Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for that clarification.

Mr. LUGAR. As the Senator from Oklahoma may know, we in the conference on H.R. 2854 did not contemplate such prompt enactment of the congressional review bill. I would inform the chairman that H.R. 2854 requires that the Secretary of Agriculture, within 45 days of enactment, offer market transition contracts available to eligible producers. These contracts must not be further delayed, or they will not be effective for the 1996 planting season. Moreover, these contracts are worth billions of dollars, and are certainly going to qualify as major rules under the Congressional Review Act. Would the chairman agree that these major rules are the type that are contemplated by his committee as qualifying for the emergency exception available to the President?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, our side will be represented ably by the majority leader in a moment as he will make a final statement. For several decades, the U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidized farmers with target prices and deficiency payments. Target prices for wheat, feed grains, cotton, and rice were set at levels believed to represent a fair price for the crops. Whenever the average market price was below the target price, the Federal Government paid farmers the difference. This was called a deficiency payment. Now Congress is considering a plan that would scrap deficiency payments and target prices and replace them with fixed payments. The farmer receives the same subsidy payment whether prices are high or low. Advocates for change believe this system provides the certainty farmers need with regard to payments and the predictability taxpayers demand with regard to balancing the target. Defenders of the status quo criticize this plan because farmers receive payment during periods of extremely high prices. While no one wants subsidies paid when they are not needed, the current system of deficiency payments and target prices fails even the most modest standards of targeting or means testing. Deficiency payments are a poor indicator of farm wealth. Price represents only one-half of the farm income picture. Cash receipts in farming are a product of price per bushel multiplied by the quantity produced. Recent history is a case in point: 1994 was a remarkable year for corn production. Total corn production for the country exceeded 10 billion bushels--a feat most thought was impossible. In the Midwest, whole fields averaging over 200 bushel per acre were commonplace. Large supplies caused prices to fall. The average corn price for the year was $2.26 per bushel--almost 50 cents below the target price. According to our system of calculating farm wealth, 1994 was a terrible year because prices were lower. Taxpayers came to the rescue with substantial subsidies even though farmers harvesting 200 bushels per acre corn at $2.26 per bushel grossed a record breaking $450 per acre. As is often the case in farming, 1995 was different than 1994. Weather problems and pestilence plagued farmers throughout the year. Many farmers who harvested 200 bushels per acre in 1994 saw their production fall to 90 bushels or less in 1995. Some farmers lost their entire crop. With falling production and strong demand, prices were substantially above target price levels. Corn farmers received $3.00 per bushel or more for their crop. 1995, however, was a very difficult year for many farmers because they had little, if any, crop to sell at higher prices. Ninety bushels per acre at $3.00 per bushel represents a per acre gross of $270 per acre--40 percent below 1994. Yet the USDA declared 1995 as a good income year, and took away all subsidies for the 1995 crop. Generous subsidies were paid to 80 percent of the corn farmers in America in 1994. Freedom to farm gets the Government out of the business of estimating good income years and poor income years. The 7-year baseline payment levels are distributed--on a declining basis--to farmers over the next 7 years without regard to commodity prices. Will there be years in which farmers receive a subsidy even though their income was high? Perhaps. But this is no more the case than under present law. The current system has indeed failed to identify genuine need. Let's give the USDA something better to do with their time. In short, Mr. President, although it has been suggested that the freedom-to-farm bill would not be a good idea in the event that a bad year came along on the farm, the fact is the current program has not been particularly helpful. In those years in which we have had a great abundance of crops in and great revenue from the fields, we have also had target prices in addition or great deficiency payments. That is an important point to make, and I make it for the Record. Mr. President, I thank, once again, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, for an extraordinary opportunity to work with him and to create, I believe, a remarkable farm bill. Today, as we pass a farm bill that shapes the outlook of agriculture for the 21st century, it is time to recognize the tireless efforts of one of the finest staffs on Capitol Hill. I want to start by recognizing the efforts of the professional staff of the committee led by senior professional staff member, Robert (Randy) Green. Randy deserves special credit for his outstanding professional efforts in translating complex ideas into effective legislation. Often working through the night into the mornings and on countless weekends, Randy and his staff exemplified a dedication to the truth in the details of the committee conference process. While respecting the views of others, the professional staff crafted a bill in a manner that was fair. They have worked on endless proposals and through many very tough negotiating meetings to achieve the exciting new concepts about agriculture that were passed today. Katherine Brunett McGuire, David Stawick, Darrel Choat, Terri Nintemann, Terri Snow, Elizabeth Johnson, Douglass Leslie, Patrick Sweeney, and Bill Simms combined their extensive knowledge of agricultural issues to create this landmark revision of Agriculture policy. They are the unsung heroes who took the plight of the American farmers seriously and kept their shoulders to the task until we have arrived at the conclusion of this conference. Dave Johnson, chief counsel, Marcia Asquith and Michael Knipe, counsels, spend endless hours giving assiduous attention to the details in the drafting of legislation to forge compromises on the most difficult issues. They worked diligently to negotiate provisions that would be effective and yet pull together diverse interests. Patiently drafting and redrafting a great many ideas that ultimately were not part of this legislation, but necessary in arriving at the concluding language, they never gave up and determinedly made the resulting Farm Bill a strong one. Chief economist, any Morton, spent hours crunching numbers for the committee to ensure that the bill's cost fell within budgetary constraints. It is a tribute to his ability that this bill is scored so successfully by CBO and achieves the numbers that are required. Andy's knowledge of agricultural economics has proven to be a most valuable resource to the committee. Andy Fisher did a superb job of keeping the press informed of the bill's progress and his ability to translate complex agricultural issues for the press and operate under severe time constraints ensured that the public was well informed. Chief clerk, Robert Sturm, along with Debbie Schwertner, Danny Spellacy, David Dayhoff, Mary Kinzer, Jill Clawson, Cathleen Harrington and Barbara Ward kept the office running smoothly throughout this process. In conducting many hearings, both here and in the field, responding to hundreds of letters, answering thousands of telephone calls, and tracking a very active staff they demonstrated their diligence and loyalty to the Committee. I also want to thank Gary Endicott, Janine Johnson and Thom Cole from the legislative counsel's office for their willingness to respond to the committee's requests and for lending their valuable expertise to the development of this bill. As well, I want to commend the minority staff of the committee who contributed greatly with their professionalism and cooperation. In particular, I want to thank minority staff director, Edward Barron and chief counsel, Jim Cubie. They led the way to agreement through many continuous issues. I would especially like to commend staff director, Chuck Conner for his tremendous contribution to the committee. Chuck's leadership and broad expertise in agricultural policy provided the committee with sound guidance on key issues. His resolute attitude and strong convictions kept the conference advancing when the process seemed mired in difficulty. Chuck molded a superb staff and prepared them with precision so that they could navigate a steady course to the passage of this legislation. The public rarely sees the work of the Senate staff but they give so much to our country. Their sacrifice and long hours are shared by their families and I applaud their efforts.

Mr. LUGAR. The Senator is correct. section 193(a)(2) of this bill is intended to allow delinkage of the purchase of catastrophic crop insurance for all crops including forage harvested in 1996 and beyond. Producers of forage crops harvested in 1996 should be able to participate in all USDA programs without purchasing catastrophic crop insurance, regardless of when that forage crop was planted. There was no intent to exclude forage from these delinkage provisions and the Secretary should interpret section 193(a)(2) as such.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes; I would agree that the conferees intended for this language not to restrict FCIC authority to implement the revenue insurance pilot program authorized by this Act.

Mr. LUGAR. I want to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind words. As I mentioned in the letter, I believe that this conference report is the most environmentally responsive and responsible farm legislation in our Nation's history. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act and the Federal Wetlands Program, Senator Chafee's support means a great deal to me. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Washington, DC, March 23, 1996. Hon. John H. Chafee, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen 410, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Chafee: Thank you for your letter of March 15 in which you expressed interest in the conservation provisions of the 1996 farm bill. I am pleased to report that the Conferees agreed to what I feel is the most environmentally responsive and responsible farm legislation in our nation's history. You specifically mentioned a concern that existing wetland conservation provisions might be undermined in the farm bill. In fact, the Conference agreement makes several common-sense updates to the ``swampbuster'' compliance requirements that will make the program more flexible for producers while still protecting wetland functions and values. The bill makes no changes to the existing definition of a wetland, and does not exempt any lands based solely on cropping history or size. Although the report does define ``agricultural lands'' for the purpose of implementation of the interagency memorandum of agreement on wetland deliberations, it does not amend Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or require any changes to the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual. In other areas, the Conference agreement established the new Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which stands to make a significant positive impact on water quality. In addition, the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Programs are reauthorized through 2002, with new provisions that will make the WRP more attractive to producers. Combined with the new crop planting flexibility provisions in the commodity title, these conservation efforts represent an impressive commitment to addressing the potential adverse environmental impacts of agricultural production. I know that, as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, you can appreciate the tremendous investment made in this new farm bill. I hope you can enthusiastically support the Conference Report when it is debated on the floor later this week. Sincerely, Richard G. Lugar, Chairman.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senator Grassley is prepared to wait for Senator Kerrey's speech. Senator Kerrey has been on the floor. I will ask recognition for him to speak following Senator Kerrey.

Mr. LUGAR. That is correct.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. LUGAR. Noting no other Senators prepared to debate the issue, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be equally charged against the time allocated to the three Senators controlling time in this bill.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick Sweeney, an employee of the General Accounting Office who has been detailed to the Agriculture Committee, be granted privilege of the floor during the pendency of consideration of the farm bill conference report.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I know of no one else who wishes to speak. I have been authorized by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and the ranking member, Mr. Leahy--and I have exhausted my time--to yield back all time.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, yesterday in the beginning of the debate on the farm bill conference report, much of the debate centered upon title I, which is the Agricultural Market Transition Program. And, indeed, this is an extraordinarily important title for producers in this country. Senators reviewed the fact that the new farm bill will offer maximum flexibility to farmers in choosing what crops to plant and how many acres they will plant to meet market conditions in this country and in the world. Likewise, the nonrecourse marketing assistance loans will remain. They are a safety net, as well as a method of managing income and operations, for producers. Not mentioned yesterday, but clearly still in the farm bill, is a peanut program, modified somewhat during debate in both the House and the Senate, a sugar program and a milk price support and marketing order program. The Federal Dairy Export Program, the northeast dairy compact, payment limitations, commodity credit all come under this title I, the Agricultural Market Transition Program. I have no doubt, Mr. President, there will be more debate on that issue this morning. But I want to center on additional aspects of the farm bill that are extraordinarily important to all Americans. Title II, the trade title, contains Public Law 480 and related programs. The conference report reauthorizes Food for Peace and allows private sector participation for the first time. The Food Security Wheat Reserve is renamed the ``Food Security Commodity Reserve'' to reflect that corn, rice, and sorghum are added as eligible commodities. A 4-million-metric-ton cap is placed on the reserve and access to reserve commodities is made easier. Mr. President, there is also a provision for agricultural trade. The conference agreement reauthorizes several trade and export programs, with additional emphasis on high-value and value-added products. The Secretary is directed to monitor compliance with the agriculture provisions of the Uruguay round agreement of GATT and report violations to the United States Trade Representative. Agriculture producers are given additional protection against economic effects of agricultural embargoes. In addition, several unnecessary and outdated provisions of Federal agricultural trade law are repealed. The trade title contains a market access program. The Market Promotion Program is renamed the ``Market Access Program'' to more accurately reflect program goals. Expenditures are capped at $90 million per year, and reforms are implemented to restrict participation to small businesses, farmer-owned cooperatives, and agricultural groups. The Export Enhancement Program is contained in title II. EEP expenditures are capped at $350 million a year in 1996; $250 million in 1997; $500 million in 1998; $550 million in 1999; $579 million in 2000; $478 million in 2001 and 2002. For the years 2000 to 2002, the funding levels for EEP represent the maximum allowable expenditures under GATT. In addition, the Secretary is given authority to subsidize the export of intermediate value-added products. Title III of the farm bill contains the conservation programs and, first of all, of course, is the Conservation Reserve Program, the CRP, which gives the Secretary authority to enter into new contracts and to extend CRP contracts. The authorized maximum acreage in CRP is maintained at 36.4 million acres. It also allows participants to terminate CRP contracts, except on those lands that are deemed to be of high environmental value. Funds saved due to termination of contracts may be used by the Secretary to enroll new lands in the program. I point out, parenthetically, Mr. President, this arguably is the largest conservation program, including one of the most important environmental aspects the Senate will adopt this year. The Wetlands Reserve Program is retained with modifications to encourage the use of temporary easements and cost-share restorations. The Environmental Quality Incentive Program [EQIP], is instituted. This program targets approximately $1.2 billion over 7 years to assist crop and livestock producers to deal with environmental and conservation improvements on their farms. Assistance can be used for animal waste management facilities, terraces, waterways, filterstrips or other structural and management practices to protect water, soil, and related resources. Assistance to individual operations is capped at $10,000 a year, for a maximum of 5 years. Large operators, as defined by the Secretary, will be ineligible for assistance. Other new conservation programs include the Farms for the Future Program providing $35 million to preserve farmland from commercial development. A new conservation farm option offers producers an additional alternative in meeting conservation goals. A Flood Risk Reduction Program is also included to provide farmers incentives to take out of production frequently flooded lands. The Conservation Compliance Reform Program gives producers enhanced flexibility to modify conservation practices if they can demonstrate that the new practice achieves equal or greater erosion control. Variances from conservation compliance can now be granted on account of adverse weather or disease, and program payment penalties can be adjusted to be commensurate with the violation. Swampbuster reform is included in title III. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is designated to lead Federal agencies in wetlands delineation and regulation on grazing lands. The agreement stipulates that current wetlands delineations remain valid until a producer requests a review. Penalties can now be adjusted to fit the wetlands violation. Exceptions can be granted for good faith. And wetlands mitigation options are expanded. Title IV, a very important title, is the Federal Food Stamp Program. The conference agreement reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program for 2 years while Congress continues to work on comprehensive welfare reform legislation. Mr. President, this issue has come before this body at least twice before. First of all, in the form of the Balanced Budget Act, where the food stamp provisions were a part of the farm bill and likewise a part of welfare reform. The Senate has considered separately welfare reform with food stamp provisions in that legislation. As the Chair knows, in the case of both the welfare reform and the Balanced Budget Act, President Clinton vetoed this legislation. Therefore, it has been set aside. This farm bill recaptures now and reauthorizes the Food Stamp Program for 2 years pending action either in our committee, that is, the Agriculture Committee, or action by the Congress with regard to welfare reform that might encompass the Food Stamp Program. Title V is a miscellaneous title, but an important one in the collection of programs that come under it. Crop insurance is one of these programs. The conference agreement eliminates the mandatory nature of catastrophic crop insurance, but requires producers to waive all Federal disaster assistance if they opt not to purchase catastrophic insurance. Dual delivery of crop insurance is eliminated in those States that have adequate private crop insurance delivery. The bill corrects a provision of current law by amending the Federal Crop Insurance Act to include seed crops. Eligibility to purchase crop insurance is no longer linked to conservation compliance and swampbuster for producers who choose not to participate in the farm programs. The Office of Risk Management is provided for. We establish in this legislation, within the Department of Agriculture, the Office of Risk Management to oversee and supervise the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation. The bill directs the Secretary to establish a business interruption insurance program that allows producers of program crops to obtain revenue insurance coverage. The Options Pilot Program is also extended through the year 2002. The Office of Risk Management is charged with oversight of these pilot programs. Mr. President, the farm bill includes an Everglades Agricultural Area provision. The conference agreement provides $200 million for land acquisition in the Florida Everglades for the purpose of environmental restoration. An additional $100 million in Federal support will be financed through the sale or swap of other federally held land in Florida. The farm bill provides a fund for rural America. And $300 million is provided for the fund in the years 1997 through 1999. This was a request of the President of the United States, and the Secretary of Agriculture placed a high priority on this fund. The Secretary is required to spend at least one-third of the amount on research and one- third of the amount on rural development. The other one-third of the money can be allocated to either purpose at the discretion of the Secretary. All of the funding must be spent through existing research and rural development programs. The Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection provision appears in the conference report, which amends the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 to allow the Secretary to collect and spend fees collected over $100 million to cover the cost for providing quarantine and inspection services for imports. The Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel is created in this farm bill. The Panel of scientists within the Food Safety and Inspection Service will be charged with the responsibility of reviewing all inspection policies from a scientific perspective. The Panel's report and the Secretary's responses must be published in the Federal Register. State-inspected meat was discussed in our conference report. Within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary shall report and recommend to the Congress the steps necessary to achieve interstate shipment of State-inspected meat products. Title VI of the conference report deals with USDA Farm Lending Program reforms. The conference report redirects farm lending programs to their original intent. Authority to make loans for a variety of nonagricultural purposes such as recreation facilities and small business enterprises is repealed. The Secretary is given authority to use collection agencies to recover delinquent loans. The agreement prohibits additional loans to delinquent borrowers and streamlines procedures for disposal of inventory property. A portion of loan funding is reserved for new and beginning farmers. I point out, Mr. President, that that set of provisions comes after extensive hearings by the Agriculture Committee in which we found that borrowers sometimes are already delinquent and the Department was obligated, under previous law, to lend money to them in any event. Some of these obvious, glaring deficiencies have been corrected. I commend both committees and the conference for that provision. Title VII deals with rural development. The Rural Community Advancement Program is authorized, and the Secretary may provide grants and direct and guaranteed loans and other assistance to meet rural development needs across the country. Funding under the Rural Community Advanced Program will be allocated to three areas: First of all, rural community facilities; second, rural utilities; and, third, a rural business and cooperative development. The new program provides greater flexibility, State and local decisionmaking, and a simplified uniform application process. The Water and Waste Water Systems. Authorization for these systems is increased from $500 million to $590 million. In telemedicine and distance learning programs, the conference agreement reauthorizes and streamlines these programs. Under the programs, the Secretary can make grants and loans to assist rural communities with construction of facilities and services, to provide distance learning and telemedicine service. Funding is authorized at $100 million annually. Title VIII is the research title. The conference agreement reauthorizes Federal agricultural research, extension, and education programs for 2 years. This will allow Congress to continue ongoing review of these programs and determine how best to use the $1.7 billion in annual agricultural research, extension, and education spending. Additional research dollars are made available under this bill through the fund for rural America that I discussed earlier and which President Clinton and Secretary Glickman have championed. Title IX, promotion, the generic commodity promotion program. The Secretary is directed to establish such a program. Under this program, interested industries could petition the Department of Agriculture for the establishment of a promotion program. Currently, each commodity must receive specific authorization from Congress to have a promotion program. Recognizing the generic program will not be operational for some time, the conference agreement authorizes new promotion programs for popcorn, canola, and kiwi fruit. The full conference report was printed, I point out, Mr. President, in the Congressional Record of Monday, March 25, 1996, so that Senators have had an opportunity to review this conference report. The report came after discussion of as many as 500 differences between the House and the Senate bills. During an extensive and constructive conference of the two bodies last Wednesday and last Thursday, all issues were resolved. It is in that spirit that this conference report came to the Senate last evening and for further debate today. Mr. President, let me simply review the fact that the time limit covering this report is 6 hours. Three of those hours are controlled by the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, an hour by the ranking Democratic member of the Agriculture Committee, and 2 hours by myself. Approximately an hour and a quarter of debate occurred last evening. The remainder of the debate lies ahead of us. Hopefully, Senators who are controlling that time would be prepared to yield back that time to expedite the work of the Senate.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to meet to consider pending business Thursday, March 28, at 9:15 a.m., hearing room SD-406.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, March 28, 1996 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting an executive session and markup.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 1996, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to receive testimony on the issue of competitive change in the electric power industry.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 10 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony from the unified commanders on their military strategies and operational requirements in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1997 and the future years defense program.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 1996, to conduct a hearing on S. 1547, ``a bill to limit the provision of assistance to the Government of Mexico using the exchange stabilization fund established pursuant to section 5302 of title 31, United States Code, and for other purposes''.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 1996 at 10 a.m. to hold hearing, agenda attached.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to conduct an oversight hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 1996, on the recent settlement and accommodation agreements concerning the Navajo and Hopi land dispute. The hearing will be held at 9 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 10 a.m., to hold an executive business meeting.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 1996 at 2 p.m., in SH-219, to hold a closed briefing on intelligence matters.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing to discuss adverse drug reactions and the effects on the elderly.