Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Might I ask my colleague to yield me some time so I might pursue this?

Mr. CONRAD. I think, without question, my own view is that, obviously, this material is going to have to be moved at some point. But, on the other hand, perhaps the technology will be developed that would allow you to deal with this material at those locations and not have to be transporting it to a single site in one place in the country, where you are vulnerable. It would seem that it would be easy for a terrorist to look at the map and say, ``Here are the sites it is coming from, and here is the one place on the map it is going to.'' You could draw a series of sequential rings and, with a high degree of confidence, know this material is going to pass through there, and you are, in that way, highly vulnerable to a terrorist threat.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I can understand, with respect to a terrorist threat, that if you had it at one site, it is easier to guard and secure than at 81 sites. What really raises questions, at least in my mind, is when this material is in transit, because now you are not talking about 81 sites, you are talking about an infinite number of places where you are vulnerable to some kind of terrorist threat. So, to me, it is not a question of 81 sites versus 1 site, it is a question of being in transit from 81 sites to 1 known place. If I were trying to put myself in the position of a terrorist, and I knew that all this material has to go through a series of locations to arrive at one destination, that makes it very vulnerable to a terrorist attack. So the question I really have is, aren't you most vulnerable when this material is in transit?

Mr. CONRAD. A couple of minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. I have been increasingly concerned about the notion of the terrorist threat, and I am very interested in the answer of the Senator from Alaska. It strikes this Senator, when you are talking about 100 different locations in the shipment of nuclear fuel from around the country to a single spot, that the risk of a terrorist threat increases dramatically; I just ask the Senator from Alaska, in talking to security people--in fact, I talked to Secret Service people about when the President is most vulnerable, and they told me they believe the President or anybody that they are guarding is most vulnerable when they are in transit. In fact, they feel they are most vulnerable when they are getting in or out of the vehicle. I was thinking how that relates to the circumstances we face here. We saw that with President Reagan and the assassination attempt when he was getting into a vehicle. Rabin was assassinated when he was getting into a limousine, because you know where a person is, you know where they will be, that is when they are most vulnerable. It strikes me that the same thing may be the case with respect to the transporting of these materials, and I am interested in the reaction of the Senator from Alaska to that.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. I would like to conclude with this question. My understanding is that those are accident scenarios. What concerns this Senator is a terrorist scenario when terrorists launch an attack on these materials when they are in transit and most vulnerable. I must say that I think it is something that we have to be concerned about.

Mr. CONRAD. Let me ask my colleague.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I just go back to this question. It does strike me, given the rise of terrorist activity not only in this country but around the world, that when you put in motion from 80 different sites around the country, from 41 States, thousands of these casks headed for one location, that if you were a terrorist organization--it would take very little calculation to figure out where this is most vulnerable--you would have the potential here for a terrorist organization when this stuff is most vulnerable, when it is in motion, when it is in transit, to attack either a train or a truck and get possession of this material and thereby be able to threaten dozens of cities in America. I must say, when I have talked to security people--again, I talked to a person who was in the Secret Service--with respect to when they think something that they are guarding is most vulnerable, they said without question it is when it is in transit, when it is on the move. That is when it is the most vulnerable.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. He makes a very good point. Unfortunately, earlier this year the Surface Transportation Board looked at the budget and the current fee schedule, and somehow believed the agency could become self-sufficient by just raising fees. Unfortunately, this proposed fee schedule did not recognize that agricultural shippers, with legitimate complaints that they need to get adjudicated, could be completely left out of the process because of the steep fees which were being proposed. Nobody would be coming before the Surface Transportation Board, or virtually no one, because who could afford, just to have a complaint adjudicated, to pay $23,000, much less $233,000, or to deal with the question of construction of connecting rail lines, $41,000? I mean, these are not reasonable. Hopefully, this amendment will pass and there will be no possibility of these particular fee increases taking place. I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for offering this amendment with the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon. I am pleased to join them in this effort. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator asks a very good question. I think we could be quite assured that virtually no one would file, probably no one would file. I mean, who is going to pony up $23,000 for an unlawful railroad action case? Who could afford to pay, in the case of a formal rate complaint alleging unlawful rates under practices by rail carriers, an increase from $1,000 to--it makes me laugh every time I say it--an increase from $1,000 to $233,000? The cost for seeking a regulatory exemption to construct connecting rail lines would have been increased from the current $3,000 to $41,700. I am glad this amendment is being offered. Hopefully, it will send a message. I do commend the Appropriations Committee for providing some funding for the Surface Transportation Board. That is an important provision in this transportation appropriations bill. The Dorgan amendment simply ensures that there is no possibility the Surface Transportation Board will even consider user fees on the scale of those which were discussed earlier this year.

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon. This amendment addresses a very serious concern that was first raised earlier this year when a fee schedule was proposed by the Surface Transportation Board. These fees that were announced earlier this year by that agency indicate that sometimes people completely take leave of their senses here in Washington when they have responsibility over an administrative function. If there was ever an example of an agency going off a cliff with respect to a proposal, these fees by the Surface Transportation Board are a perfect example. Under the proposed fee schedule from earlier this year, the minimum filing fee charged rail users complaining of unlawful railroad actions would have been increased from the current $1,000 to $23,000. Let's think about a small elevator in my home State of North Dakota. They have a grievance. Just to be able to file, they would have been expected to come up with $23,000. Where is the rationale for that? If you are going to ask people to pony up $23,000 just to file a complaint, there are not going be many complaints filed. That is for sure. The unfortunate thing about this is people do not have an alternative. If they have not gone through the administrative process, they cannot go to the courts. And to go through the administrative process, they are told you have to come up with a $23,000 filing fee. Let me just go through some of the other filing fees that the Surface Transportation Board proposed earlier this year. The fee for filing a formal rate complaint under the so-called stand-alone cost methodology, guidelines alleging unlawful rate practices by rail carriers, would have been increased from the current $1,000 to $233,000.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to make a few remarks regarding the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies programs, which the Senate passed nearly unanimously yesterday. This appropriations bill is arguably the most important for my State of North Dakota. Agriculture is my State's No. 1 industry, accounting for over one third of our annual economic activity. This bill provides important funding for many USDA activities important to my State, including valuable research, rural development, and, of course, commodity programs. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for the excellent work they have performed putting this bill together. Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers have an extremely difficult task balancing the needs of many important programs funded by this bill with the very difficult budget situation we are facing as we strive to balance the budget. I know the committee received a great number of requests to provide funding for programs and activities that are important to the agricultural sector of our economy, and I realize they could not possibly fund every program or activity at the levels requested. I do want to express my appreciation for the support the committee has provided for the programs in this bill, especially in light of their overall allocation. I also want to express my appreciation for the help of the staff of the Appropriations Committee, Becky Davies, Hunt Shipman, Galen Fountain, and Jimmie Reynolds, for their excellent work on behalf of the chairman and ranking member. Mr. President, at this point I would like to comment briefly on two important programs, and express my desire that the House-Senate conference committee will support the programs at the funding level provided in the Senate bill. First, I want to express my strong support for the funding provided in the Senate version of this bill for the State mediation grants program within the Department of Agriculture. The Senate Appropriations Committee has provided $2 million for this important program, and I commend subcommittee Chairman Cochran and Senator Bumpers for including funding for this program. Regretfully, the House of Representatives did not provide any funding for the State mediation grants program. It is my hope that Senate and House conferees will realize the benefits of this program and fund the State mediation grants program at $2 million. The State mediation program was created in response to the agricultural crisis of the late 1980's, and the program continues to be valuable to farmers and ranchers today. Mediation programs enable farmers and ranchers to meet with their creditors or the local Farmers Home Administration office in a confidential atmosphere which promoted civil discussion, mutual understanding, and it most cases, a fair settlement. The scope of the State mediation grants program was expanded when the United States Department of Agriculture's [USDA] Reorganization Act of 1994 became law. Now, farmers and ranchers in States which have certified State mediation programs may choose mediation in a variety of disputes with USDA, such as conservation compliance, wetland determinations, and grazing rights. The demand for this mediation program continues to exist. Nineteen States have certified State mediation programs, and USDA is working with more States to establish certified programs. Mediation is a proven method of sensible and economical dispute resolution. In producers' disputes with USDA, mediators provide the voice of reason and help all parties take a realistic approach to the administration of Federal programs and the requirements of compliance. A group of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, joined me in a letter to Chairman Cochran earlier this year, requesting full funding for the State mediation grants program. It is my hope that Senate and House conferees will realize the benefits of this program and fund the State mediation grants program at the Senate-passed level of $2 million. Mr. President, I also want to indicate my support for the funding provided in the Senate version of this appropriations bill for the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization [AARC] Corporation, and express my hope that the conferees on this legislation will be able to fund AARC at the Senate-passed level. This level of funding is justified by the major opportunities for developing markets for alternative agricultural products, and by evidence that the AARC program is providing the necessary bridge from private sector research to commercialization for these products. AARC is a venture capital fund designed to boost farm income by commercializing new uses for agricultural products. Recipients of AARC funds repay AARC's investment, plus a risk charge. AARC's system is revolutionary because it provides actual business financing and hands- on business and technical assistance, as well as competitive research grants and links with the public and private sectors. In my view, AARC has only begun to tap the potential for commercializing new products in the domestic market. AARC promotes new industrial uses of our farmers' commodities like fiber board from wheat straw, windshield wiper fluid from ethanol, cat litter from waste peanut hulls, and many others. Finding new uses for our commodities and promoting value-added enterprises in our rural communities are important ways AARC can help promote more jobs, higher incomes, and fresh opportunities in rural America. In AARC's first 3 years in operation, the Center invested $22.3 million in 54 projects in 28 states, matched by more than $75 million from private partners--a 3 to 1 match. It is my hope that conferees will realize the benefits of the AARC Corporation, and provide funding at the Senate-passed level of $10 million.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. My colleagues are aware that I serve on both the Senate Budget and Agriculture Committees, and that I have long been concerned about efficiency in Government. One effective method of reducing Government administrative expenses is writing regulations only when interpretive guidelines are necessary. In the case of the Grants to Broadcasting Systems Program, the statute, as amended, clearly speaks for itself, and the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon clarifying the definition of statewide does not change the program substantively. Finally, I would like to associate myself with the statement by the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that there should be no reason why eligibility for this program could not be determined in the application process.

Mr. CONRAD. As the original sponsor of the provision that authorized the program in the Rural Development Partnership Act of 1989, I commend the Senator from Oregon in his efforts to not only further define the statute, but also to clarify the effective date of eligibility for applicants for fiscal year 1996 funding. It is my understanding that the definitional clarification offered by the Senator to the 1996 farm bill will not significantly increase the number of eligible applicants for the program. In that regard, I am providing for the Record a letter from America's Public Television Stations [APTS] which provides a list of those public television systems that, given the amended statutory criteria, would be eligible for the program. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senators for their support. grants to broadcasting systems

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I support the effort of my colleague from Montana, Senator Burns. This is not any of our preferred solutions to the problem faced by our barley producers. Very frankly, the barley farmers have been left short. They were told very clearly last year that if the new farm bill passed, they would get 46 cents a bushel. Somebody made a mistake. It is still not clear to me who did or precisely how they did, but the fact is, a mistake was made. Instead of getting 46 cents, barley producers are going to get 32 cents, 30 percent less. Very clearly, farmers were told 46 cents. They were told the prices and amounts that were going to be paid were estimates, no question about that. But they were told, and told repeatedly, that the amounts that they would actually receive would be close to those estimates. I was in dozens of meetings where they were told it would be close to those estimates; maybe a few cents difference. And, indeed, if you look at corn, they were told it was going to be 27 cents. It turned out to be 24 cents. On wheat, they were told it was going to be 92 cents. It turned out to be 87 cents. Everybody understood those differences. But when it comes to barley, they were told 46 cents, and it turned out to be 32 cents. Not a 5-percent difference, not a 10-percent difference, a 30-percent difference. Is there any wonder that barley producers across the country are wondering, is there anything straight that comes out of Washington? They were told clearly and directly that if they signed up to this farm bill that 46 cents is what they could expect to receive. That is not what they are getting, that is not what they are receiving, and it is not right. There ought to be an adjustment. Many of us prefer we make this adjustment up front, clearly, and we take it out of the EEP program, or we take it out of some other approach, some other way of paying for it, but that it be paid for. In discussing it with our colleagues, it was clear that at this stage, that was not going to be acceptable. So the Senator from Montana has come up with an approach to bring money from later years up front to reduce this differential on the hope and the expectation that perhaps as we go through the process, we can get this problem solved in a more appropriate way. I think on that basis this approach deserves support, because, hopefully, in the conference committee, we can get a better resolution. Again, I think it is just a fundamental question of whether or not we treat our barley producers in this country in a fair way. I salute my colleague from Montana for his efforts. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for one moment so I might thank the chairman and the ranking member for their patience as we worked to resolve this matter? We very much appreciate your assistance.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senators be willing to engage in a colloquy regarding the Rural Telemedicine and Distance Learning Services Grant Program at this time?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a matter of some importance to the Northern Great Plains and my State of North Dakota with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee. I note their presence on the floor, and ask if they would be willing to engage in a colloquy at this time.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senators for their support and for their comments.

Mr. CONRAD. First, let me thank the chairman and ranking member for putting together this important piece of legislation. They have an extremely difficult task balancing many important programs funded in this bill in the context of a very difficult funding situation. I know the committee receives many requests each year for worthwhile projects, and of course budget restraints make it impossible to fund all those projects. One of the projects I believe the Senators considered this year was the development of a Northern Plains policy research center. As the Senators know, research models currently available provide important information to farmers and others in rural America regarding issues that affect rural economies. Unfortunately, the data collected through current research models, as valuable as it is, does not capture the special characteristics of Northern Great Plains agriculture.

Mr. CONRAD. Would the chairman and ranking member be willing to indicate whether they would support the USDA using funds provided in this bill for markets, trade, and policy research under the Competitive Grants Program to develop such a center?