with that result. As a result partly of that lockout, this bill fails to provide the kind of sanctions reform that ought to have occurred. In 1996 when we passed the last farm bill, the Republican leadership promised American farmers that what they lost in domestic supports they would make up through expanded export opportunities. That was a hollow promise. The harsh reality is that now the prices have collapsed, farmers are in desperate trouble, and there must be a Federal response. I wish this bill were better. I wish it contained adequate assistance for [[Page S12478]] those who have been hit by hurricanes. I wish it had adequate assistance for farmers who have had their acreage flooded. I wish it had sanctions reform. Food should not be used as a weapon. It is immoral; It is ineffective; and it is inhumane. But the harsh reality is we are where we are. We have a conference report that is flawed. Indeed, it is badly flawed. The easy thing to do would be to vote against this conference report. But it would not be the right thing to do. This bill is not just about responding to natural disasters. It also responds to the price collapse that has occurred and threatens the livelihood of tens of thousands of farmers in my State and across the country. The need for emergency income assistance could not be more clear. I can say that in my State many farmers are relying on this bill as their only chance for financial survival. I don't say that lightly. It is the reality. If this assistance is not passed and distributed immediately, literally thousands of farmers in my State are going to go out of business. It is that simple. A way of life and the tradition of farming will be lost in dozens of communities across my State. The funding in this bill only meets the most basic needs of our producers. Make no mistake, it is absolutely essential. Prices for agricultural commodities are at their lowest levels in 50 years in real terms. Wheat and barley are the lowest they have been in real terms in over 50 years. Farm bankruptcies are rising; auctions are being held on an unending basis. If nothing further is done, thousands of our farmers will go out of the business. That is the stark reality in farm country. If we fail to pass this bill, we are going to mortgage the future of literally thousands of farm families. I think we should keep in mind this is not our last chance to get something done for those who have been so badly hurt, whether it is my farmers who have flooded acres, whether it is people in the Northeast and the Southeast hit by hurricanes, whether it is farmers in the Northeast hit by drought. There is another chance this year to get additional assistance. I sympathize with my colleagues from the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States. They are not alone. In my State this year, we have been hit by severe storms, flooding, extreme snow and ice, ground saturation, mud slides, tornadoes, hail, insects, and disease. It is unbelievable what has happened in my State. Growing up in North Dakota I always thought of my State as dry. I now fly over much of North Dakota and it looks similar to a Louisiana rice paddy. There is water everywhere. Millions of acres are inundated and were never planted this year. Our farmers planted the lowest level of spring wheat since 1988, the year of intense drought. Yet prices remain very low--in fact, record lows. Barley production in North Dakota is down 42 percent. Yet prices remain very low. Things have gone from bad to worse this fall. Farmers were anxious to get into the field for harvest but were forced to stay at home and watch the rain. North Dakota farmers suffered through 2 weeks of rain at the end of August and early September, the key time for harvest. As a result, the completion of harvest has been delayed. Damage resulting from a delayed harvest is deducted from prices farmers receive for their crops. At this point, there is absolutely no way some farmers will come anywhere close to matching their expenses for this year. We simply must pass this bill to allow entire communities to survive. I was called by a very dear friend of mine 2 weeks ago describing what had happened to him. He was just beginning harvest when the rains once again resumed in our State. He had just cut his grain. It was on the ground and the rains came and continued day after day after day. As a result, that grain that was on the ground sprouted. He had 30-percent sprout in his fields. He took a sample into the elevator and the elevator said: Don't even bother trucking that in; we aren't going to buy it at any price. That happened all over my State. I know it has happened in other States, as well. Passing this bill and releasing this funding is absolutely critical for those farmers who have been so hard hit. Remember, passing this bill does not bar Congress from doing more in the future. We have other opportunities this year to help those who have been hit by a hurricane. There is other legislation moving through this body that has funds for those hit by hurricanes. That package can be improved upon. When we passed the emergency supplemental bill last May, we agreed to revisit agricultural emergency spending once the extent of the price disaster was known. We have done that. We can pass this bill now and assess future needs in response to natural disasters while this assistance is distributed. The statement of the managers on this bill made several references to the need for additional Federal spending for 1999 disasters. They have recognized the reality. I hope colleagues on the floor will understand there are additional opportunities to achieve the result they seek. The answer is not to kill this bill. This bill, however flawed, is a step in the right direction. It would be a profound mistake to defeat it. I close by urging my colleagues to support this conference report. We had an overwhelming vote in the Senate yesterday. It was an important vote to send the signal that this legislation ought to pass. My colleagues in the Northeast are not alone. In many ways, we are in the same circumstance. We desperately need those farmers who have flooded acres to have legislation that addresses their needs. We will have another chance. We will have another opportunity. That is the great thing about the Senate; there is always another chance. I close by looking at a picture that shows what is happening in my State. This is several sections of land in North Dakota. Everywhere you look is water, water, water--water everywhere. I have flown all over my State. It is truly remarkable; places that were dry for 30 years are now saturated. I talked about the price collapse. I want to visually show what it is farmers are contending with. This chart shows clearly what has happened to spring wheat and barley prices over the last 53 years. The blue line is spring wheat; the red line is barley. These are two of the dominant crops of my State. Today the prices in inflation-adjusted terms, in real terms, are the lowest they have been in 53 years. That is the reality. This chart shows the cost of wheat production with the green line; the red line shows what prices are. Prices have been below the cost of production the last 3 years. This is a disaster scenario of its own. This is the reality of what is happening in my State. This threatens the economic future of virtually every farmer in my State. The price is far below the cost of production. There are not many businesses that survive when it costs more to produce the product than is being received--not for a few months but for 3 years. The next chart shows a comparison of the prices farmers paid for their inputs--the green line that keeps going on--versus the prices that farmers received. We can see there is a gap and it is a widening gap. In fact, the closest we came to having these two on the same line was back at the time of the passage of the 1996 farm bill. Since that time, the prices farmers pay have gone up. Thank goodness they have stabilized somewhat in the last couple of years, but the prices they have received have collapsed. That is the hard reality of what our farmers confront. These are, by the way, statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I want to conclude by saying we ought to pass this bill. It is not perfect. In fact, in many ways it is deeply flawed. But it is far better than the alternative of nothing. It is far better than to take the risk of sending this bill back to conference and having it come back in much worse shape. At least we can take this and put it in the bank because this does address the question of price collapse. It does not do a good enough job on the disaster side, but we have other opportunities that will come our way before this session of the Congress concludes. I will end by thanking the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the subcommittee, and Senator Kohl, his counterpart, for the good job they have done under very difficult circumstances. Make no mistake, there are 100 Senators and there are probably 100 different opinions of what agricultural policy should be and what an Agriculture appropriations bill should [[Page S12479]] look like. But we do respect and admire the work they have done. We again thank them for their patience and perseverance bringing this bill to the floor. It deserves our support. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from South Dakota. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, agriculture across most of America is in a state of crisis. We are facing incredibly low livestock and grain prices, coupled with weather disasters in many parts of the country, all simultaneously. The legislation before us, as my colleague has noted so ably, is imperfect. Some have referred to it as throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning person, and there is some truth to that. But it is urgent legislation. It is legislation we need to move forward because the need is immense and the urgency is critical. There is certainly no assurance, if we were to vote this particular bill down, that it would be back to us anytime soon or that it would come back to us in a better situation than it is now. I think we need to recognize the inadequacies of the legislation, but at the same time that we move forward, we do so with a commitment to do better, still this Congress and in the coming year, to address the underlying problems that at least contributed to the crisis we have in rural America. Faulty agricultural policy brought to us by Freedom to Farm, combined with low prices, natural disasters, and weak export markets, resulted in an inadequate safety net--for family producers, in any event--across this country. We have seen net farm income absolutely plummet from $53 billion in 1996 to $43.8 billion in 1999. Off-farm income in many of our States, including mine, South Dakota, is responsible for 80 to 90 percent of our family producers being able to stay on the farm. If it were not for off-farm income, there would be an even more massive exodus off the farm and ranch than we are seeing. Are there inadequacies in the bill? Certainly. I commend our colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, Senator Kohl, and many others, for hard work on this legislation under circumstances that surely were trying, where the level of resources would certainly not permit what they would prefer to see happen. Nonetheless, I think we have to acknowledge we need a recommitment in this body and from our friends on the other side of the Capitol to address the underlying structural problems ag faces today. I believe that involves revisiting the Freedom to Farm legislation. I believe that involves strengthening our marketing loan capabilities. I would like to see us pass my country-of-origin meat labeling legislation. I am still working with a bipartisan group of colleagues this week to put together legislation addressing vertical integration in the packing industry, so we do not turn our livestock producers into low-wage employees on their own land. I fear that is the road we are going down. We have to address issues of trade, value-added agriculture, farmer- owned cooperatives, and crop insurance reform. All of these are issues that cry out for attention, above and beyond anything done in this legislation. I do applaud the effort in this bill to include mandatory price reporting on the livestock side. I do applaud some modest funding, at least, for my school breakfast pilot project that is included in this bill. I am concerned, however, the process led us to legislation that involves a distribution process that may not be as equitable as what I think the American public deserves. I will quote briefly from an analysis by the Associated Press, Philip Brasher, where he observes: Some of the largest, most profitable farms in the country would be among the biggest beneficiaries of Congress' $8.7 billion agricultural assistance package because it loosens rules that wee intended to target government payments to family-size operations. An individual farm could claim up to $460,000 in subsidies a year--double the current restriction--and the legislation creates a new way for producers to get around even that limit. The payment limits apply to two different programs: crop subsidies that vary according to fluctuations in commodity prices; and annual ``market transition'' payments, which were guaranteed to producers under the 1996 farm law. Farmers are technically allowed to receive no more than $75,000 in crop subsidies and $40,000 a year in market transition payments under current law. But many farms, legally claim twice that much because they are divided into different entities. A husband and a wife, for example, can claim separate payments on the same farm. The aid package would double those caps, so farms could get up to $300,000 in crop subsidies and $160,000 in market transition payments this year. Last year, about 550 farmers nationwide claimed the maximum amount in crop subsidies, USDA officials said. Critics of the looser payment rules fear they will encourage the consolidation of farms and hasten the demise of smaller-scale operations. ``Big farms will use the extra cash to buy up land from the neighbors, driving up land prices in the process,'' said Chuck Hassebrook, program director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, NE. ``What is the purpose of these farm programs? Is it to help very wealthy, very large landowners get bigger and get richer?'' These are the kinds of questions and concerns many of us have. I think they are profound questions, having to do with the very nature of agriculture, the very nature of rural America. What road we are going down, in terms of ag and rural policy in America, policy responsible for feeding so efficiently and so effectively and in such an extraordinary manner the people of our Nation? But for all its failings and shortcomings, many of which I briefly raised this morning, the fact is there is absolute urgency this legislation go forward, that we address the problems of income collapse, disaster all over America, with this legislation; and, hopefully, upon passage of this legislation, we recommit ourselves to going expeditiously forward to address the remainder of these other issues I have raised, and others of my colleagues have raised, reflecting upon the inadequacies and inefficiencies and the shortcomings of this legislation. They are many. But to stop this legislation now would only hasten the demise of still more family producers all across America. It would not guarantee a return to a better policy anytime very soon. We need to pass this bill, then go forward with additional legislation to redress these inadequacies. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on passage of this legislation and to work with us in a bipartisan fashion on the remainder of these agricultural issues and budget issues before the country. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alaska. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report for the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill addresses one of the most beleaguered fisheries in the United States. The Norton Sound region of Alaska has suffered chronically poor salmon returns in recent years. Norton Sound is an arm of the Bering Sea off the west coast of Alaska. It lies to the north of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which has also seen very poor salmon returns in recent years. Both of these regions are extremely rural and heavily dependent on commercial and subsistence salmon fishing for survival. The provision in the conference report addresses the Norton Sound problem in several ways. First, it will make the Norton Sound region eligible for the Federal disaster assistance made available to the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region last year. Second, it changes the income eligibility standard from the Federal poverty level to that for the temporary assistance to needy families program. The standard of living in many of these fish-dependent communities is well below the poverty line. This was one of the chief complaints voiced to my staff and several Commerce Department officials when they visited western Alaska last summer. This provision will allow more needy families to qualify for 1999 disaster assistance, much of which has gone unallocated. Additionally, this bill will provide $10 million in grants through the Economic Development Administration for infrastructure improvements in the Norton Sound region. The conference report included is $5 million in disaster assistance under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to determine [[Page S12480]] the cause of the decline and to identify ways to improve the area's fisheries in the future. These funds will be available in 2001. The main reason these communities are unable to ride out cyclical fishery failures is the lack of commercial infrastructure in rural fisheries. The EDA grants will help provide ice machines and other equipment to help these communities modernize their processing capabilities and extract more value from the resources they harvest. I was also pleased to work with my colleagues from New England on their request for fishery disaster assistance. New England will receive $15 million in 2001 for cooperative research and management activities in the New England fisheries. These funds will provide New England fishermen with an important role in working to solve the problems of their own fisheries. Within this conference report, I have also asked that the Agricultural Marketing Service--the AMS--convene two national meetings to begin development of organic standards with respect to seafoods. One of these meetings will be held in Alaska and the other meeting will be held on the Gulf of Mexico coastal area. The AMS will use the information gathered at these meetings to develop draft regulations establishing national organic standards for seafood to be published in fiscal year 2000. It is estimated that the sales of organic foods will reach $6.6 billion by the year 2000. The organic industry has been growing at a rate of 20 to 24 percent for the last 9 consecutive years. Ocean-harvested seafood should be at the same level with other qualifying protein commodities, such as beef, pork, and chicken. I hope that these protein sources will be included in the proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture rules to be finalized by June 2000. Ocean- harvested seafood should not be excluded as an organically-produced product when USDA issues its final rule. This issue is very important to Alaska, as the harvesting of seafood is an industry that employs more Alaskans than any other industry. In particular, I am concerned about the inclusion of wild salmon within USDA's final rule for the National Organic Program. Wild salmon is an organic product. This past summer, two private certifying firms for organic food products visited two Alaska seafood processors to determine whether the wild, ocean-harvested salmon processed at these facilities could be certified as organic. One of the certifiers, farm verified organic, inspected capilliano seafoods. Their report is very positive. In fact, their approval allowed capalliano's salmon to be admitted to natural products east, which is a large organic food show in Boston, Massachusetts. In order to be admitted to this trade show, a product must be verified as organic. I, frankly do not know what the dispute is about. Natural fish, wild fish should certainly be verified as organic. I am confident that the AMS will find Alaskan wild salmon a very heart-healthy protein source, to be of high quality and organic, for the purposes of USDA's national organic program. I thank my friend from Mississippi and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know a number of Members are waiting to speak. The Governors and legislators in the six New England States had five goals in mind when they enacted the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact into law in each of their States. They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers. In fact, they wanted to do it at lower prices than found in most other parts of the Nation. They wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect New England's rural environment, and they wanted to do this without burdening Federal taxpayers. It turned out the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was a stirring success on every one of these points. But it also had an added benefit. It increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage of the compact. Not only did prices come down, but the number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New England for the first time in many years. We find there are still some who favor having Federal bureaucrats run this farm program, at a cost to the taxpayers, instead of the States themselves, with no cost to the taxpayers. Because it has been so successful, half the Governors in the Nation, half the State legislatures in the Nation, asked that the Congress allow their States to set their own dairy policies, within certain limits, through interstate compacts that, again, cost taxpayers nothing. The dairy compact legislation passed in these States overwhelmingly. Perhaps most significant, and I mention this because we have heard those from Minnesota and Wisconsin attack this, what they do not tell us is that the retail milk prices in New England not only average lower than the rest of the Nation, but they are much lower than the milk prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. So those in these parts of the country who are attacking the Northeast Dairy Compact say they are concerned about consumers and ignore the fact that consumers pay a lot more in their States than they do in New England. One has to ask, Why does anybody oppose the Dairy Compact? GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without increased cost to the taxpayers. Why would anybody oppose it? One of the things I learned long ago is to follow the money, and there is one group making a whole lot of money on this issue. They are the huge milk manufacturers, such as Suiza, or Kraft which is owned by Philip Morris, or other processors represented by the International Dairy Foods Association. They oppose the compact not because they care for the consumers, not because they care for the farmers, but because they care for their own huge, bloated profits. Indeed, they sent around corporate front organizations to speak for them. One was the Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. When it finally became clear that Public Voice was going around fronting for these organizations, and that their policies were determined not by what was best for everybody but by corporate dollars, they finally went out of business. I've talked about the close alliances between a lead executive who handled compact issues for Public Voice who negotiated a job to represent the huge processors. I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group whose funding should be investigated, the Consumer Federation of America. One of their officers, formerly from Public Voice, has been going around Capitol Hill offices with lobbyists representing dairy processors. One might ask why would Philip Morris want to use these organizations instead of going directly to the editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post to bad mouth the compact? Why not have somebody who appears to be representing the consumers rather than Philip Morris coming in and talking about it? The consumer representative, being paid by the big processors, could come in and say: Editorial board members, milk prices are higher for children in the School Lunch Program under this compact. We ought to compare those prices. Let's compare the retail milk prices in New England against retail milk prices in the upper Midwest. A gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price was up to 50 cents more in Minneapolis, MN, the area opponents used as an example of how to save money. I think we ought to take a look at these issues because when we hear some of the big companies, such as Philip Morris and Kraft and Suiza, saying, well, it's not the money. But you know, of course, it is the money. When they say ``we are here because we're concerned about the consumers,'' you know--with their track record--that the consumer is the last thing on their mind. And when these processor groups say they want to protect the farmer . . . oh, Lordy, don't ever, ever believe that, because there is not a farmer in this country who would. Lastly, if anybody tells you the dairy compact will cost you money, I point out, not only does it not cost taxpayers any money, but the cost of milk is much lower than in States without a compact. [[Page S12481]] Mr. President, the Governors and legislators in the six New England states had five goals in mind when they enacted the Compact into law in each of their states. They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers--at lower prices than found in most of the nation--they wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect the New England's rural environment from sprawl and destructive development, and they wanted to do this without burdening federal taxpayers. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has delivered beyond the expectations of those Governors and state legislators. The Compact provided an added benefit--it has also increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage of the Compact. This great idea--coming from those six New England states--has created a successful and enduring partnership between dairy farmers and consumers throughout New England. Thanks to the Northeast Compact, the number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New England--for the first time in many years. It is unfortunate that most still favor federal bureaucrats running the farm programs--I think Congress should look at more zero-cost state-initiated programs rather than turning a deaf ear to the pleas of state legislators. Indeed, half the Governors in the nation, and half the state legislatures in the nation, asked that the Congress allow their states to set their own dairy policies--within federally mandated limits-- through interstate compacts that cost taxpayers nothing. And the dairy compact legislation passed with overwhelming support in almost all these states. One of the most difficult challenges posed by the New England Governors is that the Compact had to cost nothing--yet deliver a benefit to farmers. The Compact is scored by CBO as having no costs to the Federal treasury. Major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast Dairy Compact because they know it helps preserve farmland and prevent urban sprawl. Indeed, a New York Times and a National Geographic article that I mentioned yesterday discuss the importance of keeping dairy farmers in business from an environmental standpoint. Perhaps most significantly, retail milk prices in New England average lower than the rest of the nation and much lower than milk prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to GAO. The question is: why does anyone in America oppose the dairy compact? Since GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without increased costs to taxpayers, why does anyone oppose the Compact? The answer is simple, huge milk manufacturers--such as Suiza, headquartered in Texas, Kraft which is owned by the tobacco giant Philip Morris, other processors represented by the International Dairy Foods Association--oppose the Compact. Even the most junior investigative reporter could figure out the answer to my question with the above information. All anyone has to do is look up the donations made by these, and other, giant processors. All the negative news stories about the compact have their genesis in efforts by these giant processors and their front organizations. I have explained the details of this on the Senate floor so scholars who want to know what really happened can check the public records and the lobby registration forms. Indeed, one of the corporate front organizations--Public Voice for Food and Health Policy--apparently could not continue to exist when it was so obvious that their policies where determined by corporate dollars rather than good policy. A simple glance at the list of corporations who funded and attended their functions could be easily researched by any reporter. It will demonstrate that sad and disturbing relationship--now ended as Public Voice had to close up shop because it lost its conscience. I have detailed the close alliances between their lead executive who handled compact issues for them and the job he negotiated to represent the huge processors a couple of times on the Senate floor. I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group whose funding should be investigated--the Consumer Federation of America. Indeed, one of their officers--formerly from Public Voice--is being taken around Capitol Hill offices by lobbyists representing processors. A glance at who funds their functions and efforts will be as instruction as investigations of Public Voice. Why should Philip Morris or Kraft want to use these organizations instead of directly going to the editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post to badmouth the compact? The question does not need me to provide the answer. What would be the best attack--whether true or not--on the Compact that might swing public opinion? It might be to simply allege that milk prices are higher for children in the school lunch program. Who would the editorial boards more likely listen to regarding school children: a public interest group or a tobacco company? By the way, I would be happy to compare milk prices after the Compact was fully implemented. I would be pleased to compare retail milk prices in New England against retail milk prices in the Upper Midwest. A GAO report, dated October, 1998, compared retail milk prices for various U.S. cities both inside and outside the Northeast compact region for various time periods. For example, in February 1998, the average price of a gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was $2.63 per gallon. Prices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, were much higher-- they were $2.94 per gallon. Let's pick another New England city--Boston. In February 1998, the price of a gallon of milk was $2.54 as compared to Minneapolis which where the price on average was $2.94/gallon. Let's look at the cost of 1% milk for November 1997, for another example. In Augusta, Maine, it was $2.37 per gallon, the same average-price as for Boston and for New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In Minnesota, the price was $2.82/gallon. It was 45 cents more per gallon in Minnesota. I could go on and on comparing lower New England retail prices with higher prices in other cities for many different months. I invite anyone to review this GAO report. It is clear that our Compact is working perfectly by benefitting consumers, local economies and farmers. I urge my colleague to vote against this bill because, as I mentioned yesterday, it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the East and it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the nation. Also, I cannot vote for it because it does not extend the Northeast dairy compact and does not allow neighboring states to also participate. It also ignores the pleas of Southern Governors who wanted to be able to protect their farmers without burdening U.S. taxpayers. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is scheduled to vote on final passage of the fiscal year 2000 Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is critical that we complete action on this bill today to speed assistance to American farmers in need. Therefore, I shall vote for the bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The severe drought that has gripped the Eastern United States this year is, by all accounts, the most damaging and prolonged such occurrence since the early 1930s. Just like that period nearly 70 years ago, springs have gone dry, streams have ceased to flow, pastureland and crops have broiled in the relentless Sun until all possible benefits to livestock or man have burned away. In the 1930s the drought turned much of our Nation's farmlands into a veritable dust bowl. Modern conservation practices today may have helped to reduce the erosion by wind, [[Page S12482]] but the soil is just as dry, and farmers in West Virginia and all along the East Coast are suffering from the natural disaster of a generation. Some farmers have had to make the painful decision to sell off their livestock or to give up farms that have been in their families for generations. This is what has been happening in West Virginia. This is nothing short of an emergency. It demands our attention and response. This bill provides funding for many ongoing and long running programs as well as much needed assistance to farmers who suffered at the hands of Mother Nature this year. The $8.7 billion emergency package that is attached to this appropriations bill contains $1.2 billion specifically for 1999 natural disasters, including drought. In all, more than $1.2 billion will be available for direct payments for farmers suffering crop and livestock losses from natural disasters this year, up significantly from the $50 million in the version that first passed the Senate in August. That may not be enough to fully cover the still- mounting losses to farmers, but it is a good start. These emergency funds will be able to be distributed upon enactment of this legislation to farmers who have been waiting and waiting for the Federal Government to deliver. American farmers cannot afford to wait any longer for Federal assistance, and the Senate cannot afford to delay final passage of this fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. Unfortunately, once this measure reached the conference committee, the process that we follow yearly as routine in conferences was sidelined. When difficult issues came before the conference, after only an evening and a morning of debate, the conference committee adjourned for lunch, and never returned. For several days, the conference was ``out to lunch,'' until deals could be reached behind closed doors guided by invisible hands, and our tried and true procedure was circumvented. I believe that this selective bargaining is why some Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the final bill. The best work of the Congress is demonstrated when, as a body, we cooperate and allow ourselves to be guided by the rules and the traditions that have allowed our Government to flourish under the Constitution now for over 200 years. I have stood before this body on numerous occasions since visiting West Virginia with the Secretary of Agriculture on August 2 of this year to impress upon my fellow Members what a significant impact the drought has had in West Virginia, and, of course, in other Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern St

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued
(Senate - October 13, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12474-S12504] AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. I regret very much having to do this because I appreciate the fact that all across our country, farmers are in need of assistance. I recognize that it is important to try to get some of these programs out to them. But I am very frank to tell the Senate that I think the conference [[Page S12475]] badly overlooked the pressing problems which the farmers in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic are facing. I can't, in good conscience, support a bill which simply fails to take into account the situation with which we are confronted, a situation which is unparalleled. Steven Weber, President of the Maryland Farm Bureau, was recently quoted as saying: This is not just another crisis. This is the worst string of dry summers and the worst run of crop years since the 1930s. Talk to the old-timers. They haven't seen anything like it since they were young. Our farmers have been absolutely devastated by the weather we have experienced, not only over this past farming season but in previous ones leading up to it as well. We face a very pressing situation.'' In addition, I think this bill fails to address the needs of our dairy farmers. I will discuss that issue subsequently. First, I want to address the disaster assistance. Most of the disaster assistance that is available under existing programs is in the form of low-interest loans for those who have been rejected twice by commercial lenders. What this approach fails to recognize is that our farmers have been hit with a double whammy. First of all, they had the low commodity prices which farmers all across the country have confronted; and in addition, in our particular situation, our farmers were confronted by severe drought problems, as I have indicated, unparalleled in the memory of those now farming for more than half a century. Low-interest loans simply won't work to address the collective and drastic impact of these factors. Recognizing that, we sought substantially more and more direct disaster assistance in the Conference Agreement. And the response that the Conferees made to this request--the $1.2 billion that is in this bill--is clearly inadequate. The Secretary of Agriculture estimated that in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, we needed $1.5 to $2 billion just for those States alone. Never mind, of course, comparable damage, either drought or floods, that have occurred in other parts of the country which also need assistance. Indeed, it should not be our goal to identify an amount of funding where we have to take from one to give to the other. These states need assistance as well. What we are arguing is that this package ought to be comprehensive enough to meet the needs in the agricultural sector all across the country. I appreciate that other parts of the country have been hit with droughts and floods and that we must address these needs as well, but the amount provided in this conference report for disaster assistance is clearly inadequate to accomplish this goal. The amount that this legislation provides and that which will eventually make its way into the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States will not enable us to confront the problem bleakly staring our farmers in the face. We wrote to the conferees, a number of us from this region of the country, asking them to consider the following measures. I regret that very little weight was given to this request. All of them, I think, are exceedingly reasonable requests, and had they been addressed, it would have affected, obviously, the perspective I take on this legislation. We asked the conference committee to consider the following measures: First, crop loss disaster assistance programs that provide direct payments to producers based on actual losses of 1999 plantings. These payments could be drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation funds without an arbitrary limit. The arbitrary limit currently in the agreement precludes comprehensive assistance and delays the availability of the assistance. We asked that yield loss thresholds and payment levels be determined in advance so the payments can be made to producers as soon as they apply, rather than providing a fixed amount which would require all producers to apply before a payment factor can be determined and payments can be issued. We asked for this measure because these farmers need the help now. They need it quickly. They are under terrific pressure. Secondly, we asked the committee to consider sufficient livestock feed assistance, which addresses losses in pasture and forage for livestock operations, provides direct payments to producers based on a percentage of their supplemental feed needs, determined in advance to speed payments and avoids prorating. Thirdly, we requested the conference to consider credit assistance which addresses the needs of producers who have experienced natural and market loss disasters. Fourthly, we asked the conference for adequate funding to employ additional staff for the Farm Service Agency and the National Resource Conservation Service so they could swiftly and expeditiously implement various assistance programs at the State and local level. Finally, we requested cooperative and/or reimbursable agreements that would enable USDA to assist in cases where a State is providing State- funded disaster assistance. All of these, had they been responded to as we sought, would have given us an opportunity to address the situation in our region, not only in a forthright manner but one that would accommodate the pressing crisis which we confront. As we indicated, this crisis has reached overwhelming proportions. We risk losing a substantial part of the region's critical agricultural sector. The measures in this conference report, I regret to say, are not sufficient, nor sufficiently focused on the needs of the Eastern States to address their problems. That is one major reason I oppose this conference report and will vote against it. Secondly, this conference report deals with the dairy issue in a way that is harmful to our region. By failing to adopt option 1-A and disallowing the extension of the authorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact, the conference agreement has left our dairy farmers confronting a situation of instability. Milk prices have been moving up and down as if they were on a roller coaster. Our dairy farmers have been subjected to wide and frequent swings, which place our dairy producers in situations where they don't have the cash-flow to meet their costs in a given month. The price goes up; the price comes down. It takes an enormous toll on the industry in our State and elsewhere in the east. As a result of these fluctuations, the number of dairy farmers in Maryland has been declining markedly over the last 2 decades. We fear that if this process continues, we are going to see the extinction of a critical component of our dairy industry and the farm economy; that is, the family-run dairy farm. Indeed, my concern is primarily focused on family farmers and on sustaining their presence as part of the dairy sector. The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation to enable Maryland to join the Northeast Dairy Compact. They also took measures in that legislation to ensure that the interests of consumers, low-income households and processors, would be protected when a farm milk price was established. In fact, a representative from those groups would be on the compact commission, as well as from the dairy industry itself. Other states that are a part of the Compact or want to participate have taken the measures to protect same interests. And we believe this established a reasonable solution to provide stable income for those in the dairy industry, particularly family dairy farmers. But the conference denied what I regard as a fair and reasoned approach--in refusing to extend the authorization of the compact, and therefore, committed our region's dairy industry to a continuance of this unstable and volatile environment. Mr. President, agriculture is an important economic actor in the state of Maryland. It contributes significantly to our State's economy. It employs hundreds of thousands of people in one way or another. We really are seeking, I think, fair and equitable treatment. I don't think this legislation contains a fair and equitable solution for the crisis that faces farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Indeed, it seems to ignore the fact that we have farmers as well. The only farmers in the country are not in sectors other than the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and the needs of all of our farmers should have been addressed in this legislation. The Farm Bureau has written me a letter urging a vote against adoption of the conference report. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. [[Page S12476]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1.) Mr. SARBANES. They write: Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions in the economic disaster relief package are important and necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative impacts on the State's dairy industry. I agree with that. We should reject this package, go back to conference, and develop a package that addresses the dairy issue, allows us to develop the compact to give some stability and diminished volatility in the industry, and also increases the drought assistance package so it adequately and directly meets the needs of the farmers of our region. The conference agreement should have done better by these very hard- working men and women, these small farm families. And because it has not--as much as I appreciate the pressing needs of agriculture elsewhere in the country, and as much as I, in the past, have been supportive of those needs--we in the region must take measures to have our farmers' needs addressed in the current context. We have experienced a very difficult and rough period for Maryland agriculture, and for agriculture generally in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Because this crisis is not adequately addressed in this conference report, I intend to vote against it. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc., Randallstown, MD, October 12, 1999. Hon. Paul Sarbanes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to urge you to vote against adoption of the conference report on Agricultural Appropriations when it is considered on the floor tomorrow. Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions in the economic disaster relief package are important and necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative impacts on the state's dairy industry. I urge you to vote to send the agricultural appropriations conference report back to the conferees with instructions that they add the Option 1A dairy language and that they increase the drought assistance package to adequately meet the needs of mid-Atlantic farmers. Sincerely, Stephen L. Weber, President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I commend my colleague for his comments. He could have easily been speaking on behalf of the State of Connecticut in talking about the particular concerns of his home State of Maryland. In a moment, I will explain why I also have serious reservations about this bill. But his point that the New England States, the Northeast, contribute significantly to the agricultural well-being of this country is well founded. I know Secretary Glickman came to Maryland and he came to Connecticut during the drought this past summer. The exact number eludes me, but it was surprisingly high, the number of farmers and the significant portion of agricultural production that occurs east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line, or near north of the Mason-Dixon line. So when we talk about these issues, it may seem as if it is more sort of hobby farms to people, but for many people in Maryland and for the 4,000 people in Connecticut who make a living in agriculture--these are not major agricultural centers, but in a State of 3.5 million people, where 4,000 families annually depend upon agriculture as a source of income, it is not insignificant. So when you have a bill that virtually excludes people from Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania from receiving some help during a time of crisis, I hope our colleagues who come from the States that benefit from this bill, who I know have enjoyed the support of the Senator from Maryland, this Senator, and others during times of crisis, because we have seen a flood in the Midwest, or a drought in the Midwest, or cyclones and hurricanes that have devastated agriculture in other parts of our country--I never considered my voting to support people in those areas as somehow a regional vote. When I vote to support a farmer who has lost his livelihood because of a natural disaster, I think I am voting to strengthen my country, not to help out a particular farmer in a State that I don't represent. So when we have a drought in the Northeast, as we did, a record drought this year that wiped out farmers, caused them to lose significant income, to lose farms and the like, and then to have a bill that comes before us that disregards this natural disaster--in my State, $41 million was lost as a result of the drought--I am disappointed. My colleagues may have stronger words to use. I am terribly disappointed, as someone who, year after year, has been supportive of particular agricultural needs, although I didn't directly represent them, that our colleagues in the House and Senate could not see fit to provide some financial help beyond, as my colleague from Maryland said, the loan program, which is not much help. We don't have crop insurance for my row croppers. The small farmers don't get crop insurance. When they get wiped out or lose income, they have to depend upon some direct payment. A loan program is of little or no assistance to them. I am terribly disappointed that this bill excludes those farmers from the eastern part of the United States. It was the worst drought that has hit our region in decades. Congressional delegations throughout the region have consistently supported our colleagues in other regions when their States have suffered catastrophic floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. We don't understand why it is so difficult for the eastern part of the country to convey to our colleagues how massive the devastation has been to our small farmers. As I have said, in my State alone, it is $41 million. In other States, the numbers may be higher. I represent a small State. The dairy industry is one of the major agricultural interests in our region. It has gotten a double hit in this legislation--inadequate drought relief assistance and the exclusion of provisions that would have extended the Northeast Dairy Compact. On top of the drought losses, our farmers will lose an additional $100 million if the new milk marketing pricing goes forward. While I am heartened by the recently issued court injunction postponing the implementation of the new pricing scheme, quite frankly, this is only a short-term solution and is no substitute for affirmative action taken by the Congress. Northeast dairy farmers are deserving of the same kinds of assistance we offer to the agricultural sectors in other parts of the country. I believe it is grossly unfair that this conference report has chosen to ignore their plight. We should not be placing one part of the country against another. I don't want to see a midwestern farmer or a western farmer be adversely affected by votes we cast here. But, likewise, I don't want to see farming interests in my State or my region of the country be harmed as a result of our unwillingness to provide some relief when they absolutely need it to survive. Inadequate drought relief and the exclusion of the Northeast Dairy Compact would be reason enough to vote against the legislation before us today. But I want to raise another issue that has caused a lot of consternation during the debate on this Agriculture appropriations bill. I am referring to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, myself, and Senator Hagel of Nebraska. The House leadership literally hijacked this piece of legislation and denied the normal democratic process to work when it came to this measure that was adopted overwhelmingly in the Senate by a margin of 70-28--by any measure, an overwhelming vote of bipartisanship. This measure would have ended unilateral sanctions on the sale of U.S. food and medicine to countries around the globe. The amendment had broad-based support from farm organizations across the country which, time and time again, have been forced to pay the price of lost income when Congress has decided to ``get tough'' with dictators [[Page S12477]] and bar farm exports. Farmers, over the years, have rightfully noted that, although in some cases sanctions have been in place for 40 years, there is nothing in the way of positive foreign policy results to show for these sanctions. On the other hand, the losses to our farmers are measurable and substantial--in the billions of dollars annually--as a result of these unilateral sanctions on food and medicine we have imposed for years. Church groups and humanitarian organizations have joined farm organizations in strongly opposing use of food and medicine as sanctions weapons on moral grounds. Ironically, U.S. sanctions--particularly ones on food and medicine-- have been used as an instrument by hostile governments to shore up domestic support and retain power, the very power that we are allegedly trying to change through the use of sanctions actually having contributed to these dictators staying in power for as many years as some of them have. Whether or not the United States is fully responsible for the suffering of these men, women, and children in these targeted countries, it is hard to convince many of them that the United States means them no ill will when we deny them the access to foodstuffs, critical medicines, and medical equipment--the reason seventy of our colleagues decided to end this policy of unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership would not allow the process to work in conference. As a result, this bill was tied up for days over this single measure. Again, I compliment my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Hagel, who are leaders on this, along with others in fighting for this provision. This is not a provision that is designed to help dictators. It is a provision to, in fact, change these dictatorial governments and to provide needed relief and opportunity for millions of people who are the innocent victims of these dictators, and not deny our own farm community and business interests the opportunity to sell into these markets and make a difference. They are prepared, of course, to deny, in the case of the major opposition, by the way, which comes from some Members. I want to emphasize that some members of the Cuban American community feel particularly strongly about the government in Cuba. I respect their feelings. I respect it very deeply. These families have lost their homes, jobs, and family members as a result of the government in Cuba under Fidel Castro. There is no way I can fully appreciate the depth of their feelings and passions about this. As I say, I respect that. The exile community is not unfounded in its deep concerns about what has happened on the island of Cuba. Before I make any comments about the island of Cuba and what goes on there, I want it to be as clear as I can possibly make it that my sympathies, my heartfelt sympathies go to the exiled community that lives in this country and elsewhere. Their passions, I understand and accept, and I am tremendously sympathetic. But I must say as well that there are 11 million Cubans who live on that island 90 miles off our shores who are suffering and hurting badly. Arguably, the problem exists with the government there. I don't deny that. But to impose a sanction for 40 years on the same of food and medicine to 11 million people in this country also is not warranted. While we may want to change the government in Cuba--and that may happen in time--we shouldn't be compounding the problem by denying the sale of food and medicine to these people. Many people say they won't set foot on Cuban soil while Castro remains in power. I understand that as well. But don't deny the 11 million people in Cuba the opportunity to at least have basic food supplies and medicine. It seems to me that--in fact I believe--a majority of the Cuban American people in this country have similar feelings. Their voices are not heard as often as is oftentimes the case when a minority view is extremely vocal and can dominate. But I believe the vast majority of Cuban Americans feel strongly about Fidel Castro, want him out of power, and want democracy to come to their country but simultaneously believe the 11 million people with whom they share a common heritage ought not to be denied food and medicine by the United States. To make my point, these Cuban Americans try on their own to do what they can by sending small packages to loved ones and family members and friends who live in Cuba. Others travel to deliver medicines. Some 150,000 Cuban Americans travel annually to go into Cuba to bring whatever they can to help out family members and friends. However, these gestures of generosity are no substitute for commercial sales of such products if the public health and nutritional need of 11 million people are going to be met. Unfortunately, the antidemocratic forces have succeeded in stripping the Ashcroft-Dodd-Hagel amendment from this bill. I hope enough of my colleagues will vote against this legislation to prevent its adoption. We can delay a few days, send this measure back to conference, and reestablish this language that was supported overwhelmingly, and I think supported in the House of Representatives, the other body, as well, and bring the measure back. If this measure goes forward without the inclusion of the Dodd-Hagel- Ashcroft amendment, rest assured we will be back on this floor offering similar amendments at every opportunity that presents itself, and we will continue to do so. The day is going to come when a majority of the Congress and the will of the American people, including the Cuban Americans, I strongly suggest, is going to prevail. On that day, the United States will regain a moral high ground by ceasing forever to use food and medicine as a weapon against innocent people. I argue, as Senators Ashcroft, Hagel, Grams, and others, that the adoption of amendments that would allow for the lifting of unilateral sanctions on food and medicines will also be a major contributing factor to changing governments in these countries. Aside from helping out farmers and businesses that want to sell these products and the innocent people who can't have access to them in these countries, I believe the foreign policy implications of allowing the sale of food and medicine will be significant for our country and for the people who live under dictatorial governments. For those reasons, and what is being denied our farmers and agricultural interests in the State of Connecticut and elsewhere in the Northeast, and the rejection of the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd amendment, I will oppose this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, some of our colleagues have denounced the Agriculture appropriations conference report as inadequate. I must agree. Without a doubt this bill is deficient. It fails to acknowledge the full impact of natural disasters that have been experienced by agricultural producers across the country. It fails to include adequate funding for the drought that has hit the Northeast. It fails to provide adequate funding for the hurricane damage to the Southeast and the Northeast. It fails to include adequate funding for flooded farmland in my own part of the country. This bill is also deficient in the way it got here because in the conference committee when it became clear that there were going to be steps to change the sanctions regime of this country, the minority, the Democrats, were simply shut out. That is wrong. That should not happen. But it did happen. So we are left with that result. As a result partly of that lockout, this bill fails to provide the kind of sanctions reform that ought to have occurred. In 1996 when we passed the last farm bill, the Republican leadership promised American farmers that what they lost in domestic supports they would make up through expanded export opportunities. That was a hollow promise. The harsh reality is that now the prices have collapsed, farmers are in desperate trouble, and there must be a Federal response. I wish this bill were better. I wish it contained adequate assistance for [[Page S12478]] those who have been hit by hurricanes. I wish it had adequate assistance for farmers who have had their acreage flooded. I wish it had sanctions reform. Food should not be used as a weapon. It is immoral; It is ineffective; and it is inhumane. But the harsh reality is we are where we are. We have a conference report that is flawed. Indeed, it is badly flawed. The easy thing to do would be to vote against this conference report. But it would not be the right thing to do. This bill is not just about responding to natural disasters. It also responds to the price collapse that has occurred and threatens the livelihood of tens of thousands of farmers in my State and across the country. The need for emergency income assistance could not be more clear. I can say that in my State many farmers are relying on this bill as their only chance for financial survival. I don't say that lightly. It is the reality. If this assistance is not passed and distributed immediately, literally thousands of farmers in my State are going to go out of business. It is that simple. A way of life and the tradition of farming will be lost in dozens of communities across my State. The funding in this bill only meets the most basic needs of our producers. Make no mistake, it is absolutely essential. Prices for agricultural commodities are at their lowest levels in 50 years in real terms. Wheat and barley are the lowest they have been in real terms in over 50 years. Farm bankruptcies are rising; auctions are being held on an unending basis. If nothing further is done, thousands of our farmers will go out of the business. That is the stark reality in farm country. If we fail to pass this bill, we are going to mortgage the future of literally thousands of farm families. I think we should keep in mind this is not our last chance to get something done for those who have been so badly hurt, whether it is my farmers who have flooded acres, whether it is people in the Northeast and the Southeast hit by hurricanes, whether it is farmers in the Northeast hit by drought. There is another chance this year to get additional assistance. I sympathize with my colleagues from the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States. They are not alone. In my State this year, we have been hit by severe storms, flooding, extreme snow and ice, ground saturation, mud slides, tornadoes, hail, insects, and disease. It is unbelievable what has happened in my State. Growing up in North Dakota I always thought of my State as dry. I now fly over much of North Dakota and it looks similar to a Louisiana rice paddy. There is water everywhere. Millions of acres are inundated and were never planted this year. Our farmers planted the lowest level of spring wheat since 1988, the year of intense drought. Yet prices remain very low--in fact, record lows. Barley production in North Dakota is down 42 percent. Yet prices remain very low. Things have gone from bad to worse this fall. Farmers were anxious to get into the field for harvest but were forced to stay at home and watch the rain. North Dakota farmers suffered through 2 weeks of rain at the end of August and early September, the key time for harvest. As a result, the completion of harvest has been delayed. Damage resulting from a delayed harvest is deducted from prices farmers receive for their crops. At this point, there is absolutely no way some farmers will come anywhere close to matching their expenses for this year. We simply must pass this bill to allow entire communities to survive. I was called by a very dear friend of mine 2 weeks ago describing what had happened to him. He was just beginning harvest when the rains once again resumed in our State. He had just cut his grain. It was on the ground and the rains came and continued day after day after day. As a result, that grain that was on the ground sprouted. He had 30-percent sprout in his fields. He took a sample into the elevator and the elevator said: Don't even bother trucking that in; we aren't going to buy it at any price. That happened all over my State. I know it has happened in other States, as well. Passing this bill and releasing this funding is absolutely critical for those farmers who have been so hard hit. Remember, passing this bill does not bar Congress from doing more in the future. We have other opportunities this year to help those who have been hit by a hurricane. There is other legislation moving through this body that has funds for those hit by hurricanes. That package can be improved upon. When we passed the emergency supplemental bill last May, we agreed to revisit agricultural emergency spending once the extent of the price disaster was known. We have done that. We can pass this bill now and assess future needs in response to natural disasters while this assistance is distributed. The statement of the managers on this bill made several references to the need for additional Federal spending for 1999 disasters. They have recognized the reality. I hope colleagues on the floor will understand there are additional opportunities to achieve the result they seek. The answer is not to kill this bill. This bill, however flawed, is a step in the right direction. It would be a profound mistake to defeat it. I close by urging my colleagues to support this conference report. We had an overwhelming vote in the Senate yesterday. It was an important vote to send the signal that this legislation ought to pass. My colleagues in the Northeast are not alone. In many ways, we are in the same circumstance. We desperately need those farmers who have flooded acres to have legislation that addresses their needs. We will have another chance. We will have another opportunity. That is the great thing about the Senate; there is always another chance. I close by looking at a picture that shows what is happening in my State. This is several sections of land in North Dakota. Everywhere you look is water, water, water--water everywhere. I have flown all over my State. It is truly remarkable; places that were dry for 30 years are now saturated. I talked about the price collapse. I want to visually show what it is farmers are contending with. This chart shows clearly what has happened to spring wheat and barley prices over the last 53 years. The blue line is spring wheat; the red line is barley. These are two of the dominant crops of my State. Today the prices in inflation-adjusted terms, in real terms, are the lowest they have been in 53 years. That is the reality. This chart shows the cost of wheat production with the green line; the red line shows what prices are. Prices have been below the cost of production the last 3 years. This is a disaster scenario of its own. This is the reality of what is happening in my State. This threatens the economic future of virtually every farmer in my State. The price is far below the cost of production. There are not many businesses that survive when it costs more to produce the product than is being received--not for a few months but for 3 years. The next chart shows a comparison of the prices farmers paid for their inputs--the green line that keeps going on--versus the prices that farmers received. We can see there is a gap and it is a widening gap. In fact, the closest we came to having these two on the same line was back at the time of the passage of the 1996 farm bill. Since that time, the prices farmers pay have gone up. Thank goodness they have stabilized somewhat in the last couple of years, but the prices they have received have collapsed. That is the hard reality of what our farmers confront. These are, by the way, statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I want to conclude by saying we ought to pass this bill. It is not perfect. In fact, in many ways it is deeply flawed. But it is far better than the alternative of nothing. It is far better than to take the risk of sending this bill back to conference and having it come back in much worse shape. At least we can take this and put it in the bank because this does address the question of price collapse. It does not do a good enough job on the disaster side, but we have other opportunities that will come our way before this session of the Congress concludes. I will end by thanking the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the subcommittee, and Senator Kohl, his counterpart, for the good job they have done under very difficult circumstances. Make no mistake, there are 100 Senators and there are probably 100 different opinions of what agricultural policy should be and what an Agriculture appropriations bill should [[Page S12479]] look like. But we do respect and admire the work they have done. We again thank them for their patience and perseverance bringing this bill to the floor. It deserves our support. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from South Dakota. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, agriculture across most of America is in a state of crisis. We are facing incredibly low livestock and grain prices, coupled with weather disasters in many parts of the country, all simultaneously. The legislation before us, as my colleague has noted so ably, is imperfect. Some have referred to it as throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning person, and there is some truth to that. But it is urgent legislation. It is legislation we need to move forward because the need is immense and the urgency is critical. There is certainly no assurance, if we were to vote this particular bill down, that it would be back to us anytime soon or that it would come back to us in a better situation than it is now. I think we need to recognize the inadequacies of the legislation, but at the same time that we move forward, we do so with a commitment to do better, still this Congress and in the coming year, to address the underlying problems that at least contributed to the crisis we have in rural America. Faulty agricultural policy brought to us by Freedom to Farm, combined with low prices, natural disasters, and weak export markets, resulted in an inadequate safety net--for family producers, in any event--across this country. We have seen net farm income absolutely plummet from $53 billion in 1996 to $43.8 billion in 1999. Off-farm income in many of our States, including mine, South Dakota, is responsible for 80 to 90 percent of our family producers being able to stay on the farm. If it were not for off-farm income, there would be an even more massive exodus off the farm and ranch than we are seeing. Are there inadequacies in the bill? Certainly. I commend our colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, Senator Kohl, and many others, for hard work on this legislation under circumstances that surely were trying, where the level of resources would certainly not permit what they would prefer to see happen. Nonetheless, I think we have to acknowledge we need a recommitment in this body and from our friends on the other side of the Capitol to address the underlying structural problems ag faces today. I believe that involves revisiting the Freedom to Farm legislation. I believe that involves strengthening our marketing loan capabilities. I would like to see us pass my country-of-origin meat labeling legislation. I am still working with a bipartisan group of colleagues this week to put together legislation addressing vertical integration in the packing industry, so we do not turn our livestock producers into low-wage employees on their own land. I fear that is the road we are going down. We have to address issues of trade, value-added agriculture, farmer- owned cooperatives, and crop insurance reform. All of these are issues that cry out for attention, above and beyond anything done in this legislation. I do applaud the effort in this bill to include mandatory price reporting on the livestock side. I do applaud some modest funding, at least, for my school breakfast pilot project that is included in this bill. I am concerned, however, the process led us to legislation that involves a distribution process that may not be as equitable as what I think the American public deserves. I will quote briefly from an analysis by the Associated Press, Philip Brasher, where he observes: Some of the largest, most profitable farms in the country would be among the biggest beneficiaries of Congress' $8.7 billion agricultural assistance package because it loosens rules that wee intended to target government payments to family-size operations. An individual farm could claim up to $460,000 in subsidies a year--double the current restriction--and the legislation creates a new way for producers to get around even that limit. The payment limits apply to two different programs: crop subsidies that vary according to fluctuations in commodity prices; and annual ``market transition'' payments, which were guaranteed to producers under the 1996 farm law. Farmers are technically allowed to receive no more than $75,000 in crop subsidies and $40,000 a year in market transition payments under current law. But many farms, legally claim twice that much because they are divided into different entities. A husband and a wife, for example, can claim separate payments on the same farm. The aid package would double those caps, so farms could get up to $300,000 in crop subsidies and $160,000 in market transition payments this year. Last year, about 550 farmers nationwide claimed the maximum amount in crop subsidies, USDA officials said. Critics of the looser payment rules fear they will encourage the consolidation of farms and hasten the demise of smaller-scale operations. ``Big farms will use the extra cash to buy up land from the neighbors, driving up land prices in the process,'' said Chuck Hassebrook, program director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, NE. ``What is the purpose of these farm programs? Is it to help very wealthy, very large landowners get bigger and get richer?'' These are the kinds of questions and concerns many of us have. I think they are profound questions, having to do with the very nature of agriculture, the very nature of rural America. What road we are going down, in terms of ag and rural policy in America, policy responsible for feeding so efficiently and so effectively and in such an extraordinary manner the people of our Nation? But for all its failings and shortcomings, many of which I briefly raised this morning, the fact is there is absolute urgency this legislation go forward, that we address the problems of income collapse, disaster all over America, with this legislation; and, hopefully, upon passage of this legislation, we recommit ourselves to going expeditiously forward to address the remainder of these other issues I have raised, and others of my colleagues have raised, reflecting upon the inadequacies and inefficiencies and the shortcomings of this legislation. They are many. But to stop this legislation now would only hasten the demise of still more family producers all across America. It would not guarantee a return to a better policy anytime very soon. We need to pass this bill, then go forward with additional legislation to redress these inadequacies. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on passage of this legislation and to work with us in a bipartisan fashion on the remainder of these agricultural issues and budget issues before the country. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alaska. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report for the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill addresses one of the most beleaguered fisheries in the United States. The Norton Sound region of Alaska has suffered chronically poor salmon returns in recent years. Norton Sound is an arm of the Bering Sea off the west coast of Alaska. It lies to the north of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which has also seen very poor salmon returns in recent years. Both of these regions are extremely rural and heavily dependent on commercial and subsistence salmon fishing for survival. The provision in the conference report addresses the Norton Sound problem in several ways. First, it will make the Norton Sound region eligible for the Federal disaster assistance made available to the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region last year. Second, it changes the income eligibility standard from the Federal poverty level to that for the temporary assistance to needy families program. The standard of living in many of these fish-dependent communities is well below the poverty line. This was one of the chief complaints voiced to my staff and several Commerce Department officials when they visited western Alaska last summer. This provision will allow more needy families to qualify for 1999 disaster assistance, much of which has gone unallocated. Additionally, this bill will provide $10 million in grants through the Economic Development Administration for infrastructure improvements in the Norton Sound region. The conference report included is $5 million in disaster assistance under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to determine [[Page S12480]] the cause of the decline and to identify ways to improve the area's fisheries in the future. These funds will be available in 2001. The main reason these communities are unable to ride out cyclical fishery failures is the lack of commercial infrastructure in rural fisheries. The EDA grants will help provide ice machines and other equipment to help these communities modernize their processing capabilities and extract more value from the resources they harvest. I was also pleased to work with my colleagues from New England on their request for fishery disaster assistance. New England will receive $15 million in 2001 for cooperative research and management activities in the New England fisheries. These funds will provide New England fishermen with an important role in working to solve the problems of their own fisheries. Within this conference report, I have also asked that the Agricultural Marketing Service--the AMS--convene two national meetings to begin development of organic standards with respect to seafoods. One of these meetings will be held in Alaska and the other meeting will be held on the Gulf of Mexico coastal area. The AMS will use the information gathered at these meetings to develop draft regulations establishing national organic standards for seafood to be published in fiscal year 2000. It is estimated that the sales of organic foods will reach $6.6 billion by the year 2000. The organic industry has been growing at a rate of 20 to 24 percent for the last 9 consecutive years. Ocean-harvested seafood should be at the same level with other qualifying protein commodities, such as beef, pork, and chicken. I hope that these protein sources will be included in the proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture rules to be finalized by June 2000. Ocean- harvested seafood should not be excluded as an organically-produced product when USDA issues its final rule. This issue is very important to Alaska, as the harvesting of seafood is an industry that employs more Alaskans than any other industry. In particular, I am concerned about the inclusion of wild salmon within USDA's final rule for the National Organic Program. Wild salmon is an organic product. This past summer, two private certifying firms for organic food products visited two Alaska seafood processors to determine whether the wild, ocean-harvested salmon processed at these facilities could be certified as organic. One of the certifiers, farm verified organic, inspected capilliano seafoods. Their report is very positive. In fact, their approval allowed capalliano's salmon to be admitted to natural products east, which is a large organic food show in Boston, Massachusetts. In order to be admitted to this trade show, a product must be verified as organic. I, frankly do not know what the dispute is about. Natural fish, wild fish should certainly be verified as organic. I am confident that the AMS will find Alaskan wild salmon a very heart-healthy protein source, to be of high quality and organic, for the purposes of USDA's national organic program. I thank my friend from Mississippi and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know a number of Members are waiting to speak. The Governors and legislators in the six New England States had five goals in mind when they enacted the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact into law in each of their States. They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers. In fact, they wanted to do it at lower prices than found in most other parts of the Nation. They wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect New England's rural environment, and they wanted to do this without burdening Federal taxpayers. It turned out the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was a stirring success on every one of these points. But it also had an added benefit. It increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage of the compact. Not only did prices come down, but the number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New England for the first time in many years. We find there are still some who favor having Federal bureaucrats run this farm program, at a cost to the taxpayers, instead of the States themselves, with no cost to the taxpayers. Because it has been so successful, half the Governors in the Nation, half the State legislatures in the Nation, asked that the Congress allow their States to set their own dairy policies, within certain limits, through interstate compacts that, again, cost taxpayers nothing. The dairy compact legislation passed in these States overwhelmingly. Perhaps most significant, and I mention this because we have heard those from Minnesota and Wisconsin attack this, what they do not tell us is that the retail milk prices in New England not only average lower than the rest of the Nation, but they are much lower than the milk prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. So those in these parts of the country who are attacking the Northeast Dairy Compact say they are concerned about consumers and ignore the fact that consumers pay a lot more in their States than they do in New England. One has to ask, Why does anybody oppose the Dairy Compact? GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without increased cost to the taxpayers. Why would anybody oppose it? One of the things I learned long ago is to follow the money, and there is one group making a whole lot of money on this issue. They are the huge milk manufacturers, such as Suiza, or Kraft which is owned by Philip Morris, or other processors represented by the International Dairy Foods Association. They oppose the compact not because they care for the consumers, not because they care for the farmers, but because they care for their own huge, bloated profits. Indeed, they sent around corporate front organizations to speak for them. One was the Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. When it finally became clear that Public Voice was going around fronting for these organizations, and that their policies were determined not by what was best for everybody but by corporate dollars, they finally went out of business. I've talked about the close alliances between a lead executive who handled compact issues for Public Voice who negotiated a job to represent the huge processors. I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group whose funding should be investigated, the Consumer Federation of America. One of their officers, formerly from Public Voice, has been going around Capitol Hill offices with lobbyists representing dairy processors. One might ask why would Philip Morris want to use these organizations instead of going directly to the editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post to bad mouth the compact? Why not have somebody who appears to be representing the consumers rather than Philip Morris coming in and talking about it? The consumer representative, being paid by the big processors, could come in and say: Editorial board members, milk prices are higher for children in the School Lunch Program under this compact. We ought to compare those prices. Let's compare the retail milk prices in New England against retail milk prices in the upper Midwest. A gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price was up to 50 cents more in Minneapolis, MN, the area opponents used as an example of how to save money. I think we ought to take a look at these issues because when we hear some of the big companies, such as Philip Morris and Kraft and Suiza, saying, well, it's not the money. But you know, of course, it is the money. When they say ``we are here because we're concerned about the consumers,'' you know--with their track record--that the consumer is the last thing on their mind. And when these processor groups say they want to protect the farmer . . . oh, Lordy, don't ever, ever believe that, because there is not a farmer in this country who would. Lastly, if anybody tells you the dairy compact will cost you money, I point out, not only does it not cost taxpayers any money, but the cost of milk is much lower than in States without a compact. [[Page S12481]] Mr. President, the Governors and legislators in the six New England states had five goals in mind when they enacted the Compact into law in each of their states. They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers--at lower prices than found in most of the nation--they wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect the New England's rural environment from sprawl and destructive development, and they wanted to do this without burdening federal taxpayers. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has delivered beyond the expectations of those Governors and state legislators. The Compact provided an added benefit--it has also increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage of the Compact. This great idea--coming from those six New England states--has created a successful and enduring partnership between dairy farmers and consumers throughout New England. Thanks to the Northeast Compact, the number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New England--for the first time in many years. It is unfortunate that most still favor federal bureaucrats running the farm programs--I think Congress should look at more zero-cost state-initiated programs rather than turning a deaf ear to the pleas of state legislators. Indeed, half the Governors in the nation, and half the state legislatures in the nation, asked that the Congress allow their states to set their own dairy policies--within federally mandated limits-- through interstate compacts that cost taxpayers nothing. And the dairy compact legislation passed with overwhelming support in almost all these states. One of the most difficult challenges posed by the New England Governors is that the Compact had to cost nothing--yet deliver a benefit to farmers. The Compact is scored by CBO as having no costs to the Federal treasury. Major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast Dairy Compact because they know it helps preserve farmland and prevent urban sprawl. Indeed, a New York Times and a National Geographic article that I mentioned yesterday discuss the importance of keeping dairy farmers in business from an environmental standpoint. Perhaps most significantly, retail milk prices in New England average lower than the rest of the nation and much lower than milk prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to GAO. The question is: why does anyone in America oppose the dairy compact? Since GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without increased costs to taxpayers, why does anyone oppose the Compact? The answer is simple, huge milk manufacturers--such as Suiza, headquartered in Texas, Kraft which is owned by the tobacco giant Philip Morris, other processors represented by the International Dairy Foods Association--oppose the Compact. Even the most junior investigative reporter could figure out the answer to my question with the above information. All anyone has to do is look up the donations made by these, and other, giant processors. All the negative news stories about the compact have their genesis in efforts by these giant processors and their front organizations. I have explained the details of this on the Senate floor so scholars who want to know what really happened can check the public records and the lobby registration forms. Indeed, one of the corporate front organizations--Public Voice for Food and Health Policy--apparently could not continue to exist when it was so obvious that their policies where determined by corporate dollars rather than good policy. A simple glance at the list of corporations who funded and attended their functions could be easily researched by any reporter. It will demonstrate that sad and disturbing relationship--now ended as Public Voice had to close up shop because it lost its conscience. I have detailed the close alliances between their lead executive who handled compact issues for them and the job he negotiated to represent the huge processors a couple of times on the Senate floor. I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group whose funding should be investigated--the Consumer Federation of America. Indeed, one of their officers--formerly from Public Voice--is being taken around Capitol Hill offices by lobbyists representing processors. A glance at who funds their functions and efforts will be as instruction as investigations of Public Voice. Why should Philip Morris or Kraft want to use these organizations instead of directly going to the editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post to badmouth the compact? The question does not need me to provide the answer. What would be the best attack--whether true or not--on the Compact that might swing public opinion? It might be to simply allege that milk prices are higher for children in the school lunch program. Who would the editorial boards more likely listen to regarding school children: a public interest group or a tobacco company? By the way, I would be happy to compare milk prices after the Compact was fully implemented. I would be pleased to compare retail milk prices in New England against retail milk prices in the Upper Midwest. A GAO report, dated October, 1998, compared retail milk prices for various U.S. cities both inside and outside the Northeast compact region for various time periods. For example, in February 1998, the average price of a gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was $2.63 per gallon. Prices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, were much higher-- they were $2.94 per gallon. Let's pick another New England city--Boston. In February 1998, the price of a gallon of milk was $2.54 as compared to Minneapolis which where the price on average was $2.94/gallon. Let's look at the cost of 1% milk for November 1997, for another example. In Augusta, Maine, it was $2.37 per gallon, the same average-price as for Boston and for New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In Minnesota, the price was $2.82/gallon. It was 45 cents more per gallon in Minnesota. I could go on and on comparing lower New England retail prices with higher prices in other cities for many different months. I invite anyone to review this GAO report. It is clear that our Compact is working perfectly by benefitting consumers, local economies and farmers. I urge my colleague to vote against this bill because, as I mentioned yesterday, it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the East and it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the nation. Also, I cannot vote for it because it does not extend the Northeast dairy compact and does not allow neighboring states to also participate. It also ignores the pleas of Southern Governors who wanted to be able to protect their farmers without burdening U.S. taxpayers. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is scheduled to vote on final passage of the fiscal year 2000 Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is critical that we complete action on this bill today to speed assistance to American farmers in need. Therefore, I shall vote for the bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The severe drought that has gripped the Eastern United States this year is, by all accounts, the most damaging and prolonged such occurrence since the early 1930s. Just like that period nearly 70 years ago, springs have gone dry, streams have ceased to flow, pastureland and crops have broiled in the relentless Sun until all possible benefits to livestock or man have burned away. In the 1930s the drought turned much of our Nation's farmlands into a veritable dust bowl. Modern conservation practices today may have helped to reduce the erosion by wind, [[Page S12482]] but the soil is just as dry, and farmers in West Virginia and all along the East Coast are suffering from the natural disaster of a generation. Some farmers have had to make the painful decision to sell off their livestock or to give up farms that have been in their families for generations. This is what has been happening in West Virginia. This is nothing short of an emergency. It demands our attention and response. This bill provides funding for many ongoing and long running programs as well as much needed assistance to farmers who suffered at the hands of Mother Nature this year. The $8.7 billion emergency package that is attached to this appropriations bill contains $1.2 billion specifically for 1999 natural disasters, including drought. In all, more than $1.2 billion will be available for direct payments for farmers suffering crop and livestock losses from natural disasters this year, up significantly from the $50 million in the version that first passed the Senate in August. That may not be enough to fully cover the still- mounting losses to farmers, but it is a good start. These emergency funds will be able to be distributed upon enactment of this legislation to farmers who have been waiting and waiting for the Federal Government to deliver. American farmers cannot afford to wait any longer for Federal assistance, and the Senate cannot afford to delay final passage of this fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. Unfortunately, once this measure reached the conference committee, the process that we follow yearly as routine in conferences was sidelined. When difficult issues came before the conference, after only an evening and a morning of debate, the conference committee adjourned for lunch, and never returned. For several days, the conference was ``out to lunch,'' until deals could be reached behind closed doors guided by invisible hands, and our tried and true procedure was circumvented. I believe that this selective bargaining is why some Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the final bill. The best work of the Congress is demonstrated when, as a body, we cooperate and allow ourselves to be guided by the rules and the traditions that have allowed our Government to flourish under the Constitution now for over 200 years. I have stood before this body on numerous occasions since visiting West Virginia with the Secretary of Agriculture on August 2 of this year to impress upon my fellow Members what a significant impact the drought has had in West Virginia, and, of course, in other Mid-Atlantic and North

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued
(Senate - October 13, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12474-S12504] AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. I regret very much having to do this because I appreciate the fact that all across our country, farmers are in need of assistance. I recognize that it is important to try to get some of these programs out to them. But I am very frank to tell the Senate that I think the conference [[Page S12475]] badly overlooked the pressing problems which the farmers in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic are facing. I can't, in good conscience, support a bill which simply fails to take into account the situation with which we are confronted, a situation which is unparalleled. Steven Weber, President of the Maryland Farm Bureau, was recently quoted as saying: This is not just another crisis. This is the worst string of dry summers and the worst run of crop years since the 1930s. Talk to the old-timers. They haven't seen anything like it since they were young. Our farmers have been absolutely devastated by the weather we have experienced, not only over this past farming season but in previous ones leading up to it as well. We face a very pressing situation.'' In addition, I think this bill fails to address the needs of our dairy farmers. I will discuss that issue subsequently. First, I want to address the disaster assistance. Most of the disaster assistance that is available under existing programs is in the form of low-interest loans for those who have been rejected twice by commercial lenders. What this approach fails to recognize is that our farmers have been hit with a double whammy. First of all, they had the low commodity prices which farmers all across the country have confronted; and in addition, in our particular situation, our farmers were confronted by severe drought problems, as I have indicated, unparalleled in the memory of those now farming for more than half a century. Low-interest loans simply won't work to address the collective and drastic impact of these factors. Recognizing that, we sought substantially more and more direct disaster assistance in the Conference Agreement. And the response that the Conferees made to this request--the $1.2 billion that is in this bill--is clearly inadequate. The Secretary of Agriculture estimated that in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, we needed $1.5 to $2 billion just for those States alone. Never mind, of course, comparable damage, either drought or floods, that have occurred in other parts of the country which also need assistance. Indeed, it should not be our goal to identify an amount of funding where we have to take from one to give to the other. These states need assistance as well. What we are arguing is that this package ought to be comprehensive enough to meet the needs in the agricultural sector all across the country. I appreciate that other parts of the country have been hit with droughts and floods and that we must address these needs as well, but the amount provided in this conference report for disaster assistance is clearly inadequate to accomplish this goal. The amount that this legislation provides and that which will eventually make its way into the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States will not enable us to confront the problem bleakly staring our farmers in the face. We wrote to the conferees, a number of us from this region of the country, asking them to consider the following measures. I regret that very little weight was given to this request. All of them, I think, are exceedingly reasonable requests, and had they been addressed, it would have affected, obviously, the perspective I take on this legislation. We asked the conference committee to consider the following measures: First, crop loss disaster assistance programs that provide direct payments to producers based on actual losses of 1999 plantings. These payments could be drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation funds without an arbitrary limit. The arbitrary limit currently in the agreement precludes comprehensive assistance and delays the availability of the assistance. We asked that yield loss thresholds and payment levels be determined in advance so the payments can be made to producers as soon as they apply, rather than providing a fixed amount which would require all producers to apply before a payment factor can be determined and payments can be issued. We asked for this measure because these farmers need the help now. They need it quickly. They are under terrific pressure. Secondly, we asked the committee to consider sufficient livestock feed assistance, which addresses losses in pasture and forage for livestock operations, provides direct payments to producers based on a percentage of their supplemental feed needs, determined in advance to speed payments and avoids prorating. Thirdly, we requested the conference to consider credit assistance which addresses the needs of producers who have experienced natural and market loss disasters. Fourthly, we asked the conference for adequate funding to employ additional staff for the Farm Service Agency and the National Resource Conservation Service so they could swiftly and expeditiously implement various assistance programs at the State and local level. Finally, we requested cooperative and/or reimbursable agreements that would enable USDA to assist in cases where a State is providing State- funded disaster assistance. All of these, had they been responded to as we sought, would have given us an opportunity to address the situation in our region, not only in a forthright manner but one that would accommodate the pressing crisis which we confront. As we indicated, this crisis has reached overwhelming proportions. We risk losing a substantial part of the region's critical agricultural sector. The measures in this conference report, I regret to say, are not sufficient, nor sufficiently focused on the needs of the Eastern States to address their problems. That is one major reason I oppose this conference report and will vote against it. Secondly, this conference report deals with the dairy issue in a way that is harmful to our region. By failing to adopt option 1-A and disallowing the extension of the authorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact, the conference agreement has left our dairy farmers confronting a situation of instability. Milk prices have been moving up and down as if they were on a roller coaster. Our dairy farmers have been subjected to wide and frequent swings, which place our dairy producers in situations where they don't have the cash-flow to meet their costs in a given month. The price goes up; the price comes down. It takes an enormous toll on the industry in our State and elsewhere in the east. As a result of these fluctuations, the number of dairy farmers in Maryland has been declining markedly over the last 2 decades. We fear that if this process continues, we are going to see the extinction of a critical component of our dairy industry and the farm economy; that is, the family-run dairy farm. Indeed, my concern is primarily focused on family farmers and on sustaining their presence as part of the dairy sector. The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation to enable Maryland to join the Northeast Dairy Compact. They also took measures in that legislation to ensure that the interests of consumers, low-income households and processors, would be protected when a farm milk price was established. In fact, a representative from those groups would be on the compact commission, as well as from the dairy industry itself. Other states that are a part of the Compact or want to participate have taken the measures to protect same interests. And we believe this established a reasonable solution to provide stable income for those in the dairy industry, particularly family dairy farmers. But the conference denied what I regard as a fair and reasoned approach--in refusing to extend the authorization of the compact, and therefore, committed our region's dairy industry to a continuance of this unstable and volatile environment. Mr. President, agriculture is an important economic actor in the state of Maryland. It contributes significantly to our State's economy. It employs hundreds of thousands of people in one way or another. We really are seeking, I think, fair and equitable treatment. I don't think this legislation contains a fair and equitable solution for the crisis that faces farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Indeed, it seems to ignore the fact that we have farmers as well. The only farmers in the country are not in sectors other than the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and the needs of all of our farmers should have been addressed in this legislation. The Farm Bureau has written me a letter urging a vote against adoption of the conference report. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. [[Page S12476]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1.) Mr. SARBANES. They write: Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions in the economic disaster relief package are important and necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative impacts on the State's dairy industry. I agree with that. We should reject this package, go back to conference, and develop a package that addresses the dairy issue, allows us to develop the compact to give some stability and diminished volatility in the industry, and also increases the drought assistance package so it adequately and directly meets the needs of the farmers of our region. The conference agreement should have done better by these very hard- working men and women, these small farm families. And because it has not--as much as I appreciate the pressing needs of agriculture elsewhere in the country, and as much as I, in the past, have been supportive of those needs--we in the region must take measures to have our farmers' needs addressed in the current context. We have experienced a very difficult and rough period for Maryland agriculture, and for agriculture generally in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Because this crisis is not adequately addressed in this conference report, I intend to vote against it. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc., Randallstown, MD, October 12, 1999. Hon. Paul Sarbanes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to urge you to vote against adoption of the conference report on Agricultural Appropriations when it is considered on the floor tomorrow. Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions in the economic disaster relief package are important and necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative impacts on the state's dairy industry. I urge you to vote to send the agricultural appropriations conference report back to the conferees with instructions that they add the Option 1A dairy language and that they increase the drought assistance package to adequately meet the needs of mid-Atlantic farmers. Sincerely, Stephen L. Weber, President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I commend my colleague for his comments. He could have easily been speaking on behalf of the State of Connecticut in talking about the particular concerns of his home State of Maryland. In a moment, I will explain why I also have serious reservations about this bill. But his point that the New England States, the Northeast, contribute significantly to the agricultural well-being of this country is well founded. I know Secretary Glickman came to Maryland and he came to Connecticut during the drought this past summer. The exact number eludes me, but it was surprisingly high, the number of farmers and the significant portion of agricultural production that occurs east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line, or near north of the Mason-Dixon line. So when we talk about these issues, it may seem as if it is more sort of hobby farms to people, but for many people in Maryland and for the 4,000 people in Connecticut who make a living in agriculture--these are not major agricultural centers, but in a State of 3.5 million people, where 4,000 families annually depend upon agriculture as a source of income, it is not insignificant. So when you have a bill that virtually excludes people from Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania from receiving some help during a time of crisis, I hope our colleagues who come from the States that benefit from this bill, who I know have enjoyed the support of the Senator from Maryland, this Senator, and others during times of crisis, because we have seen a flood in the Midwest, or a drought in the Midwest, or cyclones and hurricanes that have devastated agriculture in other parts of our country--I never considered my voting to support people in those areas as somehow a regional vote. When I vote to support a farmer who has lost his livelihood because of a natural disaster, I think I am voting to strengthen my country, not to help out a particular farmer in a State that I don't represent. So when we have a drought in the Northeast, as we did, a record drought this year that wiped out farmers, caused them to lose significant income, to lose farms and the like, and then to have a bill that comes before us that disregards this natural disaster--in my State, $41 million was lost as a result of the drought--I am disappointed. My colleagues may have stronger words to use. I am terribly disappointed, as someone who, year after year, has been supportive of particular agricultural needs, although I didn't directly represent them, that our colleagues in the House and Senate could not see fit to provide some financial help beyond, as my colleague from Maryland said, the loan program, which is not much help. We don't have crop insurance for my row croppers. The small farmers don't get crop insurance. When they get wiped out or lose income, they have to depend upon some direct payment. A loan program is of little or no assistance to them. I am terribly disappointed that this bill excludes those farmers from the eastern part of the United States. It was the worst drought that has hit our region in decades. Congressional delegations throughout the region have consistently supported our colleagues in other regions when their States have suffered catastrophic floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. We don't understand why it is so difficult for the eastern part of the country to convey to our colleagues how massive the devastation has been to our small farmers. As I have said, in my State alone, it is $41 million. In other States, the numbers may be higher. I represent a small State. The dairy industry is one of the major agricultural interests in our region. It has gotten a double hit in this legislation--inadequate drought relief assistance and the exclusion of provisions that would have extended the Northeast Dairy Compact. On top of the drought losses, our farmers will lose an additional $100 million if the new milk marketing pricing goes forward. While I am heartened by the recently issued court injunction postponing the implementation of the new pricing scheme, quite frankly, this is only a short-term solution and is no substitute for affirmative action taken by the Congress. Northeast dairy farmers are deserving of the same kinds of assistance we offer to the agricultural sectors in other parts of the country. I believe it is grossly unfair that this conference report has chosen to ignore their plight. We should not be placing one part of the country against another. I don't want to see a midwestern farmer or a western farmer be adversely affected by votes we cast here. But, likewise, I don't want to see farming interests in my State or my region of the country be harmed as a result of our unwillingness to provide some relief when they absolutely need it to survive. Inadequate drought relief and the exclusion of the Northeast Dairy Compact would be reason enough to vote against the legislation before us today. But I want to raise another issue that has caused a lot of consternation during the debate on this Agriculture appropriations bill. I am referring to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, myself, and Senator Hagel of Nebraska. The House leadership literally hijacked this piece of legislation and denied the normal democratic process to work when it came to this measure that was adopted overwhelmingly in the Senate by a margin of 70-28--by any measure, an overwhelming vote of bipartisanship. This measure would have ended unilateral sanctions on the sale of U.S. food and medicine to countries around the globe. The amendment had broad-based support from farm organizations across the country which, time and time again, have been forced to pay the price of lost income when Congress has decided to ``get tough'' with dictators [[Page S12477]] and bar farm exports. Farmers, over the years, have rightfully noted that, although in some cases sanctions have been in place for 40 years, there is nothing in the way of positive foreign policy results to show for these sanctions. On the other hand, the losses to our farmers are measurable and substantial--in the billions of dollars annually--as a result of these unilateral sanctions on food and medicine we have imposed for years. Church groups and humanitarian organizations have joined farm organizations in strongly opposing use of food and medicine as sanctions weapons on moral grounds. Ironically, U.S. sanctions--particularly ones on food and medicine-- have been used as an instrument by hostile governments to shore up domestic support and retain power, the very power that we are allegedly trying to change through the use of sanctions actually having contributed to these dictators staying in power for as many years as some of them have. Whether or not the United States is fully responsible for the suffering of these men, women, and children in these targeted countries, it is hard to convince many of them that the United States means them no ill will when we deny them the access to foodstuffs, critical medicines, and medical equipment--the reason seventy of our colleagues decided to end this policy of unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership would not allow the process to work in conference. As a result, this bill was tied up for days over this single measure. Again, I compliment my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Hagel, who are leaders on this, along with others in fighting for this provision. This is not a provision that is designed to help dictators. It is a provision to, in fact, change these dictatorial governments and to provide needed relief and opportunity for millions of people who are the innocent victims of these dictators, and not deny our own farm community and business interests the opportunity to sell into these markets and make a difference. They are prepared, of course, to deny, in the case of the major opposition, by the way, which comes from some Members. I want to emphasize that some members of the Cuban American community feel particularly strongly about the government in Cuba. I respect their feelings. I respect it very deeply. These families have lost their homes, jobs, and family members as a result of the government in Cuba under Fidel Castro. There is no way I can fully appreciate the depth of their feelings and passions about this. As I say, I respect that. The exile community is not unfounded in its deep concerns about what has happened on the island of Cuba. Before I make any comments about the island of Cuba and what goes on there, I want it to be as clear as I can possibly make it that my sympathies, my heartfelt sympathies go to the exiled community that lives in this country and elsewhere. Their passions, I understand and accept, and I am tremendously sympathetic. But I must say as well that there are 11 million Cubans who live on that island 90 miles off our shores who are suffering and hurting badly. Arguably, the problem exists with the government there. I don't deny that. But to impose a sanction for 40 years on the same of food and medicine to 11 million people in this country also is not warranted. While we may want to change the government in Cuba--and that may happen in time--we shouldn't be compounding the problem by denying the sale of food and medicine to these people. Many people say they won't set foot on Cuban soil while Castro remains in power. I understand that as well. But don't deny the 11 million people in Cuba the opportunity to at least have basic food supplies and medicine. It seems to me that--in fact I believe--a majority of the Cuban American people in this country have similar feelings. Their voices are not heard as often as is oftentimes the case when a minority view is extremely vocal and can dominate. But I believe the vast majority of Cuban Americans feel strongly about Fidel Castro, want him out of power, and want democracy to come to their country but simultaneously believe the 11 million people with whom they share a common heritage ought not to be denied food and medicine by the United States. To make my point, these Cuban Americans try on their own to do what they can by sending small packages to loved ones and family members and friends who live in Cuba. Others travel to deliver medicines. Some 150,000 Cuban Americans travel annually to go into Cuba to bring whatever they can to help out family members and friends. However, these gestures of generosity are no substitute for commercial sales of such products if the public health and nutritional need of 11 million people are going to be met. Unfortunately, the antidemocratic forces have succeeded in stripping the Ashcroft-Dodd-Hagel amendment from this bill. I hope enough of my colleagues will vote against this legislation to prevent its adoption. We can delay a few days, send this measure back to conference, and reestablish this language that was supported overwhelmingly, and I think supported in the House of Representatives, the other body, as well, and bring the measure back. If this measure goes forward without the inclusion of the Dodd-Hagel- Ashcroft amendment, rest assured we will be back on this floor offering similar amendments at every opportunity that presents itself, and we will continue to do so. The day is going to come when a majority of the Congress and the will of the American people, including the Cuban Americans, I strongly suggest, is going to prevail. On that day, the United States will regain a moral high ground by ceasing forever to use food and medicine as a weapon against innocent people. I argue, as Senators Ashcroft, Hagel, Grams, and others, that the adoption of amendments that would allow for the lifting of unilateral sanctions on food and medicines will also be a major contributing factor to changing governments in these countries. Aside from helping out farmers and businesses that want to sell these products and the innocent people who can't have access to them in these countries, I believe the foreign policy implications of allowing the sale of food and medicine will be significant for our country and for the people who live under dictatorial governments. For those reasons, and what is being denied our farmers and agricultural interests in the State of Connecticut and elsewhere in the Northeast, and the rejection of the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd amendment, I will oppose this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, some of our colleagues have denounced the Agriculture appropriations conference report as inadequate. I must agree. Without a doubt this bill is deficient. It fails to acknowledge the full impact of natural disasters that have been experienced by agricultural producers across the country. It fails to include adequate funding for the drought that has hit the Northeast. It fails to provide adequate funding for the hurricane damage to the Southeast and the Northeast. It fails to include adequate funding for flooded farmland in my own part of the country. This bill is also deficient in the way it got here because in the conference committee when it became clear that there were going to be steps to change the sanctions regime of this country, the minority, the Democrats, were simply shut out. That is wrong. That should not happen. But it did happen. So we are left with that result. As a result partly of that lockout, this bill fails to provide the kind of sanctions reform that ought to have occurred. In 1996 when we passed the last farm bill, the Republican leadership promised American farmers that what they lost in domestic supports they would make up through expanded export opportunities. That was a hollow promise. The harsh reality is that now the prices have collapsed, farmers are in desperate trouble, and there must be a Federal response. I wish this bill were better. I wish it contained adequate assistance for [[Page S12478]] those who have been hit by hurricanes. I wish it had adequate assistance for farmers who have had their acreage flooded. I wish it had sanctions reform. Food should not be used as a weapon. It is immoral; It is ineffective; and it is inhumane. But the harsh reality is we are where we are. We have a conference report that is flawed. Indeed, it is badly flawed. The easy thing to do would be to vote against this conference report. But it would not be the right thing to do. This bill is not just about responding to natural disasters. It also responds to the price collapse that has occurred and threatens the livelihood of tens of thousands of farmers in my State and across the country. The need for emergency income assistance could not be more clear. I can say that in my State many farmers are relying on this bill as their only chance for financial survival. I don't say that lightly. It is the reality. If this assistance is not passed and distributed immediately, literally thousands of farmers in my State are going to go out of business. It is that simple. A way of life and the tradition of farming will be lost in dozens of communities across my State. The funding in this bill only meets the most basic needs of our producers. Make no mistake, it is absolutely essential. Prices for agricultural commodities are at their lowest levels in 50 years in real terms. Wheat and barley are the lowest they have been in real terms in over 50 years. Farm bankruptcies are rising; auctions are being held on an unending basis. If nothing further is done, thousands of our farmers will go out of the business. That is the stark reality in farm country. If we fail to pass this bill, we are going to mortgage the future of literally thousands of farm families. I think we should keep in mind this is not our last chance to get something done for those who have been so badly hurt, whether it is my farmers who have flooded acres, whether it is people in the Northeast and the Southeast hit by hurricanes, whether it is farmers in the Northeast hit by drought. There is another chance this year to get additional assistance. I sympathize with my colleagues from the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States. They are not alone. In my State this year, we have been hit by severe storms, flooding, extreme snow and ice, ground saturation, mud slides, tornadoes, hail, insects, and disease. It is unbelievable what has happened in my State. Growing up in North Dakota I always thought of my State as dry. I now fly over much of North Dakota and it looks similar to a Louisiana rice paddy. There is water everywhere. Millions of acres are inundated and were never planted this year. Our farmers planted the lowest level of spring wheat since 1988, the year of intense drought. Yet prices remain very low--in fact, record lows. Barley production in North Dakota is down 42 percent. Yet prices remain very low. Things have gone from bad to worse this fall. Farmers were anxious to get into the field for harvest but were forced to stay at home and watch the rain. North Dakota farmers suffered through 2 weeks of rain at the end of August and early September, the key time for harvest. As a result, the completion of harvest has been delayed. Damage resulting from a delayed harvest is deducted from prices farmers receive for their crops. At this point, there is absolutely no way some farmers will come anywhere close to matching their expenses for this year. We simply must pass this bill to allow entire communities to survive. I was called by a very dear friend of mine 2 weeks ago describing what had happened to him. He was just beginning harvest when the rains once again resumed in our State. He had just cut his grain. It was on the ground and the rains came and continued day after day after day. As a result, that grain that was on the ground sprouted. He had 30-percent sprout in his fields. He took a sample into the elevator and the elevator said: Don't even bother trucking that in; we aren't going to buy it at any price. That happened all over my State. I know it has happened in other States, as well. Passing this bill and releasing this funding is absolutely critical for those farmers who have been so hard hit. Remember, passing this bill does not bar Congress from doing more in the future. We have other opportunities this year to help those who have been hit by a hurricane. There is other legislation moving through this body that has funds for those hit by hurricanes. That package can be improved upon. When we passed the emergency supplemental bill last May, we agreed to revisit agricultural emergency spending once the extent of the price disaster was known. We have done that. We can pass this bill now and assess future needs in response to natural disasters while this assistance is distributed. The statement of the managers on this bill made several references to the need for additional Federal spending for 1999 disasters. They have recognized the reality. I hope colleagues on the floor will understand there are additional opportunities to achieve the result they seek. The answer is not to kill this bill. This bill, however flawed, is a step in the right direction. It would be a profound mistake to defeat it. I close by urging my colleagues to support this conference report. We had an overwhelming vote in the Senate yesterday. It was an important vote to send the signal that this legislation ought to pass. My colleagues in the Northeast are not alone. In many ways, we are in the same circumstance. We desperately need those farmers who have flooded acres to have legislation that addresses their needs. We will have another chance. We will have another opportunity. That is the great thing about the Senate; there is always another chance. I close by looking at a picture that shows what is happening in my State. This is several sections of land in North Dakota. Everywhere you look is water, water, water--water everywhere. I have flown all over my State. It is truly remarkable; places that were dry for 30 years are now saturated. I talked about the price collapse. I want to visually show what it is farmers are contending with. This chart shows clearly what has happened to spring wheat and barley prices over the last 53 years. The blue line is spring wheat; the red line is barley. These are two of the dominant crops of my State. Today the prices in inflation-adjusted terms, in real terms, are the lowest they have been in 53 years. That is the reality. This chart shows the cost of wheat production with the green line; the red line shows what prices are. Prices have been below the cost of production the last 3 years. This is a disaster scenario of its own. This is the reality of what is happening in my State. This threatens the economic future of virtually every farmer in my State. The price is far below the cost of production. There are not many businesses that survive when it costs more to produce the product than is being received--not for a few months but for 3 years. The next chart shows a comparison of the prices farmers paid for their inputs--the green line that keeps going on--versus the prices that farmers received. We can see there is a gap and it is a widening gap. In fact, the closest we came to having these two on the same line was back at the time of the passage of the 1996 farm bill. Since that time, the prices farmers pay have gone up. Thank goodness they have stabilized somewhat in the last couple of years, but the prices they have received have collapsed. That is the hard reality of what our farmers confront. These are, by the way, statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I want to conclude by saying we ought to pass this bill. It is not perfect. In fact, in many ways it is deeply flawed. But it is far better than the alternative of nothing. It is far better than to take the risk of sending this bill back to conference and having it come back in much worse shape. At least we can take this and put it in the bank because this does address the question of price collapse. It does not do a good enough job on the disaster side, but we have other opportunities that will come our way before this session of the Congress concludes. I will end by thanking the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the subcommittee, and Senator Kohl, his counterpart, for the good job they have done under very difficult circumstances. Make no mistake, there are 100 Senators and there are probably 100 different opinions of what agricultural policy should be and what an Agriculture appropriations bill should [[Page S12479]] look like. But we do respect and admire the work they have done. We again thank them for their patience and perseverance bringing this bill to the floor. It deserves our support. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from South Dakota. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, agriculture across most of America is in a state of crisis. We are facing incredibly low livestock and grain prices, coupled with weather disasters in many parts of the country, all simultaneously. The legislation before us, as my colleague has noted so ably, is imperfect. Some have referred to it as throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning person, and there is some truth to that. But it is urgent legislation. It is legislation we need to move forward because the need is immense and the urgency is critical. There is certainly no assurance, if we were to vote this particular bill down, that it would be back to us anytime soon or that it would come back to us in a better situation than it is now. I think we need to recognize the inadequacies of the legislation, but at the same time that we move forward, we do so with a commitment to do better, still this Congress and in the coming year, to address the underlying problems that at least contributed to the crisis we have in rural America. Faulty agricultural policy brought to us by Freedom to Farm, combined with low prices, natural disasters, and weak export markets, resulted in an inadequate safety net--for family producers, in any event--across this country. We have seen net farm income absolutely plummet from $53 billion in 1996 to $43.8 billion in 1999. Off-farm income in many of our States, including mine, South Dakota, is responsible for 80 to 90 percent of our family producers being able to stay on the farm. If it were not for off-farm income, there would be an even more massive exodus off the farm and ranch than we are seeing. Are there inadequacies in the bill? Certainly. I commend our colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, Senator Kohl, and many others, for hard work on this legislation under circumstances that surely were trying, where the level of resources would certainly not permit what they would prefer to see happen. Nonetheless, I think we have to acknowledge we need a recommitment in this body and from our friends on the other side of the Capitol to address the underlying structural problems ag faces today. I believe that involves revisiting the Freedom to Farm legislation. I believe that involves strengthening our marketing loan capabilities. I would like to see us pass my country-of-origin meat labeling legislation. I am still working with a bipartisan group of colleagues this week to put together legislation addressing vertical integration in the packing industry, so we do not turn our livestock producers into low-wage employees on their own land. I fear that is the road we are going down. We have to address issues of trade, value-added agriculture, farmer- owned cooperatives, and crop insurance reform. All of these are issues that cry out for attention, above and beyond anything done in this legislation. I do applaud the effort in this bill to include mandatory price reporting on the livestock side. I do applaud some modest funding, at least, for my school breakfast pilot project that is included in this bill. I am concerned, however, the process led us to legislation that involves a distribution process that may not be as equitable as what I think the American public deserves. I will quote briefly from an analysis by the Associated Press, Philip Brasher, where he observes: Some of the largest, most profitable farms in the country would be among the biggest beneficiaries of Congress' $8.7 billion agricultural assistance package because it loosens rules that wee intended to target government payments to family-size operations. An individual farm could claim up to $460,000 in subsidies a year--double the current restriction--and the legislation creates a new way for producers to get around even that limit. The payment limits apply to two different programs: crop subsidies that vary according to fluctuations in commodity prices; and annual ``market transition'' payments, which were guaranteed to producers under the 1996 farm law. Farmers are technically allowed to receive no more than $75,000 in crop subsidies and $40,000 a year in market transition payments under current law. But many farms, legally claim twice that much because they are divided into different entities. A husband and a wife, for example, can claim separate payments on the same farm. The aid package would double those caps, so farms could get up to $300,000 in crop subsidies and $160,000 in market transition payments this year. Last year, about 550 farmers nationwide claimed the maximum amount in crop subsidies, USDA officials said. Critics of the looser payment rules fear they will encourage the consolidation of farms and hasten the demise of smaller-scale operations. ``Big farms will use the extra cash to buy up land from the neighbors, driving up land prices in the process,'' said Chuck Hassebrook, program director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, NE. ``What is the purpose of these farm programs? Is it to help very wealthy, very large landowners get bigger and get richer?'' These are the kinds of questions and concerns many of us have. I think they are profound questions, having to do with the very nature of agriculture, the very nature of rural America. What road we are going down, in terms of ag and rural policy in America, policy responsible for feeding so efficiently and so effectively and in such an extraordinary manner the people of our Nation? But for all its failings and shortcomings, many of which I briefly raised this morning, the fact is there is absolute urgency this legislation go forward, that we address the problems of income collapse, disaster all over America, with this legislation; and, hopefully, upon passage of this legislation, we recommit ourselves to going expeditiously forward to address the remainder of these other issues I have raised, and others of my colleagues have raised, reflecting upon the inadequacies and inefficiencies and the shortcomings of this legislation. They are many. But to stop this legislation now would only hasten the demise of still more family producers all across America. It would not guarantee a return to a better policy anytime very soon. We need to pass this bill, then go forward with additional legislation to redress these inadequacies. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on passage of this legislation and to work with us in a bipartisan fashion on the remainder of these agricultural issues and budget issues before the country. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alaska. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report for the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill addresses one of the most beleaguered fisheries in the United States. The Norton Sound region of Alaska has suffered chronically poor salmon returns in recent years. Norton Sound is an arm of the Bering Sea off the west coast of Alaska. It lies to the north of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which has also seen very poor salmon returns in recent years. Both of these regions are extremely rural and heavily dependent on commercial and subsistence salmon fishing for survival. The provision in the conference report addresses the Norton Sound problem in several ways. First, it will make the Norton Sound region eligible for the Federal disaster assistance made available to the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region last year. Second, it changes the income eligibility standard from the Federal poverty level to that for the temporary assistance to needy families program. The standard of living in many of these fish-dependent communities is well below the poverty line. This was one of the chief complaints voiced to my staff and several Commerce Department officials when they visited western Alaska last summer. This provision will allow more needy families to qualify for 1999 disaster assistance, much of which has gone unallocated. Additionally, this bill will provide $10 million in grants through the Economic Development Administration for infrastructure improvements in the Norton Sound region. The conference report included is $5 million in disaster assistance under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to determine [[Page S12480]] the cause of the decline and to identify ways to improve the area's fisheries in the future. These funds will be available in 2001. The main reason these communities are unable to ride out cyclical fishery failures is the lack of commercial infrastructure in rural fisheries. The EDA grants will help provide ice machines and other equipment to help these communities modernize their processing capabilities and extract more value from the resources they harvest. I was also pleased to work with my colleagues from New England on their request for fishery disaster assistance. New England will receive $15 million in 2001 for cooperative research and management activities in the New England fisheries. These funds will provide New England fishermen with an important role in working to solve the problems of their own fisheries. Within this conference report, I have also asked that the Agricultural Marketing Service--the AMS--convene two national meetings to begin development of organic standards with respect to seafoods. One of these meetings will be held in Alaska and the other meeting will be held on the Gulf of Mexico coastal area. The AMS will use the information gathered at these meetings to develop draft regulations establishing national organic standards for seafood to be published in fiscal year 2000. It is estimated that the sales of organic foods will reach $6.6 billion by the year 2000. The organic industry has been growing at a rate of 20 to 24 percent for the last 9 consecutive years. Ocean-harvested seafood should be at the same level with other qualifying protein commodities, such as beef, pork, and chicken. I hope that these protein sources will be included in the proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture rules to be finalized by June 2000. Ocean- harvested seafood should not be excluded as an organically-produced product when USDA issues its final rule. This issue is very important to Alaska, as the harvesting of seafood is an industry that employs more Alaskans than any other industry. In particular, I am concerned about the inclusion of wild salmon within USDA's final rule for the National Organic Program. Wild salmon is an organic product. This past summer, two private certifying firms for organic food products visited two Alaska seafood processors to determine whether the wild, ocean-harvested salmon processed at these facilities could be certified as organic. One of the certifiers, farm verified organic, inspected capilliano seafoods. Their report is very positive. In fact, their approval allowed capalliano's salmon to be admitted to natural products east, which is a large organic food show in Boston, Massachusetts. In order to be admitted to this trade show, a product must be verified as organic. I, frankly do not know what the dispute is about. Natural fish, wild fish should certainly be verified as organic. I am confident that the AMS will find Alaskan wild salmon a very heart-healthy protein source, to be of high quality and organic, for the purposes of USDA's national organic program. I thank my friend from Mississippi and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know a number of Members are waiting to speak. The Governors and legislators in the six New England States had five goals in mind when they enacted the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact into law in each of their States. They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers. In fact, they wanted to do it at lower prices than found in most other parts of the Nation. They wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect New England's rural environment, and they wanted to do this without burdening Federal taxpayers. It turned out the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was a stirring success on every one of these points. But it also had an added benefit. It increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage of the compact. Not only did prices come down, but the number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New England for the first time in many years. We find there are still some who favor having Federal bureaucrats run this farm program, at a cost to the taxpayers, instead of the States themselves, with no cost to the taxpayers. Because it has been so successful, half the Governors in the Nation, half the State legislatures in the Nation, asked that the Congress allow their States to set their own dairy policies, within certain limits, through interstate compacts that, again, cost taxpayers nothing. The dairy compact legislation passed in these States overwhelmingly. Perhaps most significant, and I mention this because we have heard those from Minnesota and Wisconsin attack this, what they do not tell us is that the retail milk prices in New England not only average lower than the rest of the Nation, but they are much lower than the milk prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. So those in these parts of the country who are attacking the Northeast Dairy Compact say they are concerned about consumers and ignore the fact that consumers pay a lot more in their States than they do in New England. One has to ask, Why does anybody oppose the Dairy Compact? GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without increased cost to the taxpayers. Why would anybody oppose it? One of the things I learned long ago is to follow the money, and there is one group making a whole lot of money on this issue. They are the huge milk manufacturers, such as Suiza, or Kraft which is owned by Philip Morris, or other processors represented by the International Dairy Foods Association. They oppose the compact not because they care for the consumers, not because they care for the farmers, but because they care for their own huge, bloated profits. Indeed, they sent around corporate front organizations to speak for them. One was the Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. When it finally became clear that Public Voice was going around fronting for these organizations, and that their policies were determined not by what was best for everybody but by corporate dollars, they finally went out of business. I've talked about the close alliances between a lead executive who handled compact issues for Public Voice who negotiated a job to represent the huge processors. I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group whose funding should be investigated, the Consumer Federation of America. One of their officers, formerly from Public Voice, has been going around Capitol Hill offices with lobbyists representing dairy processors. One might ask why would Philip Morris want to use these organizations instead of going directly to the editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post to bad mouth the compact? Why not have somebody who appears to be representing the consumers rather than Philip Morris coming in and talking about it? The consumer representative, being paid by the big processors, could come in and say: Editorial board members, milk prices are higher for children in the School Lunch Program under this compact. We ought to compare those prices. Let's compare the retail milk prices in New England against retail milk prices in the upper Midwest. A gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price was up to 50 cents more in Minneapolis, MN, the area opponents used as an example of how to save money. I think we ought to take a look at these issues because when we hear some of the big companies, such as Philip Morris and Kraft and Suiza, saying, well, it's not the money. But you know, of course, it is the money. When they say ``we are here because we're concerned about the consumers,'' you know--with their track record--that the consumer is the last thing on their mind. And when these processor groups say they want to protect the farmer . . . oh, Lordy, don't ever, ever believe that, because there is not a farmer in this country who would. Lastly, if anybody tells you the dairy compact will cost you money, I point out, not only does it not cost taxpayers any money, but the cost of milk is much lower than in States without a compact. [[Page S12481]] Mr. President, the Governors and legislators in the six New England states had five goals in mind when they enacted the Compact into law in each of their states. They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers--at lower prices than found in most of the nation--they wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect the New England's rural environment from sprawl and destructive development, and they wanted to do this without burdening federal taxpayers. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has delivered beyond the expectations of those Governors and state legislators. The Compact provided an added benefit--it has also increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage of the Compact. This great idea--coming from those six New England states--has created a successful and enduring partnership between dairy farmers and consumers throughout New England. Thanks to the Northeast Compact, the number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New England--for the first time in many years. It is unfortunate that most still favor federal bureaucrats running the farm programs--I think Congress should look at more zero-cost state-initiated programs rather than turning a deaf ear to the pleas of state legislators. Indeed, half the Governors in the nation, and half the state legislatures in the nation, asked that the Congress allow their states to set their own dairy policies--within federally mandated limits-- through interstate compacts that cost taxpayers nothing. And the dairy compact legislation passed with overwhelming support in almost all these states. One of the most difficult challenges posed by the New England Governors is that the Compact had to cost nothing--yet deliver a benefit to farmers. The Compact is scored by CBO as having no costs to the Federal treasury. Major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast Dairy Compact because they know it helps preserve farmland and prevent urban sprawl. Indeed, a New York Times and a National Geographic article that I mentioned yesterday discuss the importance of keeping dairy farmers in business from an environmental standpoint. Perhaps most significantly, retail milk prices in New England average lower than the rest of the nation and much lower than milk prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to GAO. The question is: why does anyone in America oppose the dairy compact? Since GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without increased costs to taxpayers, why does anyone oppose the Compact? The answer is simple, huge milk manufacturers--such as Suiza, headquartered in Texas, Kraft which is owned by the tobacco giant Philip Morris, other processors represented by the International Dairy Foods Association--oppose the Compact. Even the most junior investigative reporter could figure out the answer to my question with the above information. All anyone has to do is look up the donations made by these, and other, giant processors. All the negative news stories about the compact have their genesis in efforts by these giant processors and their front organizations. I have explained the details of this on the Senate floor so scholars who want to know what really happened can check the public records and the lobby registration forms. Indeed, one of the corporate front organizations--Public Voice for Food and Health Policy--apparently could not continue to exist when it was so obvious that their policies where determined by corporate dollars rather than good policy. A simple glance at the list of corporations who funded and attended their functions could be easily researched by any reporter. It will demonstrate that sad and disturbing relationship--now ended as Public Voice had to close up shop because it lost its conscience. I have detailed the close alliances between their lead executive who handled compact issues for them and the job he negotiated to represent the huge processors a couple of times on the Senate floor. I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group whose funding should be investigated--the Consumer Federation of America. Indeed, one of their officers--formerly from Public Voice--is being taken around Capitol Hill offices by lobbyists representing processors. A glance at who funds their functions and efforts will be as instruction as investigations of Public Voice. Why should Philip Morris or Kraft want to use these organizations instead of directly going to the editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post to badmouth the compact? The question does not need me to provide the answer. What would be the best attack--whether true or not--on the Compact that might swing public opinion? It might be to simply allege that milk prices are higher for children in the school lunch program. Who would the editorial boards more likely listen to regarding school children: a public interest group or a tobacco company? By the way, I would be happy to compare milk prices after the Compact was fully implemented. I would be pleased to compare retail milk prices in New England against retail milk prices in the Upper Midwest. A GAO report, dated October, 1998, compared retail milk prices for various U.S. cities both inside and outside the Northeast compact region for various time periods. For example, in February 1998, the average price of a gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was $2.63 per gallon. Prices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, were much higher-- they were $2.94 per gallon. Let's pick another New England city--Boston. In February 1998, the price of a gallon of milk was $2.54 as compared to Minneapolis which where the price on average was $2.94/gallon. Let's look at the cost of 1% milk for November 1997, for another example. In Augusta, Maine, it was $2.37 per gallon, the same average-price as for Boston and for New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In Minnesota, the price was $2.82/gallon. It was 45 cents more per gallon in Minnesota. I could go on and on comparing lower New England retail prices with higher prices in other cities for many different months. I invite anyone to review this GAO report. It is clear that our Compact is working perfectly by benefitting consumers, local economies and farmers. I urge my colleague to vote against this bill because, as I mentioned yesterday, it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the East and it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the nation. Also, I cannot vote for it because it does not extend the Northeast dairy compact and does not allow neighboring states to also participate. It also ignores the pleas of Southern Governors who wanted to be able to protect their farmers without burdening U.S. taxpayers. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is scheduled to vote on final passage of the fiscal year 2000 Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is critical that we complete action on this bill today to speed assistance to American farmers in need. Therefore, I shall vote for the bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The severe drought that has gripped the Eastern United States this year is, by all accounts, the most damaging and prolonged such occurrence since the early 1930s. Just like that period nearly 70 years ago, springs have gone dry, streams have ceased to flow, pastureland and crops have broiled in the relentless Sun until all possible benefits to livestock or man have burned away. In the 1930s the drought turned much of our Nation's farmlands into a veritable dust bowl. Modern conservation practices today may have helped to reduce the erosion by wind, [[Page S12482]] but the soil is just as dry, and farmers in West Virginia and all along the East Coast are suffering from the natural disaster of a generation. Some farmers have had to make the painful decision to sell off their livestock or to give up farms that have been in their families for generations. This is what has been happening in West Virginia. This is nothing short of an emergency. It demands our attention and response. This bill provides funding for many ongoing and long running programs as well as much needed assistance to farmers who suffered at the hands of Mother Nature this year. The $8.7 billion emergency package that is attached to this appropriations bill contains $1.2 billion specifically for 1999 natural disasters, including drought. In all, more than $1.2 billion will be available for direct payments for farmers suffering crop and livestock losses from natural disasters this year, up significantly from the $50 million in the version that first passed the Senate in August. That may not be enough to fully cover the still- mounting losses to farmers, but it is a good start. These emergency funds will be able to be distributed upon enactment of this legislation to farmers who have been waiting and waiting for the Federal Government to deliver. American farmers cannot afford to wait any longer for Federal assistance, and the Senate cannot afford to delay final passage of this fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. Unfortunately, once this measure reached the conference committee, the process that we follow yearly as routine in conferences was sidelined. When difficult issues came before the conference, after only an evening and a morning of debate, the conference committee adjourned for lunch, and never returned. For several days, the conference was ``out to lunch,'' until deals could be reached behind closed doors guided by invisible hands, and our tried and true procedure was circumvented. I believe that this selective bargaining is why some Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the final bill. The best work of the Congress is demonstrated when, as a body, we cooperate and allow ourselves to be guided by the rules and the traditions that have allowed our Government to flourish under the Constitution now for over 200 years. I have stood before this body on numerous occasions since visiting West Virginia with the Secretary of Agriculture on August 2 of this year to impress upon my fellow Members what a significant impact the drought has had in West Virginia, and, of course, in other Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern St

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued
(Senate - October 13, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S12474-S12504] AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill. I regret very much having to do this because I appreciate the fact that all across our country, farmers are in need of assistance. I recognize that it is important to try to get some of these programs out to them. But I am very frank to tell the Senate that I think the conference [[Page S12475]] badly overlooked the pressing problems which the farmers in the Northeast and the Mid-Atlantic are facing. I can't, in good conscience, support a bill which simply fails to take into account the situation with which we are confronted, a situation which is unparalleled. Steven Weber, President of the Maryland Farm Bureau, was recently quoted as saying: This is not just another crisis. This is the worst string of dry summers and the worst run of crop years since the 1930s. Talk to the old-timers. They haven't seen anything like it since they were young. Our farmers have been absolutely devastated by the weather we have experienced, not only over this past farming season but in previous ones leading up to it as well. We face a very pressing situation.'' In addition, I think this bill fails to address the needs of our dairy farmers. I will discuss that issue subsequently. First, I want to address the disaster assistance. Most of the disaster assistance that is available under existing programs is in the form of low-interest loans for those who have been rejected twice by commercial lenders. What this approach fails to recognize is that our farmers have been hit with a double whammy. First of all, they had the low commodity prices which farmers all across the country have confronted; and in addition, in our particular situation, our farmers were confronted by severe drought problems, as I have indicated, unparalleled in the memory of those now farming for more than half a century. Low-interest loans simply won't work to address the collective and drastic impact of these factors. Recognizing that, we sought substantially more and more direct disaster assistance in the Conference Agreement. And the response that the Conferees made to this request--the $1.2 billion that is in this bill--is clearly inadequate. The Secretary of Agriculture estimated that in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic, we needed $1.5 to $2 billion just for those States alone. Never mind, of course, comparable damage, either drought or floods, that have occurred in other parts of the country which also need assistance. Indeed, it should not be our goal to identify an amount of funding where we have to take from one to give to the other. These states need assistance as well. What we are arguing is that this package ought to be comprehensive enough to meet the needs in the agricultural sector all across the country. I appreciate that other parts of the country have been hit with droughts and floods and that we must address these needs as well, but the amount provided in this conference report for disaster assistance is clearly inadequate to accomplish this goal. The amount that this legislation provides and that which will eventually make its way into the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States will not enable us to confront the problem bleakly staring our farmers in the face. We wrote to the conferees, a number of us from this region of the country, asking them to consider the following measures. I regret that very little weight was given to this request. All of them, I think, are exceedingly reasonable requests, and had they been addressed, it would have affected, obviously, the perspective I take on this legislation. We asked the conference committee to consider the following measures: First, crop loss disaster assistance programs that provide direct payments to producers based on actual losses of 1999 plantings. These payments could be drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation funds without an arbitrary limit. The arbitrary limit currently in the agreement precludes comprehensive assistance and delays the availability of the assistance. We asked that yield loss thresholds and payment levels be determined in advance so the payments can be made to producers as soon as they apply, rather than providing a fixed amount which would require all producers to apply before a payment factor can be determined and payments can be issued. We asked for this measure because these farmers need the help now. They need it quickly. They are under terrific pressure. Secondly, we asked the committee to consider sufficient livestock feed assistance, which addresses losses in pasture and forage for livestock operations, provides direct payments to producers based on a percentage of their supplemental feed needs, determined in advance to speed payments and avoids prorating. Thirdly, we requested the conference to consider credit assistance which addresses the needs of producers who have experienced natural and market loss disasters. Fourthly, we asked the conference for adequate funding to employ additional staff for the Farm Service Agency and the National Resource Conservation Service so they could swiftly and expeditiously implement various assistance programs at the State and local level. Finally, we requested cooperative and/or reimbursable agreements that would enable USDA to assist in cases where a State is providing State- funded disaster assistance. All of these, had they been responded to as we sought, would have given us an opportunity to address the situation in our region, not only in a forthright manner but one that would accommodate the pressing crisis which we confront. As we indicated, this crisis has reached overwhelming proportions. We risk losing a substantial part of the region's critical agricultural sector. The measures in this conference report, I regret to say, are not sufficient, nor sufficiently focused on the needs of the Eastern States to address their problems. That is one major reason I oppose this conference report and will vote against it. Secondly, this conference report deals with the dairy issue in a way that is harmful to our region. By failing to adopt option 1-A and disallowing the extension of the authorization of the Northeast Dairy Compact, the conference agreement has left our dairy farmers confronting a situation of instability. Milk prices have been moving up and down as if they were on a roller coaster. Our dairy farmers have been subjected to wide and frequent swings, which place our dairy producers in situations where they don't have the cash-flow to meet their costs in a given month. The price goes up; the price comes down. It takes an enormous toll on the industry in our State and elsewhere in the east. As a result of these fluctuations, the number of dairy farmers in Maryland has been declining markedly over the last 2 decades. We fear that if this process continues, we are going to see the extinction of a critical component of our dairy industry and the farm economy; that is, the family-run dairy farm. Indeed, my concern is primarily focused on family farmers and on sustaining their presence as part of the dairy sector. The Maryland General Assembly passed legislation to enable Maryland to join the Northeast Dairy Compact. They also took measures in that legislation to ensure that the interests of consumers, low-income households and processors, would be protected when a farm milk price was established. In fact, a representative from those groups would be on the compact commission, as well as from the dairy industry itself. Other states that are a part of the Compact or want to participate have taken the measures to protect same interests. And we believe this established a reasonable solution to provide stable income for those in the dairy industry, particularly family dairy farmers. But the conference denied what I regard as a fair and reasoned approach--in refusing to extend the authorization of the compact, and therefore, committed our region's dairy industry to a continuance of this unstable and volatile environment. Mr. President, agriculture is an important economic actor in the state of Maryland. It contributes significantly to our State's economy. It employs hundreds of thousands of people in one way or another. We really are seeking, I think, fair and equitable treatment. I don't think this legislation contains a fair and equitable solution for the crisis that faces farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Indeed, it seems to ignore the fact that we have farmers as well. The only farmers in the country are not in sectors other than the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and the needs of all of our farmers should have been addressed in this legislation. The Farm Bureau has written me a letter urging a vote against adoption of the conference report. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. [[Page S12476]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See Exhibit 1.) Mr. SARBANES. They write: Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions in the economic disaster relief package are important and necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative impacts on the State's dairy industry. I agree with that. We should reject this package, go back to conference, and develop a package that addresses the dairy issue, allows us to develop the compact to give some stability and diminished volatility in the industry, and also increases the drought assistance package so it adequately and directly meets the needs of the farmers of our region. The conference agreement should have done better by these very hard- working men and women, these small farm families. And because it has not--as much as I appreciate the pressing needs of agriculture elsewhere in the country, and as much as I, in the past, have been supportive of those needs--we in the region must take measures to have our farmers' needs addressed in the current context. We have experienced a very difficult and rough period for Maryland agriculture, and for agriculture generally in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Because this crisis is not adequately addressed in this conference report, I intend to vote against it. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc., Randallstown, MD, October 12, 1999. Hon. Paul Sarbanes, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to urge you to vote against adoption of the conference report on Agricultural Appropriations when it is considered on the floor tomorrow. Maryland Farm Bureau believes that many of the provisions in the economic disaster relief package are important and necessary. We are concerned, however, that the adoption of the conference report as drafted will not meet Maryland's drought disaster needs. We also believe that the absence of the Option 1A dairy language will have long-term negative impacts on the state's dairy industry. I urge you to vote to send the agricultural appropriations conference report back to the conferees with instructions that they add the Option 1A dairy language and that they increase the drought assistance package to adequately meet the needs of mid-Atlantic farmers. Sincerely, Stephen L. Weber, President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized. Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I commend my colleague for his comments. He could have easily been speaking on behalf of the State of Connecticut in talking about the particular concerns of his home State of Maryland. In a moment, I will explain why I also have serious reservations about this bill. But his point that the New England States, the Northeast, contribute significantly to the agricultural well-being of this country is well founded. I know Secretary Glickman came to Maryland and he came to Connecticut during the drought this past summer. The exact number eludes me, but it was surprisingly high, the number of farmers and the significant portion of agricultural production that occurs east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line, or near north of the Mason-Dixon line. So when we talk about these issues, it may seem as if it is more sort of hobby farms to people, but for many people in Maryland and for the 4,000 people in Connecticut who make a living in agriculture--these are not major agricultural centers, but in a State of 3.5 million people, where 4,000 families annually depend upon agriculture as a source of income, it is not insignificant. So when you have a bill that virtually excludes people from Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania from receiving some help during a time of crisis, I hope our colleagues who come from the States that benefit from this bill, who I know have enjoyed the support of the Senator from Maryland, this Senator, and others during times of crisis, because we have seen a flood in the Midwest, or a drought in the Midwest, or cyclones and hurricanes that have devastated agriculture in other parts of our country--I never considered my voting to support people in those areas as somehow a regional vote. When I vote to support a farmer who has lost his livelihood because of a natural disaster, I think I am voting to strengthen my country, not to help out a particular farmer in a State that I don't represent. So when we have a drought in the Northeast, as we did, a record drought this year that wiped out farmers, caused them to lose significant income, to lose farms and the like, and then to have a bill that comes before us that disregards this natural disaster--in my State, $41 million was lost as a result of the drought--I am disappointed. My colleagues may have stronger words to use. I am terribly disappointed, as someone who, year after year, has been supportive of particular agricultural needs, although I didn't directly represent them, that our colleagues in the House and Senate could not see fit to provide some financial help beyond, as my colleague from Maryland said, the loan program, which is not much help. We don't have crop insurance for my row croppers. The small farmers don't get crop insurance. When they get wiped out or lose income, they have to depend upon some direct payment. A loan program is of little or no assistance to them. I am terribly disappointed that this bill excludes those farmers from the eastern part of the United States. It was the worst drought that has hit our region in decades. Congressional delegations throughout the region have consistently supported our colleagues in other regions when their States have suffered catastrophic floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. We don't understand why it is so difficult for the eastern part of the country to convey to our colleagues how massive the devastation has been to our small farmers. As I have said, in my State alone, it is $41 million. In other States, the numbers may be higher. I represent a small State. The dairy industry is one of the major agricultural interests in our region. It has gotten a double hit in this legislation--inadequate drought relief assistance and the exclusion of provisions that would have extended the Northeast Dairy Compact. On top of the drought losses, our farmers will lose an additional $100 million if the new milk marketing pricing goes forward. While I am heartened by the recently issued court injunction postponing the implementation of the new pricing scheme, quite frankly, this is only a short-term solution and is no substitute for affirmative action taken by the Congress. Northeast dairy farmers are deserving of the same kinds of assistance we offer to the agricultural sectors in other parts of the country. I believe it is grossly unfair that this conference report has chosen to ignore their plight. We should not be placing one part of the country against another. I don't want to see a midwestern farmer or a western farmer be adversely affected by votes we cast here. But, likewise, I don't want to see farming interests in my State or my region of the country be harmed as a result of our unwillingness to provide some relief when they absolutely need it to survive. Inadequate drought relief and the exclusion of the Northeast Dairy Compact would be reason enough to vote against the legislation before us today. But I want to raise another issue that has caused a lot of consternation during the debate on this Agriculture appropriations bill. I am referring to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, myself, and Senator Hagel of Nebraska. The House leadership literally hijacked this piece of legislation and denied the normal democratic process to work when it came to this measure that was adopted overwhelmingly in the Senate by a margin of 70-28--by any measure, an overwhelming vote of bipartisanship. This measure would have ended unilateral sanctions on the sale of U.S. food and medicine to countries around the globe. The amendment had broad-based support from farm organizations across the country which, time and time again, have been forced to pay the price of lost income when Congress has decided to ``get tough'' with dictators [[Page S12477]] and bar farm exports. Farmers, over the years, have rightfully noted that, although in some cases sanctions have been in place for 40 years, there is nothing in the way of positive foreign policy results to show for these sanctions. On the other hand, the losses to our farmers are measurable and substantial--in the billions of dollars annually--as a result of these unilateral sanctions on food and medicine we have imposed for years. Church groups and humanitarian organizations have joined farm organizations in strongly opposing use of food and medicine as sanctions weapons on moral grounds. Ironically, U.S. sanctions--particularly ones on food and medicine-- have been used as an instrument by hostile governments to shore up domestic support and retain power, the very power that we are allegedly trying to change through the use of sanctions actually having contributed to these dictators staying in power for as many years as some of them have. Whether or not the United States is fully responsible for the suffering of these men, women, and children in these targeted countries, it is hard to convince many of them that the United States means them no ill will when we deny them the access to foodstuffs, critical medicines, and medical equipment--the reason seventy of our colleagues decided to end this policy of unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership would not allow the process to work in conference. As a result, this bill was tied up for days over this single measure. Again, I compliment my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Hagel, who are leaders on this, along with others in fighting for this provision. This is not a provision that is designed to help dictators. It is a provision to, in fact, change these dictatorial governments and to provide needed relief and opportunity for millions of people who are the innocent victims of these dictators, and not deny our own farm community and business interests the opportunity to sell into these markets and make a difference. They are prepared, of course, to deny, in the case of the major opposition, by the way, which comes from some Members. I want to emphasize that some members of the Cuban American community feel particularly strongly about the government in Cuba. I respect their feelings. I respect it very deeply. These families have lost their homes, jobs, and family members as a result of the government in Cuba under Fidel Castro. There is no way I can fully appreciate the depth of their feelings and passions about this. As I say, I respect that. The exile community is not unfounded in its deep concerns about what has happened on the island of Cuba. Before I make any comments about the island of Cuba and what goes on there, I want it to be as clear as I can possibly make it that my sympathies, my heartfelt sympathies go to the exiled community that lives in this country and elsewhere. Their passions, I understand and accept, and I am tremendously sympathetic. But I must say as well that there are 11 million Cubans who live on that island 90 miles off our shores who are suffering and hurting badly. Arguably, the problem exists with the government there. I don't deny that. But to impose a sanction for 40 years on the same of food and medicine to 11 million people in this country also is not warranted. While we may want to change the government in Cuba--and that may happen in time--we shouldn't be compounding the problem by denying the sale of food and medicine to these people. Many people say they won't set foot on Cuban soil while Castro remains in power. I understand that as well. But don't deny the 11 million people in Cuba the opportunity to at least have basic food supplies and medicine. It seems to me that--in fact I believe--a majority of the Cuban American people in this country have similar feelings. Their voices are not heard as often as is oftentimes the case when a minority view is extremely vocal and can dominate. But I believe the vast majority of Cuban Americans feel strongly about Fidel Castro, want him out of power, and want democracy to come to their country but simultaneously believe the 11 million people with whom they share a common heritage ought not to be denied food and medicine by the United States. To make my point, these Cuban Americans try on their own to do what they can by sending small packages to loved ones and family members and friends who live in Cuba. Others travel to deliver medicines. Some 150,000 Cuban Americans travel annually to go into Cuba to bring whatever they can to help out family members and friends. However, these gestures of generosity are no substitute for commercial sales of such products if the public health and nutritional need of 11 million people are going to be met. Unfortunately, the antidemocratic forces have succeeded in stripping the Ashcroft-Dodd-Hagel amendment from this bill. I hope enough of my colleagues will vote against this legislation to prevent its adoption. We can delay a few days, send this measure back to conference, and reestablish this language that was supported overwhelmingly, and I think supported in the House of Representatives, the other body, as well, and bring the measure back. If this measure goes forward without the inclusion of the Dodd-Hagel- Ashcroft amendment, rest assured we will be back on this floor offering similar amendments at every opportunity that presents itself, and we will continue to do so. The day is going to come when a majority of the Congress and the will of the American people, including the Cuban Americans, I strongly suggest, is going to prevail. On that day, the United States will regain a moral high ground by ceasing forever to use food and medicine as a weapon against innocent people. I argue, as Senators Ashcroft, Hagel, Grams, and others, that the adoption of amendments that would allow for the lifting of unilateral sanctions on food and medicines will also be a major contributing factor to changing governments in these countries. Aside from helping out farmers and businesses that want to sell these products and the innocent people who can't have access to them in these countries, I believe the foreign policy implications of allowing the sale of food and medicine will be significant for our country and for the people who live under dictatorial governments. For those reasons, and what is being denied our farmers and agricultural interests in the State of Connecticut and elsewhere in the Northeast, and the rejection of the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd amendment, I will oppose this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, some of our colleagues have denounced the Agriculture appropriations conference report as inadequate. I must agree. Without a doubt this bill is deficient. It fails to acknowledge the full impact of natural disasters that have been experienced by agricultural producers across the country. It fails to include adequate funding for the drought that has hit the Northeast. It fails to provide adequate funding for the hurricane damage to the Southeast and the Northeast. It fails to include adequate funding for flooded farmland in my own part of the country. This bill is also deficient in the way it got here because in the conference committee when it became clear that there were going to be steps to change the sanctions regime of this country, the minority, the Democrats, were simply shut out. That is wrong. That should not happen. But it did happen. So we are left with that result. As a result partly of that lockout, this bill fails to provide the kind of sanctions reform that ought to have occurred. In 1996 when we passed the last farm bill, the Republican leadership promised American farmers that what they lost in domestic supports they would make up through expanded export opportunities. That was a hollow promise. The harsh reality is that now the prices have collapsed, farmers are in desperate trouble, and there must be a Federal response. I wish this bill were better. I wish it contained adequate assistance for [[Page S12478]] those who have been hit by hurricanes. I wish it had adequate assistance for farmers who have had their acreage flooded. I wish it had sanctions reform. Food should not be used as a weapon. It is immoral; It is ineffective; and it is inhumane. But the harsh reality is we are where we are. We have a conference report that is flawed. Indeed, it is badly flawed. The easy thing to do would be to vote against this conference report. But it would not be the right thing to do. This bill is not just about responding to natural disasters. It also responds to the price collapse that has occurred and threatens the livelihood of tens of thousands of farmers in my State and across the country. The need for emergency income assistance could not be more clear. I can say that in my State many farmers are relying on this bill as their only chance for financial survival. I don't say that lightly. It is the reality. If this assistance is not passed and distributed immediately, literally thousands of farmers in my State are going to go out of business. It is that simple. A way of life and the tradition of farming will be lost in dozens of communities across my State. The funding in this bill only meets the most basic needs of our producers. Make no mistake, it is absolutely essential. Prices for agricultural commodities are at their lowest levels in 50 years in real terms. Wheat and barley are the lowest they have been in real terms in over 50 years. Farm bankruptcies are rising; auctions are being held on an unending basis. If nothing further is done, thousands of our farmers will go out of the business. That is the stark reality in farm country. If we fail to pass this bill, we are going to mortgage the future of literally thousands of farm families. I think we should keep in mind this is not our last chance to get something done for those who have been so badly hurt, whether it is my farmers who have flooded acres, whether it is people in the Northeast and the Southeast hit by hurricanes, whether it is farmers in the Northeast hit by drought. There is another chance this year to get additional assistance. I sympathize with my colleagues from the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States. They are not alone. In my State this year, we have been hit by severe storms, flooding, extreme snow and ice, ground saturation, mud slides, tornadoes, hail, insects, and disease. It is unbelievable what has happened in my State. Growing up in North Dakota I always thought of my State as dry. I now fly over much of North Dakota and it looks similar to a Louisiana rice paddy. There is water everywhere. Millions of acres are inundated and were never planted this year. Our farmers planted the lowest level of spring wheat since 1988, the year of intense drought. Yet prices remain very low--in fact, record lows. Barley production in North Dakota is down 42 percent. Yet prices remain very low. Things have gone from bad to worse this fall. Farmers were anxious to get into the field for harvest but were forced to stay at home and watch the rain. North Dakota farmers suffered through 2 weeks of rain at the end of August and early September, the key time for harvest. As a result, the completion of harvest has been delayed. Damage resulting from a delayed harvest is deducted from prices farmers receive for their crops. At this point, there is absolutely no way some farmers will come anywhere close to matching their expenses for this year. We simply must pass this bill to allow entire communities to survive. I was called by a very dear friend of mine 2 weeks ago describing what had happened to him. He was just beginning harvest when the rains once again resumed in our State. He had just cut his grain. It was on the ground and the rains came and continued day after day after day. As a result, that grain that was on the ground sprouted. He had 30-percent sprout in his fields. He took a sample into the elevator and the elevator said: Don't even bother trucking that in; we aren't going to buy it at any price. That happened all over my State. I know it has happened in other States, as well. Passing this bill and releasing this funding is absolutely critical for those farmers who have been so hard hit. Remember, passing this bill does not bar Congress from doing more in the future. We have other opportunities this year to help those who have been hit by a hurricane. There is other legislation moving through this body that has funds for those hit by hurricanes. That package can be improved upon. When we passed the emergency supplemental bill last May, we agreed to revisit agricultural emergency spending once the extent of the price disaster was known. We have done that. We can pass this bill now and assess future needs in response to natural disasters while this assistance is distributed. The statement of the managers on this bill made several references to the need for additional Federal spending for 1999 disasters. They have recognized the reality. I hope colleagues on the floor will understand there are additional opportunities to achieve the result they seek. The answer is not to kill this bill. This bill, however flawed, is a step in the right direction. It would be a profound mistake to defeat it. I close by urging my colleagues to support this conference report. We had an overwhelming vote in the Senate yesterday. It was an important vote to send the signal that this legislation ought to pass. My colleagues in the Northeast are not alone. In many ways, we are in the same circumstance. We desperately need those farmers who have flooded acres to have legislation that addresses their needs. We will have another chance. We will have another opportunity. That is the great thing about the Senate; there is always another chance. I close by looking at a picture that shows what is happening in my State. This is several sections of land in North Dakota. Everywhere you look is water, water, water--water everywhere. I have flown all over my State. It is truly remarkable; places that were dry for 30 years are now saturated. I talked about the price collapse. I want to visually show what it is farmers are contending with. This chart shows clearly what has happened to spring wheat and barley prices over the last 53 years. The blue line is spring wheat; the red line is barley. These are two of the dominant crops of my State. Today the prices in inflation-adjusted terms, in real terms, are the lowest they have been in 53 years. That is the reality. This chart shows the cost of wheat production with the green line; the red line shows what prices are. Prices have been below the cost of production the last 3 years. This is a disaster scenario of its own. This is the reality of what is happening in my State. This threatens the economic future of virtually every farmer in my State. The price is far below the cost of production. There are not many businesses that survive when it costs more to produce the product than is being received--not for a few months but for 3 years. The next chart shows a comparison of the prices farmers paid for their inputs--the green line that keeps going on--versus the prices that farmers received. We can see there is a gap and it is a widening gap. In fact, the closest we came to having these two on the same line was back at the time of the passage of the 1996 farm bill. Since that time, the prices farmers pay have gone up. Thank goodness they have stabilized somewhat in the last couple of years, but the prices they have received have collapsed. That is the hard reality of what our farmers confront. These are, by the way, statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I want to conclude by saying we ought to pass this bill. It is not perfect. In fact, in many ways it is deeply flawed. But it is far better than the alternative of nothing. It is far better than to take the risk of sending this bill back to conference and having it come back in much worse shape. At least we can take this and put it in the bank because this does address the question of price collapse. It does not do a good enough job on the disaster side, but we have other opportunities that will come our way before this session of the Congress concludes. I will end by thanking the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the subcommittee, and Senator Kohl, his counterpart, for the good job they have done under very difficult circumstances. Make no mistake, there are 100 Senators and there are probably 100 different opinions of what agricultural policy should be and what an Agriculture appropriations bill should [[Page S12479]] look like. But we do respect and admire the work they have done. We again thank them for their patience and perseverance bringing this bill to the floor. It deserves our support. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from South Dakota. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, agriculture across most of America is in a state of crisis. We are facing incredibly low livestock and grain prices, coupled with weather disasters in many parts of the country, all simultaneously. The legislation before us, as my colleague has noted so ably, is imperfect. Some have referred to it as throwing a leaking liferaft to a drowning person, and there is some truth to that. But it is urgent legislation. It is legislation we need to move forward because the need is immense and the urgency is critical. There is certainly no assurance, if we were to vote this particular bill down, that it would be back to us anytime soon or that it would come back to us in a better situation than it is now. I think we need to recognize the inadequacies of the legislation, but at the same time that we move forward, we do so with a commitment to do better, still this Congress and in the coming year, to address the underlying problems that at least contributed to the crisis we have in rural America. Faulty agricultural policy brought to us by Freedom to Farm, combined with low prices, natural disasters, and weak export markets, resulted in an inadequate safety net--for family producers, in any event--across this country. We have seen net farm income absolutely plummet from $53 billion in 1996 to $43.8 billion in 1999. Off-farm income in many of our States, including mine, South Dakota, is responsible for 80 to 90 percent of our family producers being able to stay on the farm. If it were not for off-farm income, there would be an even more massive exodus off the farm and ranch than we are seeing. Are there inadequacies in the bill? Certainly. I commend our colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Stevens, Senator Kohl, and many others, for hard work on this legislation under circumstances that surely were trying, where the level of resources would certainly not permit what they would prefer to see happen. Nonetheless, I think we have to acknowledge we need a recommitment in this body and from our friends on the other side of the Capitol to address the underlying structural problems ag faces today. I believe that involves revisiting the Freedom to Farm legislation. I believe that involves strengthening our marketing loan capabilities. I would like to see us pass my country-of-origin meat labeling legislation. I am still working with a bipartisan group of colleagues this week to put together legislation addressing vertical integration in the packing industry, so we do not turn our livestock producers into low-wage employees on their own land. I fear that is the road we are going down. We have to address issues of trade, value-added agriculture, farmer- owned cooperatives, and crop insurance reform. All of these are issues that cry out for attention, above and beyond anything done in this legislation. I do applaud the effort in this bill to include mandatory price reporting on the livestock side. I do applaud some modest funding, at least, for my school breakfast pilot project that is included in this bill. I am concerned, however, the process led us to legislation that involves a distribution process that may not be as equitable as what I think the American public deserves. I will quote briefly from an analysis by the Associated Press, Philip Brasher, where he observes: Some of the largest, most profitable farms in the country would be among the biggest beneficiaries of Congress' $8.7 billion agricultural assistance package because it loosens rules that wee intended to target government payments to family-size operations. An individual farm could claim up to $460,000 in subsidies a year--double the current restriction--and the legislation creates a new way for producers to get around even that limit. The payment limits apply to two different programs: crop subsidies that vary according to fluctuations in commodity prices; and annual ``market transition'' payments, which were guaranteed to producers under the 1996 farm law. Farmers are technically allowed to receive no more than $75,000 in crop subsidies and $40,000 a year in market transition payments under current law. But many farms, legally claim twice that much because they are divided into different entities. A husband and a wife, for example, can claim separate payments on the same farm. The aid package would double those caps, so farms could get up to $300,000 in crop subsidies and $160,000 in market transition payments this year. Last year, about 550 farmers nationwide claimed the maximum amount in crop subsidies, USDA officials said. Critics of the looser payment rules fear they will encourage the consolidation of farms and hasten the demise of smaller-scale operations. ``Big farms will use the extra cash to buy up land from the neighbors, driving up land prices in the process,'' said Chuck Hassebrook, program director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Walthill, NE. ``What is the purpose of these farm programs? Is it to help very wealthy, very large landowners get bigger and get richer?'' These are the kinds of questions and concerns many of us have. I think they are profound questions, having to do with the very nature of agriculture, the very nature of rural America. What road we are going down, in terms of ag and rural policy in America, policy responsible for feeding so efficiently and so effectively and in such an extraordinary manner the people of our Nation? But for all its failings and shortcomings, many of which I briefly raised this morning, the fact is there is absolute urgency this legislation go forward, that we address the problems of income collapse, disaster all over America, with this legislation; and, hopefully, upon passage of this legislation, we recommit ourselves to going expeditiously forward to address the remainder of these other issues I have raised, and others of my colleagues have raised, reflecting upon the inadequacies and inefficiencies and the shortcomings of this legislation. They are many. But to stop this legislation now would only hasten the demise of still more family producers all across America. It would not guarantee a return to a better policy anytime very soon. We need to pass this bill, then go forward with additional legislation to redress these inadequacies. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on passage of this legislation and to work with us in a bipartisan fashion on the remainder of these agricultural issues and budget issues before the country. I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alaska. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the conference report for the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill addresses one of the most beleaguered fisheries in the United States. The Norton Sound region of Alaska has suffered chronically poor salmon returns in recent years. Norton Sound is an arm of the Bering Sea off the west coast of Alaska. It lies to the north of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which has also seen very poor salmon returns in recent years. Both of these regions are extremely rural and heavily dependent on commercial and subsistence salmon fishing for survival. The provision in the conference report addresses the Norton Sound problem in several ways. First, it will make the Norton Sound region eligible for the Federal disaster assistance made available to the Yukon-Kuskokwim delta region last year. Second, it changes the income eligibility standard from the Federal poverty level to that for the temporary assistance to needy families program. The standard of living in many of these fish-dependent communities is well below the poverty line. This was one of the chief complaints voiced to my staff and several Commerce Department officials when they visited western Alaska last summer. This provision will allow more needy families to qualify for 1999 disaster assistance, much of which has gone unallocated. Additionally, this bill will provide $10 million in grants through the Economic Development Administration for infrastructure improvements in the Norton Sound region. The conference report included is $5 million in disaster assistance under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to determine [[Page S12480]] the cause of the decline and to identify ways to improve the area's fisheries in the future. These funds will be available in 2001. The main reason these communities are unable to ride out cyclical fishery failures is the lack of commercial infrastructure in rural fisheries. The EDA grants will help provide ice machines and other equipment to help these communities modernize their processing capabilities and extract more value from the resources they harvest. I was also pleased to work with my colleagues from New England on their request for fishery disaster assistance. New England will receive $15 million in 2001 for cooperative research and management activities in the New England fisheries. These funds will provide New England fishermen with an important role in working to solve the problems of their own fisheries. Within this conference report, I have also asked that the Agricultural Marketing Service--the AMS--convene two national meetings to begin development of organic standards with respect to seafoods. One of these meetings will be held in Alaska and the other meeting will be held on the Gulf of Mexico coastal area. The AMS will use the information gathered at these meetings to develop draft regulations establishing national organic standards for seafood to be published in fiscal year 2000. It is estimated that the sales of organic foods will reach $6.6 billion by the year 2000. The organic industry has been growing at a rate of 20 to 24 percent for the last 9 consecutive years. Ocean-harvested seafood should be at the same level with other qualifying protein commodities, such as beef, pork, and chicken. I hope that these protein sources will be included in the proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture rules to be finalized by June 2000. Ocean- harvested seafood should not be excluded as an organically-produced product when USDA issues its final rule. This issue is very important to Alaska, as the harvesting of seafood is an industry that employs more Alaskans than any other industry. In particular, I am concerned about the inclusion of wild salmon within USDA's final rule for the National Organic Program. Wild salmon is an organic product. This past summer, two private certifying firms for organic food products visited two Alaska seafood processors to determine whether the wild, ocean-harvested salmon processed at these facilities could be certified as organic. One of the certifiers, farm verified organic, inspected capilliano seafoods. Their report is very positive. In fact, their approval allowed capalliano's salmon to be admitted to natural products east, which is a large organic food show in Boston, Massachusetts. In order to be admitted to this trade show, a product must be verified as organic. I, frankly do not know what the dispute is about. Natural fish, wild fish should certainly be verified as organic. I am confident that the AMS will find Alaskan wild salmon a very heart-healthy protein source, to be of high quality and organic, for the purposes of USDA's national organic program. I thank my friend from Mississippi and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know a number of Members are waiting to speak. The Governors and legislators in the six New England States had five goals in mind when they enacted the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact into law in each of their States. They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers. In fact, they wanted to do it at lower prices than found in most other parts of the Nation. They wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect New England's rural environment, and they wanted to do this without burdening Federal taxpayers. It turned out the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact was a stirring success on every one of these points. But it also had an added benefit. It increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage of the compact. Not only did prices come down, but the number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New England for the first time in many years. We find there are still some who favor having Federal bureaucrats run this farm program, at a cost to the taxpayers, instead of the States themselves, with no cost to the taxpayers. Because it has been so successful, half the Governors in the Nation, half the State legislatures in the Nation, asked that the Congress allow their States to set their own dairy policies, within certain limits, through interstate compacts that, again, cost taxpayers nothing. The dairy compact legislation passed in these States overwhelmingly. Perhaps most significant, and I mention this because we have heard those from Minnesota and Wisconsin attack this, what they do not tell us is that the retail milk prices in New England not only average lower than the rest of the Nation, but they are much lower than the milk prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin. So those in these parts of the country who are attacking the Northeast Dairy Compact say they are concerned about consumers and ignore the fact that consumers pay a lot more in their States than they do in New England. One has to ask, Why does anybody oppose the Dairy Compact? GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without increased cost to the taxpayers. Why would anybody oppose it? One of the things I learned long ago is to follow the money, and there is one group making a whole lot of money on this issue. They are the huge milk manufacturers, such as Suiza, or Kraft which is owned by Philip Morris, or other processors represented by the International Dairy Foods Association. They oppose the compact not because they care for the consumers, not because they care for the farmers, but because they care for their own huge, bloated profits. Indeed, they sent around corporate front organizations to speak for them. One was the Public Voice for Food and Health Policy. When it finally became clear that Public Voice was going around fronting for these organizations, and that their policies were determined not by what was best for everybody but by corporate dollars, they finally went out of business. I've talked about the close alliances between a lead executive who handled compact issues for Public Voice who negotiated a job to represent the huge processors. I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group whose funding should be investigated, the Consumer Federation of America. One of their officers, formerly from Public Voice, has been going around Capitol Hill offices with lobbyists representing dairy processors. One might ask why would Philip Morris want to use these organizations instead of going directly to the editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post to bad mouth the compact? Why not have somebody who appears to be representing the consumers rather than Philip Morris coming in and talking about it? The consumer representative, being paid by the big processors, could come in and say: Editorial board members, milk prices are higher for children in the School Lunch Program under this compact. We ought to compare those prices. Let's compare the retail milk prices in New England against retail milk prices in the upper Midwest. A gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price was up to 50 cents more in Minneapolis, MN, the area opponents used as an example of how to save money. I think we ought to take a look at these issues because when we hear some of the big companies, such as Philip Morris and Kraft and Suiza, saying, well, it's not the money. But you know, of course, it is the money. When they say ``we are here because we're concerned about the consumers,'' you know--with their track record--that the consumer is the last thing on their mind. And when these processor groups say they want to protect the farmer . . . oh, Lordy, don't ever, ever believe that, because there is not a farmer in this country who would. Lastly, if anybody tells you the dairy compact will cost you money, I point out, not only does it not cost taxpayers any money, but the cost of milk is much lower than in States without a compact. [[Page S12481]] Mr. President, the Governors and legislators in the six New England states had five goals in mind when they enacted the Compact into law in each of their states. They wanted to assure fresh, local supplies of milk to consumers--at lower prices than found in most of the nation--they wanted to keep dairy farmers in business, they wanted to protect the New England's rural environment from sprawl and destructive development, and they wanted to do this without burdening federal taxpayers. The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has delivered beyond the expectations of those Governors and state legislators. The Compact provided an added benefit--it has also increased interstate trade into the region as neighboring farmers took advantage of the Compact. This great idea--coming from those six New England states--has created a successful and enduring partnership between dairy farmers and consumers throughout New England. Thanks to the Northeast Compact, the number of farmers going out of business has declined throughout New England--for the first time in many years. It is unfortunate that most still favor federal bureaucrats running the farm programs--I think Congress should look at more zero-cost state-initiated programs rather than turning a deaf ear to the pleas of state legislators. Indeed, half the Governors in the nation, and half the state legislatures in the nation, asked that the Congress allow their states to set their own dairy policies--within federally mandated limits-- through interstate compacts that cost taxpayers nothing. And the dairy compact legislation passed with overwhelming support in almost all these states. One of the most difficult challenges posed by the New England Governors is that the Compact had to cost nothing--yet deliver a benefit to farmers. The Compact is scored by CBO as having no costs to the Federal treasury. Major environmental groups have endorsed the Northeast Dairy Compact because they know it helps preserve farmland and prevent urban sprawl. Indeed, a New York Times and a National Geographic article that I mentioned yesterday discuss the importance of keeping dairy farmers in business from an environmental standpoint. Perhaps most significantly, retail milk prices in New England average lower than the rest of the nation and much lower than milk prices in Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to GAO. The question is: why does anyone in America oppose the dairy compact? Since GAO and OMB report that consumer prices are lower and farm income is higher than the average for the rest of the country, without increased costs to taxpayers, why does anyone oppose the Compact? The answer is simple, huge milk manufacturers--such as Suiza, headquartered in Texas, Kraft which is owned by the tobacco giant Philip Morris, other processors represented by the International Dairy Foods Association--oppose the Compact. Even the most junior investigative reporter could figure out the answer to my question with the above information. All anyone has to do is look up the donations made by these, and other, giant processors. All the negative news stories about the compact have their genesis in efforts by these giant processors and their front organizations. I have explained the details of this on the Senate floor so scholars who want to know what really happened can check the public records and the lobby registration forms. Indeed, one of the corporate front organizations--Public Voice for Food and Health Policy--apparently could not continue to exist when it was so obvious that their policies where determined by corporate dollars rather than good policy. A simple glance at the list of corporations who funded and attended their functions could be easily researched by any reporter. It will demonstrate that sad and disturbing relationship--now ended as Public Voice had to close up shop because it lost its conscience. I have detailed the close alliances between their lead executive who handled compact issues for them and the job he negotiated to represent the huge processors a couple of times on the Senate floor. I will give the press another lead on the next public interest group whose funding should be investigated--the Consumer Federation of America. Indeed, one of their officers--formerly from Public Voice--is being taken around Capitol Hill offices by lobbyists representing processors. A glance at who funds their functions and efforts will be as instruction as investigations of Public Voice. Why should Philip Morris or Kraft want to use these organizations instead of directly going to the editorial boards of the New York Times or the Washington Post to badmouth the compact? The question does not need me to provide the answer. What would be the best attack--whether true or not--on the Compact that might swing public opinion? It might be to simply allege that milk prices are higher for children in the school lunch program. Who would the editorial boards more likely listen to regarding school children: a public interest group or a tobacco company? By the way, I would be happy to compare milk prices after the Compact was fully implemented. I would be pleased to compare retail milk prices in New England against retail milk prices in the Upper Midwest. A GAO report, dated October, 1998, compared retail milk prices for various U.S. cities both inside and outside the Northeast compact region for various time periods. For example, in February 1998, the average price of a gallon of whole milk in Augusta, ME, was $2.47. The price in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was $2.63 per gallon. Prices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, were much higher-- they were $2.94 per gallon. Let's pick another New England city--Boston. In February 1998, the price of a gallon of milk was $2.54 as compared to Minneapolis which where the price on average was $2.94/gallon. Let's look at the cost of 1% milk for November 1997, for another example. In Augusta, Maine, it was $2.37 per gallon, the same average-price as for Boston and for New Hampshire and Rhode Island. In Minnesota, the price was $2.82/gallon. It was 45 cents more per gallon in Minnesota. I could go on and on comparing lower New England retail prices with higher prices in other cities for many different months. I invite anyone to review this GAO report. It is clear that our Compact is working perfectly by benefitting consumers, local economies and farmers. I urge my colleague to vote against this bill because, as I mentioned yesterday, it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the East and it does not provide enough disaster assistance to the nation. Also, I cannot vote for it because it does not extend the Northeast dairy compact and does not allow neighboring states to also participate. It also ignores the pleas of Southern Governors who wanted to be able to protect their farmers without burdening U.S. taxpayers. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate is scheduled to vote on final passage of the fiscal year 2000 Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It is critical that we complete action on this bill today to speed assistance to American farmers in need. Therefore, I shall vote for the bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The severe drought that has gripped the Eastern United States this year is, by all accounts, the most damaging and prolonged such occurrence since the early 1930s. Just like that period nearly 70 years ago, springs have gone dry, streams have ceased to flow, pastureland and crops have broiled in the relentless Sun until all possible benefits to livestock or man have burned away. In the 1930s the drought turned much of our Nation's farmlands into a veritable dust bowl. Modern conservation practices today may have helped to reduce the erosion by wind, [[Page S12482]] but the soil is just as dry, and farmers in West Virginia and all along the East Coast are suffering from the natural disaster of a generation. Some farmers have had to make the painful decision to sell off their livestock or to give up farms that have been in their families for generations. This is what has been happening in West Virginia. This is nothing short of an emergency. It demands our attention and response. This bill provides funding for many ongoing and long running programs as well as much needed assistance to farmers who suffered at the hands of Mother Nature this year. The $8.7 billion emergency package that is attached to this appropriations bill contains $1.2 billion specifically for 1999 natural disasters, including drought. In all, more than $1.2 billion will be available for direct payments for farmers suffering crop and livestock losses from natural disasters this year, up significantly from the $50 million in the version that first passed the Senate in August. That may not be enough to fully cover the still- mounting losses to farmers, but it is a good start. These emergency funds will be able to be distributed upon enactment of this legislation to farmers who have been waiting and waiting for the Federal Government to deliver. American farmers cannot afford to wait any longer for Federal assistance, and the Senate cannot afford to delay final passage of this fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. Unfortunately, once this measure reached the conference committee, the process that we follow yearly as routine in conferences was sidelined. When difficult issues came before the conference, after only an evening and a morning of debate, the conference committee adjourned for lunch, and never returned. For several days, the conference was ``out to lunch,'' until deals could be reached behind closed doors guided by invisible hands, and our tried and true procedure was circumvented. I believe that this selective bargaining is why some Members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the final bill. The best work of the Congress is demonstrated when, as a body, we cooperate and allow ourselves to be guided by the rules and the traditions that have allowed our Government to flourish under the Constitution now for over 200 years. I have stood before this body on numerous occasions since visiting West Virginia with the Secretary of Agriculture on August 2 of this year to impress upon my fellow Members what a significant impact the drought has had in West Virginia, and, of course, in other Mid-Atlantic and North