Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer and my colleague. It seems to me we have a paradox of enormous irony. The majority has, for weeks, talked about and urged passage of a farm bill to protect the investment in agriculture, the $73 billion provided for in the budget, and to expedite consideration with the House of Representatives, and we could pass the bill this year. Today, let the record show, whether it might be minor differences between the bill offered by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas and the House bill, the majority is now going to vote against the House position before they go to conference. I think that is a paradox. I think that is unique. I think that is unprecedented. I thank the Senator for the time.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for yielding. I have taken up too much time. There are very crucial questions, it seems to me, about what is in the Senate bill and House bill and how fast we can move. I thank the Senator for his leadership.

Mr. ROBERTS. I will be very quick in terms of this question. The Senator heard me state many times, having been involved in six farm bills, that Kiki de la Garza, chairman emeritus of the House Agriculture Committee, from Texas, who served longer than any other man as chairman, used to talk about the best possible bill and the best bill possible. This could be the best bill possible if you believe you want to move this process along, and conference it with the House, and get a bill and save the investment of $73 billion. That has been the mantra over and over and over again. This is probably the best bill possible. Again, I don't particularly care for it. It seems to me that it would fit the description. Where are the bravehearts of the farm organizations and the commodity groups? Are they still on the sidelines? What are they doing in this regard? That is all I have heard for the past 2 weeks. Are the bravehearts getting off the sidelines or at least indicating some interest? I talked with the House this morning. They indicated that might be the case, and I am talking about staff in terms of Mr. Combest and Mr. Ross. Are the bravehearts getting off the sidelines or what?

Mr. ROBERTS. I have one other question.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then the key question is this, if the Senator will continue to yield. As he knows, in agriculture, we are going through some tough times. We are not in very good shape for the shape we are in. One of the real things I believe we have to do is get Presidential trade authority and get our exports tracking. I am not going to go into a long-winded speech on that, but no farm bill, whether it is the bill being proposed by the Senator from Arkansas, or Cochran-Roberts, or the Senate bill, the Daschle-Harkin bill, can be successful unless we sell the product. We have not been involved in the 133 trade negotiations--except for two--ever since we lost the Presidential trade authority. We exported $61 billion of farm products about 3, 4 years ago. Now we are down to 50, maybe 51, 52. Subtract that difference in terms of what we are selling and whether that is what you add up to with emergency spending. I don't understand why we don't expedite consideration of the Presidential trade authority. That is on the back burner with the leadership. That should not be the case. In lieu of that, we are going to have to have protection for farmers. In your State there are rice, cotton, and soybean producers, and in my State of Kansas there are corn, soybean, wheat, and cotton producers--40,000 acres. So the question is this: In terms of the support that would be going to farmers, under the Senate bill that targets price, that countercyclical payment doesn't come into effect until 2004. A lot of farmers don't understand that, I don't think, or they would not be endorsing this bill. Under the House bill, however, that target price comes in right away. I might not agree with target prices--I don't like that system--but at least there is a countercyclical payment immediately in regard to the bill. Is that not correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. In addition, I hesitate to bring this up, but we got into a discussion of what is amber and what isn't in the progression of the World Trade Organization talks. I quoted a statement from an outfit out of Missouri that tries to take a look at their crystal ball to evaluate the effects of farm bills. I think they said we had a 30- percent chance under the Senate bill that we would be in violation of the WTO cap, and that that would be an amber light; that in 2 years it was bound to happen. I don't know what the chances are in terms of the House farm bill, but it seems to me they could be less. I am not an academic, in terms of fabric, to determine that. I don't have that crystal ball. Would the Senator say that would be the case?

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me ask another question, if I might, if the Senator will continue to yield. One of the reasons that in the Senate bill they were able to move the loan rate up to $3--and I am not going to rehash the old discussion on loan rates, as to whether they are market- clearing, or income protection, or it should be $4, or $5, or $3, or whatever. But we get into a lot of problems in terms of market distortion and not really enough support, and the money they use to increase the loan rates comes from crop insurance reform additions on down the road as we get into future years of the farm bill. To my knowledge, the House bill did not--I am using strong words--rob, steal did not take away or find the offset from the crop insurance reforms that we did just last year. Is that not correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. If I may ask another question, I know one of the sticking points we have here with many western Members is the amendment of the Senator from Nevada regarding water. If there is one thing that causes a lot of concern out West, where we don't have much of it, it is the situation where people worry about the federalization of State water rights. I am not going to get into that argument one way or the other, but I know that Senator Crapo and others have a lot of concern. Some of the farm organizations have some concern also. That is in the Senate bill. To my knowledge, that is not in the House bill; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield further, I am not particularly enamored with the House bill. If you want to go a little bit further, I am really not enamored with the Senate bill. But we have been through that. We have had the Roberts-Cochran debate and that was fair. I credit the chairman and everybody else for giving us the time. I think we are headed down the wrong track with the Senate bill. I am not particularly enamored with the House bill. Let me ask the Senator a couple of questions, if I might, to see if it is more preferable in my mind to the Senate bill because that is what this debate is all about. Now, the Senate bill frontloads the $73 billion to the tune of about $45 billion in the first 5 years. Then there is $28 billion on down the road. So I think we are taking away from the future baseline--that is a fancy word for money--for future farmers. It is my understanding that the House bill doesn't do that; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a series of questions?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thought the Senator from Iowa had yielded his time to hear all the accolades directed toward his personage.

Mr. ROBERTS. So then I have 7 minutes remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS. I was just making an inquiry to the Chair about the timing.

Mr. ROBERTS. I am delighted to yield to the Senator from Idaho who has been a champion for State water rights in an amendment introduced on the committee bill. There is an option there for the State to opt out. This is a very important issue to the entire West--for that matter, any State. I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the leader with regard to this issue.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, the committee bill, the Daschle bill. So exactly the conditions the Senator is describing, under this bill, one would not have any help. I know what happened. The Senator from Montana knows what happened. They would be back to the Senate asking for emergency help, which we would have to provide, because the man whose job it is to feed the country needs to be provided for. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. If I might, Senator Crapo has asked for 5 minutes. I hope I might have a little time to sum up along with the distinguished chairman of the committee. It would take me hours to respond perhaps in some small way. That is why I asked the distinguished Senator from Iowa if he could lend 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming who is a member of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Montana has been going through some mighty bad weather. I have been to Montana with the Senator and looked at the drought conditions. My question is: If one does not have a crop, under their bill, one does not get a loan rate. And if one does not have a crop when they need it, the most--they do not get a target price, and the target price for wheat is capped anyway at $3.45. So at the time the farmer needs it the most--and the Senator has been through that big time in his State. We do that in Kansas a lot, and I know they do it in the Dakotas year after year--this bill does not help them. There is no countercyclical payment. There is no help. There is no safety payment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Bless your heart, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I guess we are nice guys; it is just that the program is not worth anything. I want to set the record straight with regard to the payments. The distinguished Senator is very fond of charts, but in this particular case his chart is wrong. In regard to the direct payment rate for 2002, wheat is 76 cents. I believe the Senator indicated it was 51 cents or something like that. For corn, it is 43; grain sorghum, 52; barley, 36; for oats about 3.5; 14.9 for cotton seed; 3.39 for rice; and soybeans, 60 cents. That is not reflected in those charts. The charts are simply not accurate. Coming close to the truth is coming pretty close but it still is not the truth. I think we better get our facts and figures straight with regard to the payments. I also point out that if the market price gets above $3.43 in regard to wheat--I will use wheat because I am familiar with that--the farmer does not get a payment from the Daschle bill. In addition, their target prices do not come into effect until 2004. They were talking about a bridge. That is a mighty long bridge. The bridge is washed out, the farmer cannot swim, and the farmer cannot get to the other side. In regard to the $3 loan rate, that is just going to encourage market distortion, but if you are really going to use the loan rate in regard to income protection, why not raise it to $5 or $4? Take out all direct payments and just go with the loan rate. Many of the constituencies my friend represents would find that more in keeping. Yes, I know that Freedom to Farm in terms of restoring decisionmaking power to the producer was not as successful in regard to market prices worldwide, but we never passed the component parts to Freedom to Farm. There was a world glut of farm product. We lost our markets--the Asian market and the South American market. The value of the dollar hindered it. We did not get Presidential trade authority. We tried twice. We exported about $61 billion in agricultural commodities back during the first years of Freedom to Farm. That is down now to around $50 billion. Subtract the difference and that is what we have had to do with the emergency funding. Every commodity-producing country has gone through the same travail that our farmers are going through, but yet none of those farmers passed Freedom to Farm. For those on the other side of the aisle, Freedom to Farm is to blame for virtually everything that goes wrong in farm country; or if your alma mater loses a football game or if your daughter has a pimple on her nose, it is somehow the fault of Freedom to Farm with a chart to prove it. With regard to the safety net, our safety net is a safety net; it is not a hammock as indicated by the majority. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana for whatever purpose he may like.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I neglected to ask unanimous consent that Senator Gordon Smith be added as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator McCain in regard to catfish. We want to make sure the catfish cosponsors are, indeed, added.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield so I can make a unanimous consent request at this point?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, there are several basic reasons I urge colleagues to support the Cochran-Roberts amendment. No. 1, there has been a great deal of discussion about which bill serves small farmers versus big farmers--most especially from the Senator from North Dakota. Under Cochran-Roberts, the payment limitation is $165,000 total for direct payments for the farm accounts that are in the bill, and then also the loan deficiency payments. Second, truth in budgeting: The committee bill spends $46 billion over the first 5 years, allotted over a 10-year part of the bill, only leaving $28 billion. We are robbing the future to pay for the current bill. Then we have the issue of the guaranteed payments. Again, again, and again I say if the farmer loses a crop, he is not eligible for the loan rate at the target price. The target price is capped. It only goes to about $3.45. There is more protection under our bill. Under the WTO, let me quote from the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute: Given the structure of the changes, we calculate a 30 percent chance that the U.S. will exceed this limit in the 2000 marketing year. And they also go ahead and say: The countercyclical program begins payments in the 2004 marketing year essentially replacing green box expenditures with amber box expenditures. I think it is too dangerous a road to go down. The President and the administration support this amendment, and we can conference it more quickly with the House. This is not a stalling bill. This is an amendment to get this farm bill done. I yield back the remainder of my time.