Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President I rise to add my voice to the support of the Defense authorization bill that we soon vote on. It has been my honor this year to serve as the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's new subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. The chairman wisely established this subcommittee to provide a focus on the Department of Defense's efforts to counter new and emerging threats to vital national security interests. This subcommittee has oversight over such threats as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism directed at U.S. targets both at home and abroad, information warfare, and narco-trafficking. In addition, the subcommittee has budgetary oversight of the defense science and technology program--which will provide for the development of the technology necessary for the U.S. military to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A key element of the subcommittee's responsibilities is the changing role of the U.S. military in the new threat environment, with an examination of emerging operational concepts and non-traditional military operations. In this connection, the subcommittee has oversight of the procurement and R&D programs of the Special Operations Command. I would like to briefly highlight the initiatives included in this bill to address emerging threats and the future capabilities of our armed forces: Protection of our homeland and our critical information infrastructure are two of the most serious challenges facing our Nation today. In the area of Counter-Terrorism, the bill includes full funding for the five Rapid Assessment and Initial Detection (RAID) teams requested by the administration, and an increase of $107 million to provide a total of 17 additional RAID teams in fiscal year 2000. We required the Department to establish specific budget reporting procedures for its combating terrorism program. This will give the program the focus and visibility it deserves while providing Congress with the information it requires to conduct thorough oversight over the Department's efforts to combat the threat of terrorism attack both inside and outside the U.S. The bill includes a $150 million Information Assurance Initiative to strengthen the defense information assurance program, enhance oversight and improve organizational structure. This initiative will also provide a testbed to plan and conduct simulations, exercises and experiments against information warfare threats, and allow the Department to interact with civil and commercial organizations. The provision encourages the Secretary of Defense to strike an appropriate balance in addressing threats to the defense information infrastructure while at the same time recognizing that DOD has a role to play in protecting critical infrastructures outside the DOD. In the area of nonproliferation, we have authorized full funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program to accelerate the dismantlement of the former Soviet Union strategic offensive arms that threaten the U.S. And for the DoE programs--Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and the Nuclear Cities Initiative--we have authorized an increase of $5.0 million over the FY99 funding levels and have recommended several initiatives to enhance the overall management of these programs. We have included in the bill a legislative package to strengthen the defense science and technology program. This legislation will ensure that the science and technology program is threat-based and that investments are tied to future warfighting needs. The legislation is also aimed at promoting innovation in laboratories and improving the efficiency of these RDT&E operations. Other budgetary highlights include: a $271 million increase to the defense science and technology budget request; an additional $10.0 million for Joint Experimentation exercises; $14.0 million in targeted increases in the Chemical and Biological Defense Program to advance research in chemical and biological agent detector technologies and procurement; and an additional $164.7 million to meet unfunded requirements of the Special Operations Forces. Although I have highlighted some of the key successes of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, I am very proud of the total package we are voting on today. I think we have done an excellent first step in helping the men and women in the military receive fair compensation for their sacrifice for this nation. I thank the Chairman for his vital and impressive leadership this year, along with the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, and the majority staff. I urge my colleagues to support the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. ROBERTS. The final version of S. 1059 also contains a provision, sponsored by the distinguished chairman and myself, requiring the President to certify whether the new Strategic Concept of NATO--the latest alliance blueprint for future operations adopted at the recent NATO summit here in Washington--contains new commitments and obligations for the United States. This body's experience with U.S. deployments to the Balkans bears out the fact that you better force the administration to be candid when it comes to the potential and actual use of American troops, particularly in regards to objectives, strategy, and timetable. It follows, therefore, you better formally require this administration to be candid about the defense planning and defense budget implications of the new Strategic Concept of NATO. I think the chairman and I have tried to do that with our provision and I look forward to the President's certification, due thirty days from the date S. 1059 becomes law.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce on behalf of myself, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, and a bipartisan group of 17 of our colleagues--including a majority of the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the ``Risk Management for the 21st Century Act.'' This legislation represents a significant step in improving the risk management tools available to producers throughout the United States. In early March, Senator Kerrey and I joined to introduce S. 529, the ``Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act.'' At the time, we stated that we did not necessarily believe it was ``the bill,'' but that we hoped it would serve as the starting point for a discussion that would lead to the introduction of a comprehensive piece of legislation to improve the risk management tools available to producers throughout the U.S. and which could be supported by a majority of our colleagues. I believe this is that bill. Going back to last fall and through this spring and summer, we have been involved in literally hundreds of hours of discussions with producers, commodity and farm organizations, insuranceproviders, insurance agents, and Members of the House and Senate regarding what needs to be done to improve the risk management tools available to our farmers and ranchers. The bill we introduce today is the product of these many discussions. This bill includes many of the provisions included in the original Roberts/Kerrey legislation, but it also includes many new provisions recommended during our discussions with Members and agricultural organizations. These include: An inverted subsidy structure. An equal level of subsidy for revenue insurance products. APH adjustments for producers suffering multiple years of crop losses. APH adjustments for new and beginning farmers, those farming new land, and those rotating crops. Instructions to undertake alternative rating methodologies for low risk producers and regions and crops with low participation percentages and to then implement this new rating system. This at the request of many of our southern colleagues. Changes in prevented planting and incentives to encourage producers to take additional risk management measures. Similar to car insurance, if you take drivers education classes you get an additional discount on your premium. Under our legislation, producers who take additional risk management steps will also receive a bonus discount on their premiums. Authority for several pilot programs, placing special emphasis on polices to explore coverage for livestock and to expand the quality and levels of coverage available to specialty crops. Mr. President, in addition to the many changes mentioned above, our legislation also provides for major changes in the Risk Management Agency (RMA) and the regulatory process governing the crop insurance program. We change the members of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors to include: Four Farmers from geographic regions to be determined by the Secretary. One member active in the crop insurance industry. One member with reinsurance expertise. The Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Undersecretary for Rural Development, and the USDA Chief Economist. Make the FCIC the overseer of RMA. Create an Office of Private Sector Partnership to serve as a liaison between private sector companies and the FCIC Board of Directors. Allow companies to charge minimal fees to other companies selling their products, in order to allow the recovery of research and development costs. Mr. President, our legislation also focuses on several areas that I want to place special emphasis on because they are areas that I know are of interest to many of my colleagues and which some often think those of us in the Midwest and Plains States tend to ignore. The first deals with program compliance. We have heard complaints from some of our colleagues and specific commodity groups that fraud exists in several areas of the country. Let me make clear, Senator Kerrey and I oppose any attempts to defraud the crop insurance program. To prevent this fraud, the legislation calls for penalties of up to $10,000 for producers, agents, loss adjusters, and approved insurance providers that attempt to defraud the program. It also allows for USDA to remove producers from eligibility for all USDA programs if they have defrauded the program. Furthermore, agents, loss adjusters, and approved companies that do business in the program could be banned from participation for up to five years if they have committed fraud. Mr. President, these provisions are strong and they are clear--those who attempt to defraud the program and taxpayers will be punished. Mr. President, another concern that Senator Kerrey and I have heard repeatedly is the lack of emphasis and prioritization for specialty crops and development of new crop insurance and risk management tools for these crops. We have included many provisions in our legislation to address these concerns. These specialty crop provisions include: Changes in the Noninsured Assistance Program that we believe will make it easier to obtain assistance and funding through changes in which commodities can be covered and by allowing payments in some instances irregardless of an area trigger occurring. Several pilot projects geared specifically towards looking at the feasibility of Gross Revenue and Whole Farm Revenue polices that include coverage for specialty crops. Requiring the newly created Office of Private Sector Partnership to include staff with specialty crop expertise. Allow RMA to spend up to $20 million per year to create partnerships with Land Grant Universities, the Agricultural Research Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other qualified entities to develop and implement new specialty crop risk management options. Requires 50 percent of RMA's research and development funds to go to specialty crop products development. Additionally, 50 percent of these R&D funds must be contracted out to organizations and entities outside RMA. Reaffirms the authority of the Specialty Crops Coordinator in RMA. The bill also allows the Specialty Crops Coordinator to make competitive grants for research and development of new products in the specialty crops area. Contains provisions regarding sales closing dates and the issuance of new polices. Orders the Specialty Crops coordinator and the FCIC to study the feasibility of offering cost-of production, Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), quality-based policies, and an intermediate coverage level (higher than current CAT coverage) for specialty crops. Requires the Board to annually review and certify that speciality crops are adequately covered. If insufficient coverage is available for a commodity, the Board can require RMA to undertake R&D activities. Provides mechanisms whereby the Secretary must take steps to improve participation in the program when total participation for a crop in an individual state falls below 75 percent of the national participation average. Mr. President, these changes for specialty crops are significant and we believe they give important attention to a group of producers that has often felt neglected in U.S. agricultural policy. I hope that our colleagues will agree and that they will join us in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, let me also state that I realize some will argue that specific provisions should have been included in this legislation that currently are not. I understand these concerns, but as we developed this bill, we had to determine the priorities of each agricultural region and commodity groups. There is something from this bill that all of us would like to see included, including Senator Kerrey and myself, but as a whole it is I believe the best package available. I also realize that some in this body claim that crop insurance is not necessary and that we do not need to act on this legislation this year. I could not disagree more. Mr. President, every year our producers put the seed in the ground and believe that with a little faith and luck they will produce a crop. But, sometimes the creeks do rise and the multiple perils of drought, flood, fire, hail, blizzard, pests, and disease get the better or our producers. They must have the tools to manage these risks. The agricultural and lending communities have spoken loudly, and they all have continually expressed the need to improve the risk management tools available to producers throughout the U.S. It is time for us to move towards action on this issue. The House Agriculture Committee approved legislation prior to the August recess. It is time for the Senate Agriculture Committee to do the same. A majority of the Committee has said as much by supporting our legislation. Mr. President, we know there are many disagreements within members of the Senate in regards to specific agricultural policy. In fact, Senator Kerrey and I have disagreements of our own on the underlying Farm Bill. However, we all agree that our producers today cannot be successful without access to new, improved, and adequate risk management tools. This legislation accomplishes these needs, and I urge my colleagues to join us in working towards an improved crop insurance program and risk management tools.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce on behalf of myself, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, and a bipartisan group of 17 of our colleagues--including a majority of the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the ``Risk Management for the 21st Century Act.'' This legislation represents a significant step in improving the risk management tools available to producers throughout the United States. In early March, Senator Kerrey and I joined to introduce S. 529, the ``Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act.'' At the time, we stated that we did not necessarily believe it was ``the bill,'' but that we hoped it would serve as the starting point for a discussion that would lead to the introduction of a comprehensive piece of legislation to improve the risk management tools available to producers throughout the U.S. and which could be supported by a majority of our colleagues. I believe this is that bill. Going back to last fall and through this spring and summer, we have been involved in literally hundreds of hours of discussions with producers, commodity and farm organizations, insuranceproviders, insurance agents, and Members of the House and Senate regarding what needs to be done to improve the risk management tools available to our farmers and ranchers. The bill we introduce today is the product of these many discussions. This bill includes many of the provisions included in the original Roberts/Kerrey legislation, but it also includes many new provisions recommended during our discussions with Members and agricultural organizations. These include: An inverted subsidy structure. An equal level of subsidy for revenue insurance products. APH adjustments for producers suffering multiple years of crop losses. APH adjustments for new and beginning farmers, those farming new land, and those rotating crops. Instructions to undertake alternative rating methodologies for low risk producers and regions and crops with low participation percentages and to then implement this new rating system. This at the request of many of our southern colleagues. Changes in prevented planting and incentives to encourage producers to take additional risk management measures. Similar to car insurance, if you take drivers education classes you get an additional discount on your premium. Under our legislation, producers who take additional risk management steps will also receive a bonus discount on their premiums. Authority for several pilot programs, placing special emphasis on polices to explore coverage for livestock and to expand the quality and levels of coverage available to specialty crops. Mr. President, in addition to the many changes mentioned above, our legislation also provides for major changes in the Risk Management Agency (RMA) and the regulatory process governing the crop insurance program. We change the members of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors to include: Four Farmers from geographic regions to be determined by the Secretary. One member active in the crop insurance industry. One member with reinsurance expertise. The Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Undersecretary for Rural Development, and the USDA Chief Economist. Make the FCIC the overseer of RMA. Create an Office of Private Sector Partnership to serve as a liaison between private sector companies and the FCIC Board of Directors. Allow companies to charge minimal fees to other companies selling their products, in order to allow the recovery of research and development costs. Mr. President, our legislation also focuses on several areas that I want to place special emphasis on because they are areas that I know are of interest to many of my colleagues and which some often think those of us in the Midwest and Plains States tend to ignore. The first deals with program compliance. We have heard complaints from some of our colleagues and specific commodity groups that fraud exists in several areas of the country. Let me make clear, Senator Kerrey and I oppose any attempts to defraud the crop insurance program. To prevent this fraud, the legislation calls for penalties of up to $10,000 for producers, agents, loss adjusters, and approved insurance providers that attempt to defraud the program. It also allows for USDA to remove producers from eligibility for all USDA programs if they have defrauded the program. Furthermore, agents, loss adjusters, and approved companies that do business in the program could be banned from participation for up to five years if they have committed fraud. Mr. President, these provisions are strong and they are clear--those who attempt to defraud the program and taxpayers will be punished. Mr. President, another concern that Senator Kerrey and I have heard repeatedly is the lack of emphasis and prioritization for specialty crops and development of new crop insurance and risk management tools for these crops. We have included many provisions in our legislation to address these concerns. These specialty crop provisions include: Changes in the Noninsured Assistance Program that we believe will make it easier to obtain assistance and funding through changes in which commodities can be covered and by allowing payments in some instances irregardless of an area trigger occurring. Several pilot projects geared specifically towards looking at the feasibility of Gross Revenue and Whole Farm Revenue polices that include coverage for specialty crops. Requiring the newly created Office of Private Sector Partnership to include staff with specialty crop expertise. Allow RMA to spend up to $20 million per year to create partnerships with Land Grant Universities, the Agricultural Research Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other qualified entities to develop and implement new specialty crop risk management options. Requires 50 percent of RMA's research and development funds to go to specialty crop products development. Additionally, 50 percent of these R&D funds must be contracted out to organizations and entities outside RMA. Reaffirms the authority of the Specialty Crops Coordinator in RMA. The bill also allows the Specialty Crops Coordinator to make competitive grants for research and development of new products in the specialty crops area. Contains provisions regarding sales closing dates and the issuance of new polices. Orders the Specialty Crops coordinator and the FCIC to study the feasibility of offering cost-of production, Adjusted Gross Income (AGI), quality-based policies, and an intermediate coverage level (higher than current CAT coverage) for specialty crops. Requires the Board to annually review and certify that speciality crops are adequately covered. If insufficient coverage is available for a commodity, the Board can require RMA to undertake R&D activities. Provides mechanisms whereby the Secretary must take steps to improve participation in the program when total participation for a crop in an individual state falls below 75 percent of the national participation average. Mr. President, these changes for specialty crops are significant and we believe they give important attention to a group of producers that has often felt neglected in U.S. agricultural policy. I hope that our colleagues will agree and that they will join us in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, let me also state that I realize some will argue that specific provisions should have been included in this legislation that currently are not. I understand these concerns, but as we developed this bill, we had to determine the priorities of each agricultural region and commodity groups. There is something from this bill that all of us would like to see included, including Senator Kerrey and myself, but as a whole it is I believe the best package available. I also realize that some in this body claim that crop insurance is not necessary and that we do not need to act on this legislation this year. I could not disagree more. Mr. President, every year our producers put the seed in the ground and believe that with a little faith and luck they will produce a crop. But, sometimes the creeks do rise and the multiple perils of drought, flood, fire, hail, blizzard, pests, and disease get the better or our producers. They must have the tools to manage these risks. The agricultural and lending communities have spoken loudly, and they all have continually expressed the need to improve the risk management tools available to producers throughout the U.S. It is time for us to move towards action on this issue. The House Agriculture Committee approved legislation prior to the August recess. It is time for the Senate Agriculture Committee to do the same. A majority of the Committee has said as much by supporting our legislation. Mr. President, we know there are many disagreements within members of the Senate in regards to specific agricultural policy. In fact, Senator Kerrey and I have disagreements of our own on the underlying Farm Bill. However, we all agree that our producers today cannot be successful without access to new, improved, and adequate risk management tools. This legislation accomplishes these needs, and I urge my colleagues to join us in working towards an improved crop insurance program and risk management tools.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Ranking Member for his assistance and all his work on the bill.

Mr. ROBERTS. The first amendment regarding CRP cross compliance is to address a problem we have had in Kansas. In many areas of the state, we have old homesteads that have long been abandoned. As time has passed these old homes have become dilapidated, rundown, and liability risks. Many producers want to remove these old homesteads and incorporate the land into their CRP land, conservation practices, or cropping rotations. But they are unable to do so due to CRP cross compliance rules. Under these rules, producers lose eligibility for CRP payments if they break Highly Erodible land (HEL) into production. Much of the land is considered HEL. Thus most of these homesteads sit on HEL land, and if they are removed, producers have violated the rules and lose payments. This does not seem to make sense and USDA agrees. USDA informed me that they planned to recommend to the Congress the elimination of this program in the next Farm Bill. The other two amendments involve notices regarding CRP Notices 327 and 338 issued by the Farm Service agency last fall and this spring. CRP Notice-327 issued by the Farm Service Agency prohibits the use of CRP land for hunting preserves. The notice does not prohibit land owners from leasing hunting rights or charging access fees to hunters. However, it does prohibit hunting preserves. This notice overturns a practice that has been allowed in many areas since the inception of the CRP program. In fact, these hunting preserves operate from the Kansas and Oklahoma areas to the Dakotas. These preserves are strongly regulated in Kansas and they have resulted in an important economic development activity for many rural areas. In Kansas, we have 112 tracts of land designated for use as hunting preserves. 36 of these tracts are in counties designated by USDA as eligible to apply for Round II Rural Empowerment zones under the criteria established by USDA. Basically, to qualify under this criteria, a county must have lost 15 percent or more of its population between 1980 and 1994. These population losses represent a significant erosion of the economic base of these rural areas. Disallowing these hunting preserves would represent a loss of tourism dollars and an economic hit that many of these counties simply cannot afford to take. CRP Notice 338 prohibits the planting of grass strips on terrace tops for enrollment in the continuous CRP. The notice prohibits the enrollment of grass strips located on the tops of terraces--where erosion is most likely to take place--but allows the enrollment of strips planted between terraces--where crops can actually be grown. Strips planted on terraces provide important environmental functions by reducing both wind and water erosion. Grass strips help to prevent the breakage of terraces that sometimes occurs during torrential rains and they provide important habitat for wildlife. Fifteen groups in Kansas ranging from the State Secretary of Agriculture to the Kansas Audubon Society have asked Secretary Glickman to reverse this ruling. USDA's actions seem directly aimed at a recent brochure prepared by these 15 Kansas organizations that explains how landowners can use these grass strips to improve environmental and wildlife benefits. This amendment tries to return some aspect of local control to these decisions. I thank the ranking member for taking another look at these amendments, and I would ask the Ranking Member's assurance that he will work with his Chairman and House counterparts to address my amendments on the Conservation Reserve Program in conference as well.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to engage the Senators from Wisconsin in this colloquy. Yesterday, when the Senate considered the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, I had offered three amendments regarding the Conservation Reserve Program. It is my understanding that at least one of these amendments had been cleared for approval until just prior to final passage of the bill, and that the Ranking Member and Chairman had been giving consideration to the remaining two amendments. However, the Department of Agriculture had expressed concerns and objections were raised.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I will make it brief. We have $400 million for the disaster program. That is a commitment to agriculture to know that the Secretary can begin to work on the problem in the Atlantic States. That doesn't mean if down the road we have continued droughts--it is the worst in a hundred years in the Atlantic region--that we will not be committed to doing what we have to do. But to do it here, we have no way of knowing what that crop damage will be. So I urge the Senator to say here is $400 million in regard to all of the problems we are experiencing in terms of national disasters, and it doesn't mean that down the road that could not be addressed; we just don't know at this particular time. I don't think it would be responsible to add a whole bunch more money when we don't even know. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Cochran amendment had--I apologize to my friend and colleague because I don't have the specifics of the Cochran amendment here, and I should. Staff has informed me that there was $350 million for livestock payments at the discretion of the Secretary, and we provided $250 million. I am making an assumption, but most of the problems we are experiencing now are in the Senator's area in regard to hog producers. In talking with Secretary Glickman today, I don't think we can make a determination yet as to where most of that money would go--the extra $100 million, if in fact we can call it extra. Well, it goes from $350 million to $250 million. It went to crop insurance, and it went to adding $100 million more on the disaster side. It was a matter of priorities.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator has those figures, I am sure that is correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct. I thank the Senator for reminding me.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I don't have a copy of the Cochran amendment with me. In our original amendment it was $200 million. We increased that to $300 million. The Senator may be correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, what we tried to do with the approach, rather than specifically mentioning some of the crops that have been in controversy on the floor from time to time--and I am talking about sugar and peanuts and tobacco--we have simply provided a fund for the Secretary of $300 million for specialty crops and others not specifically mentioned elsewhere in the amendment. In talking to Secretary Glickman as of this morning and going over specified funding for these crops, which may or may not need assistance in regard to weather problems or lost income problems, he indicated he would rather have that at his discretion. After all, it is the USDA, in the end result, that would be able to determine at the end of the crop years, after harvest, specifically what the situation is. When I mention specific numbers for these particular programs, I am not going to indicate that the Secretary is endorsing this bill in total by any means, but I think his preference would be that he would have the discretion to address these as needed, as opposed to saying we are getting X number of dollars for this particular program. Then we get into a bidding war, and the Senator knows that is what has happened in the past.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct. That is not all of the differences, but the Senator has accurately described two of the differences.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, who, I might add, is a valuable member of the Agriculture Committee and who talks with us continually about farmers who are not in the program crop arena, the value of crop insurance, and the value of disaster assistance, because there are some areas of the country that need assistance that are not covered by the farm bill. I thank the Senator for his contribution.

Mr. ROBERTS. Basically, the amendment is the same as I have discussed with my friend and colleague, with the addition of $400 million for disaster assistance, after talking to the Secretary of Agriculture as of this morning. But we have a summary of the amendment, and we will endeavor to make as many copies as we can during the debate. I think most of my colleagues on that side--and we have been trying to work together--understand what is in the amendment. But without question we will make the copies available to you. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, we have had a great deal of discussion in regard to the kind of emergency assistance we would all like to see happen in the Senate. We have heard quite a bit of debate as to what is appropriate. I have a package that has been endorsed by about six or seven Senators--Senator Burns and Senator Santorum, more especially, who have been especially helpful--Senator Craig, Senator Grassley, Senator Grams, Senator Hagel, all of the cosponsors, to try to reach some accommodation. I am not sure, but perhaps we could conclude this debate and simply have a vote within, I would say, a half hour. I do not know what my friends and colleagues on the other side would say about that, but I make a recommendation and seek unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be for 30 minutes, with 15 minutes divided equally. Could there be an agreement on that? I see the distinguished Democratic leader nodding his head.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I say to the distinguished Democratic leader, I would have hoped that he could have described my amendment as perhaps acceptable as opposed to the completely unacceptable amendment by the Senator from Arizona, and I would hope that would be the case. It is my understanding now we have 30 minutes of time and 15 minutes on a side. I am going to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania who has been a real help to us in trying to put together an amendment that will be acceptable to all parties. I do also thank my friends across the aisle, more particularly Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad and Senator Harkin. We had a discussion yesterday. I know this amendment does not cross every ``t'' or dot every ``i'' in their eyes, but I would say to them that we on our side have tried to move at least to a compromise bill that could be worked out. I had a telephone conversation with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman about 45 minutes ago. I want to point out that the Secretary of Agriculture, and many on the other side, and many on this side, have had the opportunity to work on many farm bills together. There have been 13 emergency or supplemental bills in the last 10 years in regard to agriculture. That shows you the tremendous change that occurs in global agriculture. We have worked together on many of these bills. Secretary Glickman and I are very good friends. We have very strong differences of opinion from time to time; there is no question about that, but we have tried to work together as a team on behalf of agriculture. In regard to this debate, I suggest to everybody that today is the day for compromise and teamwork on behalf of our hard-pressed farmers and ranchers. I do not think they want us debating over and over again the philosophy or the ideology in regard to farm bills. What they want is emergency assistance, and we can then address the problems that we have all talked about in regard to a long-term agenda on behalf of agriculture. Today is not the day to express strong opinions about the current farm bill or assess blame or make the political rhetoric. We have had those days. Today is the day to pass an emergency bill. Senators Burns and Gorton and Santorum and Grassley and Grams and Hagel and I have offered an amendment, now endorsed by the National Association of Wheat Growers, the American Soybean Association, and the American Farm Bureau. Obviously, we have not had enough time to contact all of the commodity organizations, all the farm groups. But I think, without question, most of the farm groups, if not all, certainly support this approach. What does it do? The purpose of this amendment is to provide direct income assistance to farmers and ranchers in the fastest way possible. I know my colleagues across the aisle would prefer a different way, or at least a portion of this assistance to come in a different way, in what is called the LDP program. That is an acronym for the Loan Deficiency Payment. This amendment does provide the assistance through the transition payment, which will provide assistance to farmers in 10 days. We went the LDP route during the last emergency assistance--or to be more accurate, there was emergency assistance granted in the last emergency bill. It took the Secretary of Agriculture 6 to 8 months to get assistance to farmers. We do not need to do that. So it is the fastest way possible. As I have indicated, it is through the structure called the additional transition payments that are contained in the farm bill. It does it with additional payments of 100 percent. Let me say something about the 100 percent for those farms that are in program crops. It means not only do you get a transition payment; you get another transition payment 100 percent equal to that. I will venture to say, with that payment most farmers in America, in terms of wheat and corn and your basic crops--and, yes, in regard to cotton and step 2, which is another program--that extra income assistance will move those prices at least to the cost of production and maybe even more. As opposed to other amendments, this approach that has been offered does not change current farm program policy. You do not need to rewrite the farm bill during the appropriations process or during an emergency bill. You may have very strong beliefs about this farm bill. I do. But now is not the time to rewrite the farm program in regard to this emergency bill. We can do that next year. I hope we do not in the middle of an election year, but obviously people have strong beliefs. I do not believe this is the appropriate place. The bill also provides assistance to soybean and oil seed producers. It provides assistance to livestock producers, to cotton producers, with regard to the step 2 program that has been so eloquently described by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, and to specialty crop producers and others who do not receive program crops. I say to Senators paying attention--I hope they are, either in their officers or wherever they are--all of you who represent farmers who do not have program crops not covered by the farm bill, this amendment provides the most assistance to those who are in specialty crops and others. We do not go down every commodity and raise amendments such as the one that is going to be introduced by the Senator from Arizona. Some of these commodities, some of these programs raise a lot of objections. We have had historic debates in that regard. Let's not go down that path. We give money to the Secretary of Agriculture for specialty crops. Only the USDA can determine which of those crops, which of those regions really need the assistance. I think that approach is best. Most important, it contains funds for crop insurance reform to keep the crop insurance premiums at current levels. We reduced them last year. They will spike up again. So we have money to keep those at that level. I tell my colleagues, finally, those of us who have tried to keep this bill under $7 billion for budgetary concerns, we have also provided another $400 million for disaster assistance as a result of talking to the Secretary of Agriculture, who was in West Virginia with Senator Byrd yesterday. We have all seen on television the effects of drought. Anybody who comes from farm country understands the effects of drought. Secretary Glickman said: I need money immediately. So we provided $400 million. Will it be enough? I don't know. But at least in terms of that request, I think it is appropriate. As I say, Secretary Glickman was in West Virginia with Senator Byrd, and the need is very crucial. That brings the total of the package to $7.5 billion, but we have a drought on hand and we have an emergency. All this assistance is provided without each commodity or specialty crop coming to the table in a bidding war. We have already had that, reopening, as I have indicated, the historic and unneeded debates of the past. Instead we have emergency assistance that will provide farmers needed assistance down the road. If you want to look at farm program policy in future debates with hearings, perhaps that is appropriate. How much time does the Senator require?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. ROBERTS. I now have staff here; I now have my brains on the floor, so I am happy to respond.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, who has worked very hard on this proposal.