[Pages S8287-S8293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in a few minutes Senator Conrad from North
Dakota will send an amendment to the desk on behalf of himself and
myself and some others that will deal with an indemnity program, an
amendment that I think he has already described to Members of the
Senate. I think this is one of the most important amendments we will
vote on on this bill while it is on the Senate floor.
I want to just describe again, as I think my colleague has and I have
on other occasions, what causes us to feel the need and the urgency to
respond to an agricultural crisis. The agricultural crisis is occurring
in a number of States in our country in a way that is causing family
farmers to lose their farms, to have the auction sales, to sell out and
lose their hopes and dreams. We feel that because of collapsed prices
and rampant crop disease, and other things which are not the farmers'
fault, that we ought to do something to extend a helping hand and say
to them that we want to help them over this tough period.
I would like to show my colleagues a map that describes the problems
we have had in North Dakota for family farmers. The red represents
counties that have been declared disaster areas every year for 5
straight years. All of these counties have been declared disasters
every year for 5 years in a row. That means if you are farming here, or
here, any one of these areas, you have been out there farming in an
environment and in a climate in which there is, in most cases, a
devastating wet cycle with you being prevented from planting because
the fields are full of standing water that has not left and has not
absorbed, and if you did get a crop in, you have had it devastated by
the worst crop disease in this century in North Dakota.
The orange have been declared disaster areas for 4 years out of 5
years, and the yellow, 3 years out of 5 years,. The farmers in these
areas have confronted a disease called scab. This picture doesn't mean
much to a lot of folks. But it is the picture of a field of hard red
spring wheat infested with scab disease. It is called fusarium head
blight. But it is a devastating disease that decimates the quality of
this crop, so that when and if the farmer gets a crop and hauls it to
market, the farmer discovers it is worth very, very little.
The cereal scientist, Bryan Steffeson, said, ``I have never faced
anything as tough as fusarium head blight. Make no mistake about it.
This is the worst plant disease epidemic that the United States has
faced with any major crop during this century.''
This is very unusual and devastating to the pocketbooks of family
farmers.
With respect to wheat, I just described the previous chart; with
respect to barley, the same plant scientist says, ``North Dakota's
barley industry is hanging by a thread, even though it is typically the
leader in feed malting barley products.''
As a result of crop disease and collapsed market prices, our farmers'
incomes in North Dakota dropped 98 percent in 1 year--a devastating
drop in income. And I think almost anyone can imagine if, in their
neighborhood, or on their block, or among their friends, they had a 98-
percent drop in income, they would understand this is very, very
difficult to live through. A lot of family farmers aren't able to
survive it. The result is they are forced off the farm and forced to
sell out.
This was in the New York Times accompanying a story on July 12.
``Across the northern tier, farmers' income drops.'' And it says we
have a problem with farm income dropping in Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. The point
of that is that this is a pervasive, difficult problem that requires an
urgent response.
The Fargo Forum in an editorial yesterday indicates that, ``The
crisis in farming is for real. The social and economic damage piling up
in farm country cannot be minimized. Politicians who believe the
revolutionary Freedom to Farm law is working should spend some time in
rural America, especially in the upper Midwest.''
This is a paper, incidentally, that has editorialized in favor of the
Freedom to Farm bill. They say that it needs some adjustments and
changes. You can't ignore that.
They say at the end of this editorial, ``The least Congress can do
now, while in the longer term enlighten lawmakers to revisit and revise
the Freedom to Farm, is to try to pass some type of supplemental
legislation that would respond to urgent needs for some payments in
farm country.''
A number of us, led by Senator Conrad, and joined by myself and
others, have worked on a program that would provide the opportunity for
some indemnity payments, which is just another way of saying those
farmers who have had their income washed away would be given some
short-term interim help with the passage of this amendment. The
amendment would provide up to $500 million for the Indemnity Payment
Program.

[[Page S8288]]

It is supported by President Clinton. We were meeting at the White
House yesterday with President Clinton. My colleague, Senator Conrad,
myself, and a number of others from farm country, received a letter
from President Clinton that describes in writing what he told us
personally yesterday during the meeting--that he supports the amendment
we are offering now, and it is part of a three-pronged approach that he
himself espouses: No. 1, a supplemental benefit program of the type we
have described, an indemnification program; No. 2, compensation for
farmers who have flooded lands; and, No. 3, extended authority for
emergency livestock needs.
Mr. President, I mentioned earlier--I want to say again--that this is
not a political or a partisan issue. Out in the country they don't
drive Democratic or Republican trucks. They don't pull Democratic or
Republican plows. They are only family farmers trying to make a living
in a very difficult set of circumstances. They are some of the hardest
working Americans. They get up early, work hard all day, and go to bed
late. They risk everything they have. Everything they have is on the
line--all of their hopes, all of their dreams--and all of their savings
are invested in a crop that might or might not grow. If it is grows, it
might or might not yield them an income that allows them to repay the
expenses they incurred to put in the crop.
That is the nature of family farming. I think family farmers have
always understood that risk and always accepted that risk. But they
have always hoped. And they have sometimes been the recipients as a
result of that hope that when times are tough, when the bottom falls
out, when prices collapse, when they are hit with devastating crop
disease, that somehow there would be a basic safety net to try to be
helpful to them to allow them to get over those price valleys; some
kind of a bridge to allow them to cross that difficult period.
If you are a very, very large corporation, you can cross that price
valley. Things get tough, you can tighten your belt, and you can
survive. But the thin financial nature of a family farm often cannot
cross that price valley. When prices collapse, or disease conspires,
then there must be some kind of a bridge, some kind of mechanism of
support that says, ``Let us step in and help.''
That is what the amendment offered by Senator Conrad, myself, and
others will do. It simply says, ``Let us step in and provide some help
to respond to a growing and urgent farm crisis.''
Mr. President, with this, I would yield the floor. I believe we are
close to having the amendment in order to send to the desk. When we do,
I believe that Senator Conrad, a couple of others, and I will make
brief additional comments. We would hope very much that our colleagues
will respond favorably to this.
We think it is thoughtful. It is supported by the President and it is
supported by the Secretary of Agriculture. Editorially it is supported
by newspapers that support the Freedom to Farm bill, because the
editorials, others, and family farmers recognize this need is urgent
and the response to it cannot be delayed.
Let me commend my colleague, Senator Conrad, with whom I am
privileged to work. We work on a lot of issues together but none more
important than the issue of trying to respond to and to help family
farmers survive during times of crisis and times of urgent need. His
leadership and efforts on this legislation are significant.
I am pleased to be a part of the effort today to offer this
amendment, and I hope for the favorable consideration of our
colleagues.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 3173

(Purpose: To provide funds for and improve the reserve inventories
program)

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan, who has been with
us every step of the way in developing this amendment, in offering it
to our colleagues and persuading others to support it, and in
convincing the White House that this is an emergency matter.
I am very pleased with the outcome of the meeting we had yesterday. I
think there is a real sense of urgency not only by the President but by
the Secretary of Agriculture and others in the administration who
recognize that in many parts of the country we are simply faced with a
collapse of income as a result of badly depressed prices, and in
addition, a loss of production because of natural disasters that have
taken many forms in many places--as I described earlier, monsoon
conditions in North Dakota and Minnesota and parts of South Dakota,
but, on the other hand, terrible drought in Oklahoma and Texas; and
then perversely in the eastern part of the United States, hurricane
activity that has had a devastating effect on North Carolina and
Virginia. And I was just talking to a Senator from Pennsylvania; they
have also been hard hit. So this amendment would move to provide
resources to provide assistance to those areas.
Now, some may say, gee, I thought we put crop insurance in place so
we didn't have to have this kind of program. And that is precisely
right. Unfortunately, what we have discovered is the Crop Insurance
Program we put in place does not work when you have multiple years of
disaster. And the reason for that is the formula. The formula in crop
insurance looks at your last 5 years of production. If you have had 3
to 5 years of disasters, whether it is drought, whether it is overly
wet conditions, whether it is a terrible disease outbreak as we faced
in North Dakota, or hurricanes as they have faced in the East, your
base for crop insurance is so badly depressed it does not provide the
risk management tool that all of us intended.
I was just talking to the Senator from Idaho, who is one of the most
knowledgeable members of the Agriculture Committee with respect to this
matter, and he was saying what we see is that when the base goes down,
crop insurance cannot provide the coverage we all intended.
We are not going to get crop insurance reform this year, as much as
many of us would like to do; that simply takes a longer effort. And so,
Mr. President, until crop insurance gets fixed, something has to be
there to allow farmers to survive. If we do not, we are going to have a
calamity of staggering proportions.
USDA tells us in North Dakota that we are going to face potentially
the loss of 30 percent of our farmers in 2 years--30 percent. That is a
disaster by any description.
So what we have tried to do is work in a way that is not subject to a
budget point of order, that does provide assistance to these farmers
all across the country.
We have now received a letter from the Executive Office of the
President, the Office of Management and Budget, which indicates that
this amendment would not be subject to a point of order, that this
would qualify for an emergency designation, and the President supports
an emergency designation for this legislation. We will submit that for
the Record when we have a chance to actually submit the language. It is
being typed now.
We have it. The final provision is here. We will send that to the
desk. We need to get copies distributed to our colleagues.
The Budget Committee of the Senate has informed us this would not be
subject to a budget point of order.
I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record the
letter from the Office of Management and Budget, the Executive Office
of the President, indicating that they, too, agree that this qualifies
for an emergency designation and would not be subject to a budget point
of order.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, July 16, 1998.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: This responds to your request for the
views of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on whether
your proposed amendment relating to farm payments under 7
U.S.C. 1427a qualifies for the emergency adjustment under the
Budget Enforcement Act (BEA).
Section 251(b)(2)(A) of the BEA provides that an adjustment
in the discretionary spending limits shall be made for
appropriations designated as an emergency by Congress and the
President. That section also

[[Page S8289]]

states that the designation is not available for
``appropriations to cover agricultural crop disaster
assistance.''
We have examined your proposed amendment, and we are of the
view that it qualifies as emergency relief under Section
251(b)(2)(A) and is not an appropriation to cover
agricultural crop disaster assistance. Your amendment would
provide funding for the reserve program established under 7
U.S.C. 1427a. That program is designed to establish a reserve
of certain crops through the price support program. The
purpose of purchasing the commodities is to hold a reserve
that then may be disposed of to relieve distress at a later
time. The purpose of the program is to establish a reserve of
crops for future use, not to make assistance available to the
producers from whom the crops are purchased. Thus, it is
OMB's view that the funding does not provide ``crop disaster
assistance'' within the meaning of Section 251(b)(2)(A), and
the adjustment provided by that section for emergencies may
thus be applied to the funding in your amendment.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Damus,
General Counsel.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are ready for any additional debate,
and we are ready to move, after people have had a chance to speak, to a
vote at a time that the chairman of the committee thinks is
appropriate.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think we are at a point now where we
can ask the question, What is the will of the Senate? Because that is
the question. We have an amendment here that proposes a new program of
spending based on an emergency of about one-half billion dollars. I
think that is the number. Five-hundred million is the total projected
cost of the bill, but it is based on an emergency that is declared in
this legislation to exist in agriculture. We understand the President
has agreed that there is an emergency, not specifically that this
amendment describes that emergency, but that a response should be made
by the Government to deal with this problem.
Now, I know that there are Senators who are wondering, well, what are
the criteria? How are farmers going to be declared eligible to
participate in payments under this program? There are questions that
are very legitimate and, frankly, this legislation does not tell us
much about that. It is leaving a lot of discretion in the hands of the
Secretary of Agriculture. That is very clear. And this amendment could
be subject to the criticism that it is too much, there is too much
discretion. I am confident the department would have to issue
regulations and describe some program payment benefit scheme that
farmers would have to be governed by in terms of applications and
eligibility.
So there are some legitimate questions that can be asked. I am
willing to listen to the advice of other Senators and be governed by
the will of the Senate on this issue. I do not want to reject this out
of hand and say that it is not a good amendment. I think it is based on
a legitimate interest in helping deal with very real problems that
exist in certain parts of the country, primarily in North Dakota, South
Dakota, Minnesota, where half the payments are projected to occur under
the amendment, but there are other States as well. We know that Texas,
Oklahoma, and Colorado would be eligible. We know that southern-tier
States, parts of States in the Southeast, North Carolina, in addition
to South Carolina; there are some parts of my State, I am told, that
would benefit from the legislation.
So it is time now in the consideration of this amendment for Senators
to take a look at the proposal and come to some consensus on what to do
about this. We can accept the amendment on a voice vote, the managers
could accept the amendment, if that is the will of the Senate, or if
some Senators want to have a record vote on the amendment, we could do
that. I had been told earlier that this amendment would probably be
subject to a budget point of order in that it would violate the Budget
Act. But because of changes the drafters, the authors of the amendment
have made within the language, I am advised that the Budget Committee
staff director has told us there is no violation of the Budget Act.
That could be confirmed by a statement from the chairman of the Budget
Committee, and I would like for him to tell us that formally before we
make a decision on whether a point of order would be made on the basis
of the Budget Act.
Those are my reactions to the proposal, and I will await other
Senators coming to the floor to let us have some suggestions and
guidance about how to proceed at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi, the
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, for the
gracious way he has allowed us to work through this. He has been very
patient, and we thank him very much for his patience. We also thank him
very much for his open-mindedness. I think he does recognize there are
real problems around the country. Unfortunately, we do not have the
perfect tools to deal with them. The Senator from Mississippi raises
questions that are absolutely legitimate questions: What kind of system
would be used to use these funds?
This is not a new program in the sense that this is replenishing a
program and an authority that the Secretary has had. This is a program
that the Secretary has utilized. And those funds are now depleted.

The way it was done in the past was to use actual commodities, but
one thing we have learned is, it is really much more efficient to use
money in that fund rather than commodities, because when we use
commodities, we find that about 25 percent of what is used is used up
in distribution costs, in handling charges, and the rest. So USDA, in
examining this, has said it would be much more taxpayer friendly,
really, to have money in this fund that is now depleted rather than to
have commodities.
We are using the same model we used for the Livestock Indemnity
Program last year; that is, to give the Secretary broad discretion,
because when you sit down and try to write the specifics here on the
floor with this relatively short period of time, we have discovered
there are a series of problems. One of them is, we would probably
become subject to a budget point of order. So we find doing it this
way, with the general authority of the Secretary that he already has,
which is recognized, but we restore the fund, we replenish the fund
that has been depleted so the Secretary has the ability to respond to
these various circumstances around the country.
It is not one set of events that is affecting us. We have one set of
events in North Dakota and Minnesota and South Dakota, and the Senator
is exactly right, we would get a significant portion of this. But other
parts of the country as well--in Texas and Oklahoma it is a drought; in
North Carolina, where they have been so badly hit, and Virginia, it is
hurricanes. In Pennsylvania, the Senator from Pennsylvania tells us, it
is a combination of factors. In Idaho, it is much the same thing that
has been happening in these northern-tier States; they have, in many
cases, overly wet conditions.
But combining it all, we have a natural disaster and we have price
collapse. What is happening is, we are left with dramatically reduced
farm income that is forcing people off the land. The question is, Do we
act? Do we do something? Do we provide the tools to respond? I think
the will of the Senate will be, as it has been in the past: Yes, we
should respond. We have a chance to do that.
I also will indicate, in the amendment I sent to the desk, the
original cosponsors are Senator Dorgan and Senator Cleland. I welcome
other Senators. I am very hopeful this is a bipartisan enterprise. I
have been talking to Republican Senators over the last several weeks
about this matter, and I very much hope they join in and we make this a
fully bipartisan effort. They certainly have contributed thoughts to
what we could do here.
So I hope, before we reach conclusion here, we have a healthy number
of Senators on both sides of the aisle who cosponsor this legislation,
that we join together and say, ``Yes, there are problems out there.
Let's address them. Let's provide some assistance.''
This does not mean we are voting on overturning agricultural policy.
We have differences there. We recognize those differences. This is one
case where we are rising above those differences to march together and
try to help those who clearly are in need.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S8290]]

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself,
Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Cleland, proposes an amendment numbered
3173.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 29, after line 21, add the following:

Reserve Inventories

For the reserve established under section 813 of the
Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C. 1427a), $500,000,000:
Provided, That the entire amount shall be available only to
the extent that the President submits to Congress an official
budget request for a specific dollar amount that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement for the purposes of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et
seq.): Provided further, That the entire amount of funds
necessary to carry out this paragraph is designated by
Congress as an emergency requirement under section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
On page 67, after line 23, add the following:

SEC. 7____. RESERVE INVENTORIES.

Section 813 of the Agricultural Act of 1970 (7 U.S.C.
1427a) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting
``of agricultural producers'' after ``distress'';
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``the Secretary or''
after ``President or''; and
(3) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking ``(h) There is hereby'' and inserting the
following:
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There are''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Use of funds for cash payments.--The Secretary may
use funds made available under this section to make, in a
manner consistent with this section, cash payments that don't
go for crop disasters, but for income loss to carry out the
purposes of this section.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Let me make two points that I think
Senator Conrad and I and others would want to make. One responds a bit
to some comments made earlier.
The potential benefits of this amendment would be available to people
in a range of areas of the country who have suffered, in one form or
another, substantial income loss and are going through an agricultural
crisis. That includes Texas, South Carolina--a whole range of areas of
the country. But I want to make it clear, this is not simply an
amendment that would target one or two or three States. Farmers in many
other parts of the country who face similar circumstances and a similar
crisis would be eligible.
Second, and I think most important, while there has been a lot of
discussion on the floor of the Senate about agricultural policy, I
think it is important to make clear, this amendment is not a substitute
for or a denial of the interest many of us have in some of the
arguments that have been offered and proposed in recent days by others
on the floor about the increased need for additional effort in trade.
Some of our colleagues have stood on the floor and talked about the
need for moving American grain overseas, for additional efforts in
trade, additional use of the Export Enhancement Program, and other
things. I support all of that.
I think we ought to be more aggressive with respect to Food for
Peace. I have mentioned that there are people starving around the
world: A million people to a million and a quarter people face
starvation in Sudan today. We can and should, in my judgment, with the
quantity of grain we have, substantially increase shipments under title
II and title III of Food for Peace.
We can and should be more aggressive with the use of the Export
Enhancement Program. We can and should be more aggressive with a range
of other programs. The Secretary of Agriculture, I would say, has been
very aggressive with the GSM program and others. But I would like our
country to meet competition anywhere around the Earth. If the European
Union wishes to deeply subsidize its grain and attempt to take markets
away from this country, we ought to go to those markets and meet them
and compete and win that competition. If that requires export subsidies
to meet what the Europeans are doing, then so be it; that is precisely
what we should do.
So, those who insist on a much more aggressive approach in
international trade will find no quarrel with me. I believe we should
have a more aggressive posture with respect to trade issues. That is
one, but only one, of the issues we need to address.
Another of the issues we need to address is the issue of emergency
response in times of crisis to farmers, particularly in some areas of
the country that have seen almost a total collapse of their income.
That is the purpose of the amendment we have sent to the desk.
I, too, listened carefully to the Senator from Mississippi. I think
he is an awfully good legislator. He is certainly fair. I hope we can
achieve some bipartisan support here in this Chamber on this kind of
legislation. I don't think there is any pride of authorship here
either. My expectation is that in the coming period we will be able to
discuss some of the specifics of this legislation and perhaps reach a
conclusion on it.
With that, I know my colleague from Montana is here, although he
apparently is not going to speak at this point. Let me yield the floor
to the Senator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, last night, after we had our last
recorded vote, there were two amendments which we discussed and
recommended to the Senate that we accept and they were accepted, one of
which was offered by the Senators from Florida. Senator Graham offered
an amendment, it was cosponsored by Senator Mack, and it dealt with
disaster problems that exist in Florida because of the recent wildfires
that we are all familiar with because we saw these vividly photographed
on television. For days and days, fires raged throughout the State of
Florida. As a result of that, the Senators are asking that emergency
funds be made available to compensate victims of that disaster who were
involved in agriculture. I invite the attention of the Senators to the
record of the discussion of that issue last night.
The proposal was to make available funds from the account that has
been described by the Senators from North Dakota. There is no
indication right now, from the Department of Agriculture, whether or
not the disaster fund that is discretionary with the Secretary has been
depleted to the extent that replenishment is necessary in order to
compensate the victims in Florida. What I said during the discussion of
the amendment involved an assurance that we would receive from the
Department of Agriculture and the President a supplemental request for
funds to replenish that discretionary disaster fund of the Secretary's,
so that appropriate disaster relief could be made available to
agriculture producers and others who are eligible for those funds. That
satisfied the Senators from Florida, and, on that basis, the amendment
was accepted by the Senate.
I am prepared to make the same suggestion to the Senate on this
amendment. There is no question that there are differences, however--
one of which is that farm producers would have to show that, out of 3
of the last 5 years, there had been declarations declaring disasters,
either by the Secretary of Agriculture or the President, in the areas
where eligibility would be considered to have been established.
At least that is what I understand the amendment provides.
The point is this: The year is not over. This fiscal year that we are
appropriating money for right now begins on October 1. We don't know
what the full needs for agriculture producers around the country will
be by the time we get to the beginning of the fiscal year.
I am suggesting that it may be appropriate to take this proposal to
conference with the House and await the receipt from the President or
the Secretary of Agriculture of specific requests for supplemental
funds beyond that requested in the budget that has already been
submitted by the administration for next year that they foresee will be
needed to replenish the Disaster Assistance Discretionary Fund of the
Secretary to compensate disaster victims for their losses.
There are other programs available to provide benefits, Senators
realize. There are crop insurance programs, there are other assistance
programs that are authorized in the 1996 farm bill.
As I understand it, this does not create a new disaster assistance
program,

[[Page S8291]]

and because it doesn't, it is not subject to a budget point of order.
I am mentioning that idea that I have as an alternative way of
considering this and would like to have the benefit of other Senators'
thoughts on it, particularly those who chair the legislative committees
on the budget and on agriculture legislation. It may be we can work out
some way to take this amendment to conference. If that is not possible,
then the question will be whether we move to table the amendment and
bring this issue up later as a freestanding bill--that is a
possibility. This legislative session doesn't end with the passage of
this agriculture appropriations bill. There may be other opportunities
to assess the disaster situation around the country.
I thought since the similarity between the amendment offered by the
Senator from Florida last night which was accepted by the Senator, and
the presentation of the amendment which we have heard now from the
Senators from North Dakota were so similar, that it presented us with
the same alternative that we exercised last night.
Let me read what I said on the floor of the Senate last night:

. . .the Department of Agriculture advises us that they
cannot at this time verify whether available disaster money
has been depleted. I understand this has been a devastating
disaster for Florida and that other areas of the country have
also been affected by various disasters. We will work with
the administration and the House conferees to address the
needs of the areas affected by these recent disasters and to
determine whether these needs are being met through available
funds.
It is my hope that the Department of Agriculture and the
Office of Management and Budget are assessing the need for
additional funding to meet the needs resulting from these
most recent disasters and that the President will soon submit
to the Congress requests for supplemental funds which are
determined to be required.

I am prepared to suggest to the Senate that on that basis, we take
this amendment to conference, but I will not make that suggestion
without further discussing my idea with the appropriate legislative
committee chairmen.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from
Mississippi. I understand he wants to hear from other Senators. It
seems to me that one of the suggestions he made makes a lot of sense.
Having the opportunity to go to conference with a provision similar to
this in the piece of legislation that comes from the Senate will put us
in the position of sending a message to those areas that have been
hardest hit, a number of areas of the country ranging from the
Southeast, to the South, to the North, that we understand this is, in
fact, a crisis; that we are responding as we did in the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution passed earlier this week without a dissenting vote,
that the ag crisis is something that we are willing to address.
I accept the point made by Senator Cochran that there may well, in
the coming days or weeks, be a need to change the response. Perhaps the
response will need to be more aggressive. Perhaps the response may need
to be characterized differently. But it seems to me appropriate to go
to conference with a provision of this type in the legislation, because
it is, I think, telling the family farmers in this land that this
Senate does care, does want to respond, and understands that there is a
crisis in certain parts of the country.
Again, I certainly respect the interest of the Senator from
Mississippi wanting to gauge the reaction of a number of Senators on
this subject, but I hope when the day is out and this amendment is
disposed of that it will be disposed of in a way--I guess ``disposed''
of is the wrong word--I hope that it is resolved in a way that reaches
one of the suggestions perhaps offered by the Senator from Mississippi
that we can include it in this legislation.
I must say that I have watched the Senator from Mississippi for some
days on the floor. I have always felt he has the patience of Job. He is
one of the most gracious and considerate Members of the Senate. I know
this is a trying time. I am on the Appropriations Committee with
Senator Cochran, and I am also someone who will sit here as a ranking
member on one of the subcommittees. I know it is a trying time to bring
a bill to the floor of the Senate and discover that a lot of folks want
to address this bill with peculiar amendments on a range of issues.
I know he understands, because of the vote earlier in the week, that
we face very unusual and, in fact, very difficult times in some parts
of the country. The crisis we have in our State is unparalleled. I
can't think of a time when we have suffered a 98-percent loss in net
farm income. It has been devastating. The Senator from Mississippi
understands that is what has occasioned amendments to be offered to
this bill.
I must say, again, he has enormous patience. Even in exhibiting that
patience, he has a graciousness and dignity that all of us appreciate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Baucus pertaining to the introduction of the bill
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in further discussions with the Senators
from North Dakota and others, I am prepared to recommended that we
accept the amendment offered by the Senators from North Dakota and take
the issue to conference under the same understanding that I read into
the Record last night when I accepted, and the Senate agreed to, the
amendment offered by the Senators from Florida, Mr. Graham, and Mr.
Mack, who was a cosponsor of that amendment.
The statement is as follows:

The Department of Agriculture advises us that they cannot
at this time verify whether available disaster money has been
depleted. I understand this has been a devastating disaster
for Florida and that other areas of the country have also
been affected by various disasters. We will work with the
administration and the House conferees to address the needs
of the areas affected by these recent disasters and to
determine whether these needs are being met through
available funds. It is my hope that the Department of
Agriculture and the Office of Management and Budget are
assessing the need for additional funding to meet the
needs resulting from these most recent disasters, and that
the President will soon submit to the Congress requests
for supplemental funds, which are determined to be
required.

It is also my understanding that the proposal in this amendment is a
new program. I had suggested that it was a description of an existing
discretionary program of the Department of Agriculture, and that I had
misread or misunderstood the proposal offered by the Senators.
Nonetheless, I am prepared, under the same understanding, to
recommend to the Senate that we accept this amendment. It has been, in
this amendment, described as an emergency, which would require an
emergency finding not only by Congress, but by the President, in order
to avoid having an offset of the funds that are contemplated to be
spent under the amendment. But because it does have the emergency
declaration, it does not require an offset, and I am advised by the
chairman of the Budget Committee that it is not subject to a budget
point of order. On that basis, I recommend that the Senate approve it.
I understand from my good friend from Arkansas that he has no objection
to this recommendation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I
have sent to the desk be printed in the Record. It is from farm
organizations endorsing this amendment.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

July 16, 1998.
Hon. Kent Conrad,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Conrad: On behalf of the farmers and ranchers
of our organizations, we strongly support your amendment to
the agriculture appropriations bill which would

[[Page S8292]]

provide supplemental assistance to those producers who have
suffered multiple years of crop losses.
Your amendment is tailored to provide urgently needed
assistance to those farmers who have purchased crop
insurance, but are unable to obtain adequate coverage, due to
multiple years of disaster.
The amendment would help over 45,000 producers. While there
are regions in every state that would be eligible, it is
especially important for Oklahoma, Texas, North Carolina,
Virginia, Mississippi, western Pennsylvania, Idaho and the
Upper Plains states.
The supplemental assistance will not only help the
individual producers, but will also provide a critical boost
to the rural communities in which they reside, which are
suffering from the severe losses.
Our organizations share a strong commitment to
strengthening the crop insurance program to allow producers
to stay in business, even in times of disaster. This
amendment will go a long way toward improving coverage for
those producers who have purchased crop insurance.
Sincerely,
American Soybean Association.
National Farmers Organization.
National Farmers Union.
National Sunflower Association.
North Dakota Grain Growers Association.
United States Canola Association.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3173) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senator from Idaho like to be
included as an original cosponsor?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Idaho, Mr. Craig, be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for
his help with this amendment, and the many others who participated in
these deliberations. I especially thank my colleague, Senator Dorgan,
and the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, who helped us with this
amendment.
I think we are moving in the right direction. Obviously, we will have
additional opportunities to fashion a final package, as we all
understand this will have to go to conference. Again, I thank, very
much, the chairman and ranking member and all those who helped.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleagues from North
Dakota for the sincere effort they have made and the willingness of the
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to review this
and help them shape it and accept it.
Certainly, as we get to conference, there is going to be every effort
made by this Senator and others to provide what can be provided, and to
resolve, as best we can, this impending farm crisis. We clearly
understand the problem, the growing problem, and we know that certain
actions here can be very, very helpful. I am pleased to be a
participant in this, to be supportive of it. I am sure we will be
looking at other packages that we will want to bring together in a
total effort to help agriculture during this time.
Let me say in my closing comments that our actions here on the floor
have consequences. Every Senator who is on the floor now joined with us
were active participants last Thursday when the Senate of the United
States voted 98-0 to drop the sanctions against Pakistan and India. The
Presiding Officer at this moment, the Senator from Kansas, led that
dramatic effort to show that this country would stand united and not
use food as a tool of foreign policy.
Just moments ago the Senator from Kansas and I had calls from the
Ambassador of Pakistan. They have tendered an offer now of over a 100-
million-ton purchase from the United States. It is my understanding
that they will make an effort at a nearly 300,000-tons purchase within
the next several months. That is significant, and those tonnages will
be purchased from the United States.
Our actions here have consequences. If we want to be players in the
world market, with and for our producers, we cannot throw up the
artificial barrier of politics. We tore that down last Thursday in this
instance, and the nations involved are responding.
I thank my colleagues.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are a number of issues we find
strong agreement on today on the agricultural matters. And the matter
that was just spoken about by the Senator from Idaho regarding
sanctions is one in which I have very strong agreement with him, and
also with the Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts of Kansas. All of us
agree that it doesn't make any sense at all to use food as a tool of
foreign policy and to tell farmers to pay the costs of sanctions, and
so on. So I am very pleased that we were able, on a bipartisan basis,
to work together to resolve that issue. I think we have done that in an
effective way.
I am also pleased that the amendment which we have just offered and
was accepted and cosponsored by the Senator from Idaho. We have worked
with the Senator from Idaho and others, including the Senator from
Kansas, Senator Roberts, in discussions on a wide range of income
issues dealing with family farmers. The reason I sought recognition is
just to make one final point; that is, this amendment now becomes part
of the agricultural appropriations bill. It then goes from the Senate
to a conference with House of Representatives. That is likely, between
now and sometime in September, as this agricultural crisis continues to
emerge, to occur in a way that may require some changes and some
adjustments. We all understand that.
But I think this is an enormously important and a helpful first step
to say to family farmers who are struggling that we recognize that this
is, indeed, a crisis and we want to respond to that crisis.
I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his leadership, and the
Senator from Arkansas for his leadership as well, and I thank my
colleague, Senator Conrad, who is as determined and effective and tough
a legislator as there is to work with. I am pleased to have joined him
in working on this amendment as well.
I think this is an important step, and it will be viewed as good
news--not necessarily the final answer, but good news by family
farmers, that on a bipartisan basis the Congress recognizes a crisis
and is prepared to respond effectively to it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Daschle, Senator Harkin, Senator Baucus, Senator Hollings, and Senator
Wellstone all be added as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also thank my colleague who is in the
Chair, Senator Roberts, for his good advice to us as we proceeded with
this effort. I want to tell him that we look forward to working with
him as we try to craft a bipartisan, long-term solution to the problems
that we face. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Montana, Mr. Burns, be added as a cosponsor to the Conrad
amendment that was previously offered and agreed to by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are now moving toward the point where
we are wrapping up the consideration of amendments on the agriculture
appropriations bill. A number of Senators have advised the managers
that they do not intend to offer amendments that they had originally
proposed to the bill. We are encouraged by that, and with some effort I
think the Senate can complete action on this bill very soon. We are
awaiting the arrival in the Chamber of Senators who have suggested that
they will offer amendments. We encourage them to come to

[[Page S8293]]

the floor, offer those amendments, and let's debate them. If we can
agree to them, we will recommend that to the Senate. We appreciate very
much the cooperation and assistance of all Senators who have been
helpful to us in this effort.

1998 LOUISIANA DROUGHT AND CROP DISASTER

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I call to the Senate's attention the
serious and significant drought which has occurred in Louisiana this
year. The combination of a prolonged lack of rainfall and persistent
high temperatures have resulted in a natural disaster of historic
proportions. For those affected, damages have been hard-hitting.
As we debate the 1999 agricultural appropriations bill and amendments
to it which respond to severe agricultural distress throughout the
nation this year, caused by weather-related damages and low commodity
prices, I urge my colleagues to keep in mind the situation in
Louisiana.
On June 18 of this year, Governor M.J. ``Mike'' Foster and
Commissioner of Agriculture and Forestry Bob Odom wrote to Agriculture
Secretary Dan Glickman about the drought in Louisiana.
Though adequate production records were not yet available at the time
of their letter, Governor Foster and Commissioner Odom told Secretary
Glickman substantial losses were expected in the state and that they
expected to be requesting a disaster declaration as soon as adequate
production information could be obtained.
Various row crops and pine and hardwood seedlings have been affected
in Louisiana by the drought, they said. Cattle have been affected
because of severe hay and pasture shortages. Poultry losses also have
occurred due to the high temperatures.
Illustrative of the drought's historic character, they pointed out
that records have been set for the least amount of rainfall received in
the month of May, with rainfall records going back more than 100 years.
Though Congressionally-authorized programs are in place at USDA to
respond to disasters, I urge the Senate to be prepared to respond
further and promptly as conditions and impacts would worsen.
Mr. President, we know that production disruptions brought about by
the drought will cause economic disruptions for producers. In addition,
the communities in which our producers live also will be affected. It
is for these reasons that I urge close attention to crop disasters and
low prices and a readiness to act as warranted.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, earlier today I voted for Senator
Grassley's Sense of the Senate amendment that urges prompt action on a
number of trade, tax, and regulatory issues in order to help the
American farm community. I think our farmers are experiencing serious
problems, and I believe that prompt action on many of the initiatives
contained in the Grassley amendment will help expand U.S. agricultural
export markets and improve farm profits.
The amendment Senator Grassley put before the Senate recommended that
the Senate act on S. 2078, the Farm Ranch Risk Management Act, which I
have cosponsored. It urges action to provide full funding for the
International Monetary Fund; I believe action to increase the capital
of the IMF is essential to address the economic crisis in Asia and the
current situation in Russia, both of which have enormous impacts on
U.S. agriculture. It urges Congressional approval legislation to
continue normal trading relations with China, which I also support. It
calls for estate tax reform, reduced regulations on farmers, and use of
the Commodity Credit Corporation and Export Enhancement Program at the
Department of Agriculture, all of which are worthy of prompt attention
by the Senate.
Notwithstanding my support for the general objective of Senator
Grassley's amendment, however, I do have one major reservation
concerning his amendment, and that has to do with fast-track trade
negotiating authority.
Senator Grassley's amendment urges providing the President with new
fast-track negotiating authority. I oppose giving the President that
authority at this time, for both practical and philosophical reasons.
As a practical matter, fast-track, and any agreements it might
ultimately lead to, will only provide benefits to American agriculture
in the distant future, not in the near term. In fact, the only possible
trade agreement on the horizon is with Chile, and that agreement, even
if it were put into place tomorrow, would be unlikely to have any
significant impact on the economic health of American agriculture.
Moreover, granting the President fast-track authority is not
currently warranted because of the total lack of consensus on American
trade policy for the future. Large parts of the rest of the world
cannot discern any consistent set of underlying principles governing
U.S. trade policy decisions. Congress and the Administration have not
come to an agreement on a trade policy framework, and in the absence of
that framework, decisions are all too often made on an ad hoc basis.
Granting the President fast-track authority requires the Congress to
delegate much of the trade authority given the legislative branch by
our Constitution to the President. It is no less a delegation of
Congressional authority than the line-item veto. Fast track is
therefore an issue of the utmost importance institutionally and
Constitutionally to the Congress. In the absence of real consensus on
trade policy within both the executive branch and the Congress, I
cannot and do not support this kind of diminution of Congressional
authority over trade.
My support for the general objectives of the Grassley amendment does
not represent any change in my view of the fast-track issue. In the
absence of a consensus on a new trade policy architecture that includes
not only the Congress and the President, but also American agriculture,
labor, the business community, and the American people generally, I
oppose providing the President with new fast-track negotiating
authority.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted for the Grassley sense of the
Senate amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill because I
support nine of its ten provisions.
I do not support the provision stating that we should enact the bill
S. 1269, which reauthorizes fast-track trading authority for the
President.
It is premature and disruptive to endorse fast-track legislation now,
before resolving questions about its effect on jobs and the
environment. These are very controversial and complicated problems, and
so far we have not figured out how to deal with them.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire
is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in
morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________