Herb Kohl

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. The amendment will not create new dairy compacts in the Southeast or open up the current Northeast Compact to any new members. None of those items is contained in this amendment. The amendment will not extend the life of the Northeast Dairy Compact. USDA has made it clear that the compact will expire on October 1, whether this amendment passes or not. So, then, why are we even considering this amendment? I can only imagine it is because the proponents of the amendment are betting that they will get some of the things they promised--most notably, an extension of the Northeast Dairy Compact--in conference. I think that is a cynical and an irresponsible bet, especially by Senators who are not even on the conference committee. Under an uncertain and unregulated system, dairy farmers across the country stand to lose $194 million a year. Furthermore, this very week dairy farmers all across America are voting on what sort of milk market system they want. So should we not wait to see what farmers have to say before we bet their farms on the Jeffords amendment? The Jeffords amendment is not 1-A. It is not a dairy compact. It is a desperate last attempt to carve a dairy cartel for the Northeast out of the current pricing system. Unfortunately, the authors of the amendment used an ax rather than a knife, and the result will be a milk market order system that will be a bloody mess. The proponents of this amendment have accused us of describing their amendment in a way that makes it more terrifying than the ``Blair Witch Project.'' They are correct. Their amendment is more terrifying. That is because the chaos it would create would not be a fiction; it would be real. The Jeffords amendment is opposed by the 300,000 farmers of the National Farmers Union and the 300,000 taxpayers of the National Taxpayers Union. I urge my colleagues to join the taxpayers and the farmers of your States and oppose cloture on the Jeffords amendment.

Mr. KOHL. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. KOHL. I yield Senator Grams up to 4 minutes.

Mr. KOHL. Before I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, I will quote from the National Farmers Union letter: . . . with the passage of the Jeffords amendment, dairy farmers across the nation could be left without any federal marketing order that could risk destroying the remnants of the dairy safety net. The National Farmers Union is not supportive of the Jeffords amendment. It is categorically clear. I yield up to 3 minutes to Senator Wellstone.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining, please?

Mr. KOHL. And the other side?

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, before I close, I want to make it known that some other Senators, including Senators Lugar and Grassley, wanted to be down on the floor to speak in favor of this side, but they could not get here. I simply want to say to my colleagues, if we invoke cloture on this bill now, then we will kill the bill. But if we pass the Jeffords amendment, I believe we will kill the dairy industry. I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture.

Mr. KOHL. I yield to Senator Craig.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I had hoped that the last vote had ended the debate on dairy compacts. But if my colleagues wish to eulogize these cartels, I am happy to join them. First, I want to explain why I care so much about this issue. Wisconsin is the dairy state. We have 22,000 farms, and almost all of them family-owned businesses. We have thousands more residents who make their living buying and selling dairy products, farm equipment, barns, feed, even the early morning coffee served to the farmers who come to town straight from their milking barns each morning. Dairy compacts do not only strike at an industry in my state. They strike at the heart and soul of Wisconsin, at our way of life. The Northeast dairy compact legislatively raises the price of class I milk above the prevailing federal milk marketing order price for farmers in the States lucky enough to be in the compact region. By a complicated formula, all dairy farmers in the region--regardless of what class milk they produce or for what use--receive some extra subsidy from the region's milk processors based on their overall milk production. Of course, this is a classic anti-market incentive for these farmers to produce more milk than the region needs or demands. Besides having a very real cost to the Treasury, the overproduction of all sorts of milk in the compact region causes prices to fall in non-compact states for milk used to produce cheese, butter, milk powder and other products likely to be exported out of State. If the Northeast dairy compact becomes permanent, the oversupply problem will grow exponentially as Northeast farmers make the capital investments warranted by their permanent guarantee of an artificially high price for all of their milk. If compacts spread to other regions of the country, non-compact regions--the fewer and fewer farmers operating in a free market--will be squeezed even more by even more overproduction. The cost to the Treasury would be unjustifiable. The cost to efficient family farms in the Midwest would be unbearable. This is more than bad economic policy. The regional favoritsm it embodies is downright un-American. What other industry sees prices set based soley on what region of the country the producer produces? What other industry faces trade barriers erected within the United States? You may support dairy compacts today based on the hope your State might join a dairy compact soon or based on indifference to a dairy industry problem that doesn't have much to do with your State. But remember your support tomorrow when your neighboring state or region throws up a wall to keep you from selling fruit or vegetables or grain or beef or cars or computers in their State. That is no way to run a country. That is no policy for States that are allegedly united into one country. Mr. President, I hope we can put this issue to rest for the year and move forward with this important agricultural appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, there is an objection to the Roberts' cross- compliance with certain conservation requirements.

Mr. KOHL. Then we have no objection.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today approved legislation that gives a Congressional ``stamp of approval'' to a settlement that the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin has long awaited. In my opinion, in the opinion of the U.S. Court of Claims that approved this settlement last year, and in the opinion of Wisconsin leaders like Governor Tommy Thompson and former Congressman Melvin Laird, this is a settlement that is long overdue. As part of S. 606, the Menominee Tribal Fairness Act is the final step in a ``Legislative Reference'' that settles a 45-year-old case between the Tribe and the Federal Government once and for all. In the 1950s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs mismanaged the Tribe's assets such as their forests and mills, leaving them ill-prepared to be self- sufficient. However, in the 1960s, Congress terminated the Tribe's federal trust status, and the Tribe plunged into years of service impoverishment and community turmoil. Then in the 1970s, the Government recognized its mistake in these actions and restored the Menominee Tribe's federal trust status. Clearly, though, the decades of damage could threaten the Tribe for generations to come, so the Tribe went to court seeking compensation for the devastation it had endured. After winning at trial court, this case was dismissed on technical grounds at the appellate court in 1984. The Tribe then came to Congress for help, and we passed a ``Legislative Reference'' asking the Courts to decide the merits of this case and determine what, if any, compensation was due. Before this case again headed to trial, the Department of Justice settled with the Tribe, agreeing to a sum of $32,052,547. The U.S. Court of Claims endorsed this settlement last summer. Now, as the final step in this process, Congress has approved the payment of this settlement--and from the Treasury Department's already existing ``judgment fund,'' not through a new appropriation--to finally resolve this case after 45 years. This decades-old case is a perfect example of how the ``Legislative Reference'' procedure should be used: the court examines claims against the United States based on negligence or fault, or based on less than fair and honorable dealings, regardless of ``technical'' defenses that the United States may otherwise assert, especially the statute of limitations. In other words, this procedure is to be used for precisely the types of circumstances surrounding the Menominee Tribe. The tribe and its members suffered grievous economic loss through legislative termination of its rights and from BIA mismanagement of its resources. Indeed, the Federal governments' actions brought the Menominee Tribe to the brink of economic, social, and cultural disaster. Although the Tribe was restored to Federal recognition and tribal status by action of the Congress, the Tribe and its members have yet to be compensated for the damages they suffered. But thanks to the Senate's actions today, that will change. I thank my colleagues for supporting this vitally important ``Legislative Reference'' that will bring closure, once and for all, to a settlement that is long overdue. I especially want to thank our House sponsor, Mark Green, as well as Congressman Sensenbrenner, Congressman McCollum, and Senator Nickles, for all their hard work.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few points about the increase included in this bill for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and certain language which appears in the Senate Report to accompany the appropriations bill now before the Senate. Under the Animal Welfare Act, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers and other regulated businesses. The Secretary has delegated the authority for enforcing this Act to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) whose budget is included in the pending appropriations bill. For a number of years, the appropriated level for APHIS's enforcement activities of the Animal Welfare Act has held stagnant in the area of $9 million annually. The level of funding has allowed for employment of approximately 69 field inspectors to monitor activities in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Obviously, this number of inspectors, responsible for such a vast geographical area, is totally insufficient to investigate and control all inappropriate and illegal mistreatment of animals where it occurs within the regulated community. For many people, their pets are essentially members of their families and too often we learn of tragedies that occur during commercial transportation where pets are injured or killed. In other instances, we learn of inhumane treatment of animals in settings often referred to as ``puppy mills'' where conditions include disease, pests, poor feeding, and other forms of mistreatment that should and must be stopped.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his explanation of the activities included in the President's request for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and for the generous increase he was able to provide in this bill. I want to stress to all Senators that the increase in this bill is designed to allow better enforcement of currently regulated activities. I am aware that the President's budget explanation also included concern that pending litigation and potentially expanded jurisdiction for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act would further strain the limited resources of the agency. It was, in part, for that reason that language is included in Senate Report to make clear that the increase in this bill is to improve ongoing activities of the agency and not for expansion of regulated activities.

Mr. KOHL. The Senate report language expresses our concern, as does the President's budget justification, that a strain on existing resources could potentially negate the efforts taken in our bill to increase the number of inspections at regulated facilities by inadvertently increasing the caseload of inspectors. I have heard from numerous animal care advocates in Wisconsin who have told me we need more inspectors to make sure the work now going undone is taken care of. For that reason, and not for expansion of authorities, the increase is included in this bill. However, I also want to note that while the language in the Senate report expressly limits the increased funding to currently authorized activities and also expresses our concern that expansion of agency programs at this time may strain resources past the breaking point, it is not intended to chill the efforts by advocacy groups to pursue their interests through either the rulemaking process or through the courts. It is not our intention for the Senate report language to sway, in one way or the other, upcoming decisions of the courts or to infringe on the Department's proper exercise of rulemaking authority. For those who may read the report language and be concerned that we are stepping too far into the realm of agency or court activities, we may wish to consider some modifications to this language for purposes of inclusion in the statement of managers to accompany the conference report to this appropriations bill.

Mr. KOHL. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. In my home state of Wisconsin, a number of plant pathogens cause production losses for our producers. APHIS' implementation of plant protection programs using the appropriations in this bill, consistent with the Committee's intent, will assist researchers at many universities including the University of Wisconsin in their research efforts to combat plant disease and pests.

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I take this moment to thank Senator Cochran who has been an extremely fine and fair chairman. He has done a tremendous job in shepherding this bill through. I thank also Becky Davies of his subcommittee, and I express my appreciation to Galen Fountain, Paul Bock, and Kate Sparks of my side. They have done a tremendous job and been of great assistance to me. I couldn't have done my job without their help. I am very pleased we have reached this point.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I object.

Mr. KOHL. I ask unanimous consent that the requests be modified to delete 215, 217, 218, and 219.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Daschle amendment to provide relief to the farmers of this nation who now suffer from the irony of an economic crisis in rural America at a time when the rest of the nation is enjoying one of our history's greatest period of economic prosperity. Senator Daschle's amendment will bring much needed relief to America's farmers who face the real threat of a failed market and, in some cases, farmers who are caught in the grips of one of the worst droughts of this century. Last year, Congress provided similar relief to farmers totaling nearly $6 million. The amendment offered by Senator Daschle is in the $10 billion range. Without question, these are huge sums of money and this Congress should not recommend their expenditure without serious consideration of the need and the consequences. However, I would like to remind my colleagues that during the farm crisis of a decade ago, farm spending for commodity price support programs in some years exceeded $25 billion. By comparison, the Daschle amendment when coupled with USDA farm outlays under current law, especially when adjusted for inflation, are modest by comparison. Ask any farmer across America, including dairy farmers in Wisconsin who a few months ago witnessed the greatest drop in milk prices in history, and you will learn just how serious the current farm crisis is. The Daschle amendment is necessary to protect our farmers and their ability to protect our national food security. We can point to many different reasons why the farm economy is now suffering. But more importantly, action is needed to deal with the immediate problem. Farmers now suffer from a failed safety net and Senator Daschle's amendment will help patch the holes in that safety net until one of greater substance and success can be put in place.

Mr. KOHL

Mr. KOHL. I object.