Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I may go step 1 instead of step 2. Mr. President, on the definition of ``bipartisan,'' bipartisan is where you accept our view and not your view, and different Senators can define that depending on their strong opinion. Let me point out that when this started, the amount of funding was somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion, and many thought that was too much. It is now $7.5 billion. If that isn't compromise, and some would think in the wrong direction, I don't know what compromise is. Let me point out that Senators came to me from both sides of the aisle. This has not been exclusively a Republican initiative by any means. They worried that too many of these programs were not specified, and they had a lot of problems with those individual programs. Let me point out that when I met with my good friends and colleagues in that Cloakroom and discussed this issue for about 20 minutes, if that isn't bipartisan, colleagues, I must have been in the wrong Cloakroom. Now we are into a discussion as to whether or not there is enough disaster assistance when the Secretary of Agriculture indicated that $400 million was at least a first step for him to take a look at it. Then we are into these acronyms of LDP and AMTA. That is why people's eyes glaze over when we have any debate on farm program policy. We ought to give the money out. Under AMTA, you get it in 10 days. Under LDP, it takes months. We are arguing about acronyms and we are arguing about numbers. Let's get the assistance to farmers and end this debate and don't change the farm program policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, can I ask the distinguished Senator, if I could finish up my time?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 1 additional minute to the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, who has also worked extremely hard on this compromise.

Mr. ROBERTS. May I ask a question of the Senator? Would he yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the most important thing is to get this emergency assistance out to farmers as fast as we can and keep it within a realm that is at least reasonable in regard to the budget and in a way the farmer can get the assistance. We can do that in 10 days by the system that is proposed by the Senator from Mississippi. I have already mentioned the payment limitation concern. I must say, if you look at the Harkin amendment, it not only deals with emergency assistance--and Senator Harkin truly believes we ought to rewrite the farm bill, and he is doing that in regard to his amendment. We have peanuts, dairy payments, and livestock payments; and I am assuming most of it would go to the hog producers, but we means test that again. We have set-aside authority and we have disaster funding, where we set aside another $600 million. We backfill the 1998 disaster assistance. Then we have money to establish a permanent program for land that has been flooded for continuous years. With all due respect to my colleagues from the Northern Plains, we have a name for a land in Kansas that has been covered with water for 3 years; it is called a lake. We have millions for tobacco producers. My golly, are we going back to 1982 when we all decided in the House of Representatives--and we were all there at that time--we were going to get the Government out of subsidizing tobacco farmers? Are we back to that? Be careful what you ask for. So we have included tobacco in this bill. I am not making any aspersions on the hard-hit tobacco producers, but, folks, that is not PC. I am not sure about that one. And then we have mandatory price reporting, something I have supported in the Agriculture Committee, with some changes made by Senator Kerrey. But we are approving funding for legislation and we haven't even marked it up yet. Then we have mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat and vegetables. Right now, we have a tremendous problem with the European Union and all countries in Europe on GMOs, genetically modified organisms. People in white coats are descending upon the fields over in Great Britain, ripping up the GMO crops. The problem is, they made a mistake and ripped up the wrong crop. We ought to go to sound science and work out these problems, and we are trying to do that. In regard to the trade problems we have--which Secretary Glickman talks about and most aggies are worried about--we are going to put this in country-of-origin labeling on top of that issue. I don't think it has really been proven that our producers will increase prices and that it will result in trade retaliations. We have $200 million for a short-term set-aside. I don't want to go back to set-asides; I think that would be counterproductive. Some of these provisions I have mentioned are also in the provision introduced by my dear friend and colleague, the Senator from Mississippi. I think, again, we ought to be providing emergency assistance to farmers and not be writing the farm bill but proceeding to work together in a bipartisan way, if we possibly can, to address the real reasons as to why we have these low commodity prices. When this comes up this afternoon, I urge Members to pay attention. A lot of this gets very convoluted and very technical, I know, in regard to farm program policy. But it would be my desire that Members look very closely at this in regard to the budget implications and things that can go bump in the night--the law of unattended effects--down the road that I don't think we want to experience in farm country. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I have no objection to that whatsoever. I have about 15 or 20 minutes of remarks.

Mr. ROBERTS. Who has the floor?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the need to provide emergency financial relief to our country's farmers and ranchers and to rural America in what will hopefully be short-term assistance that will allow our producers to meet their cash flow needs while Congress also pursues the long-term objectives needed to provide a profitable agriculture sector into the 21st century. As one Kansas farmer told me recently: ``Pat, in farm country today we are just not in very good shape for the shape we are in.'' Farmers today, as many of my colleagues are pointing out, are struggling with depressed prices and cash flow difficulties, especially farmers who do not receive program payments under the current farm bill. We can and should provide relief to enable our producers to get through these very difficult times, and the choice between the relief package that has been offered by Senator Cochran and that offered by Senator Harkin will determine the kind and amount of assistance that will be forthcoming--or some other substitute. In this regard, I have been urging Congress to act on a program of limited but effective assistance before this August break to send a strong signal to farmers, ranchers, and most important, the agriculture lending community. Land values have not tailed off, but the continuing stress certainly could lead to that. We need to nip that in the bud. On the other hand, I do not believe it is in the interest of American agriculture to rewrite the current farm bill or to enact policy that will be market interfering, market disruptive, and lead us back down the road to command and control farm policy from Washington. Unfortunately, I believe both of the proposals that are before us today, or at least some aspects of those proposals, do fall into that category, especially the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle. I will discuss the shortcomings of these proposals later, but first let me point out, this emergency assistance debate is only part of the story. The rest of the story involves the drumbeat of rhetoric we have heard from our Democrat colleagues and friends across the aisle, and the Clinton administration, who, month after month, week after week, day after day, have blamed the 1996 farm bill, called Freedom to Farm, for the collapse of commodity prices, if not the end of production agriculture and family farms in the United States. Reading the press releases, the resulting headlines, and listening to my colleagues, you would think the current farm bill was the result of some sinister plot concocted in the dead of night. Apparently, they would like farmers and ranchers to believe our current farm policy is responsible for record worldwide production; increasing and record yield production and productivity; the worst international economic crisis since the early 1980s decimating our largest markets; record subsidies by the European Union, some $60 billion; weather--too much rain, too little rain, the obvious drought in the Atlantic States, La Nina and El Nino; persistent plant diseases in the northern plains, and crop infestation in all other regions; new technology and precision agriculture; currency changes and the value of the dollar that have reduced American exports--that would be some farm bill. But those are the causes that have actually led to the low commodity prices. In fact, the current farm bill came after 38 full committee and subcommittee hearings in the House Agriculture Committee during my tenure as Chairman, 21 of which were held in farm country--every region, every commodity--all open-microphone listening sessions. Extensive hearings were also held here in Washington on this side of the Capitol in the Senate Agriculture Committee. Literally thousands of farmers and ranchers voiced their opinion. They overwhelmingly stated they wanted the Government to get out of their planting decisions, to quit interfering in the marketplace, so they could make their own marketing decisions based on what was best for their farms, their ranches, according to the market. The bottom line, farmers told us there was too much in command and control that came from Washington. They were tired of standing in line outside the Farm Service Agency so that Washington could tell them what to plant in exchange for a Government subsidy. As one 89-year-old Kansas farmer told us in Dodge City--and I quote: I farmed for nearly 60 years and I never planted a crop that the government had not told me I could plant. The single most important goal and rationale behind the 1996 farm bill was to restore decision making back to the individual producer, i.e., the freedom to farm. It is true--almost all of the speeches that have been made on the floor of the Senate, and all of the press conferences that we have heard all throughout farm country--it is true our commodity prices are depressed. Markets are depressed worldwide. Everyone involved in agriculture certainly knows and is dealing with that firsthand. But as the saying goes in farm country: Comin' as close to the truth as a man can come without gettin' there is comin' pretty close but it still ain't the truth. Or put another way, no matter who says what, don't believe it if it doesn't make sense. With all due respect to my colleagues who apparently believe the 1996 Farm Act is the root cause of problems in farm country, I do not believe that is simply the case. I understand the politics of the issue. As scarce as the truth is, the supply seems greater than demand. And with Freedom to Farm, there is no demand amongst some of my Democrat friends. But politics aside, I must admit I am both puzzled and amazed by the rhetoric we have heard over and over and over and over again. How can a farm bill that has provided on average more income assistance during difficult times over the past 3 years than occurred during the five- year average under the old farm bill be bad for farmers? Let me point out that the market situation for all raw commodities is under stress. In addition to low crop prices, we have also been suffering through low farm prices for cattle, for hogs, for oil, for gold, for gas, and all raw commodities. None of these commodities has been covered by a farm bill--any farm bill. Is the current farm bill responsible for the market collapse in these commodities? Obviously not. But the causes that caused those low prices are the same ones that caused the problem with regard to farm country. There was an interesting press report about a week ago. It was on the front page of a newspaper about the severity of the agriculture situation--and it is severe. The lead of the story said: In the wake of dismal prairie farm income projections, agriculture officials emphasized the need for an improved long term safety net. If something is not done we are going to lose a lot of farmers. But you know, that story was not about the United States; it was about Canada and their farm crisis. Canadian farmers are facing bleak prospects; and the same is true in Great Britain; and the same is true in Europe; and the same is true all over this world, in Latin America and South America, as well. I do not think that Freedom to Farm caused their problems. This is a worldwide market decline, and as such is unprecedented. What has caused the low commodity prices? First, farmers worldwide have had good growing weather and produced record crops for 3 years in a row--unprecedented. That is what my good friend and colleague, the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, said a few weeks ago when we attended a joint meeting--unprecedented record crops. Second, we have experienced a world depression in regard to our export markets, both in Asia and Latin America and South America. Third, the European Union is now spending a record $60 billion--85 percent of the world's ag subsidies--on their subsidies. Fourth, the currency exchange rates reduced the level of farm exports and farm prices. A 16-percent appreciation in the value of the U.S. dollar has been responsible for 17 to 25 percentage points of the decline in corn and wheat prices. Fifth, a market-oriented farm program depends on an aggressive trade policy. In regard to trade, although it is very controversial, we did not do fast track. We had a very historic agreement with China, with bipartisan work on it, and then it was pulled back; and then it was followed by the bombing of the Chinese Embassy. That was not the intent, but that is what has happened. And we are about to put agriculture last--certainly not first--in the coming WTO trade talks in Seattle. We continue to employ counterproductive sanctions that punish U.S. farmers and reward our competitors with market share and have no effect on our foreign policy. The administration has moved in this regard. We have bipartisan support for sanctions reform, but we still cannot use the USDA export programs in regard to making those sales. Again, the cause for these low prices is not the 1996 farm bill. Quite the contrary, under Freedom to Farm--and I want everybody to listen to this--farmers in each State represented by most of the critics of the 1996 act have and are receiving more income assistance on average than they did under the old bill. Under Freedom to Farm, farmers themselves--not Washington--have set aside their crop production and switched to other higher value crops. Nevertheless, we hear the mantra that we do not have a safety net. Let me point out, for the past 3 years of the current farm bill we have provided transition payments--somehow or other in this debate the reality of transition payments over the 6-year life of the farm bill has been ignored. It is almost like they do not exist in the minds of the critics, but we have provided them. They are direct income support, and that amounts to approximately $23 billion to our farmers and ranchers for the past 3 years of the bill. On the downside, we have also provided nearly $3 billion in what is called loan deficiency payments. That means the price goes below the loan rate. The loan rate was pretty low. We would never have imagined we would have to use the LDP program, but we had to--$3 billion. Recent estimates by the USDA are projecting possible LDPs totaling $8 billion this year. These numbers total to nearly $34.5 billion by the end of 1999, and they do not include the $6 billion in lost market payments and disaster relief that were paid to farmers in 1998. If you add in the $6 billion emergency package of last year, and the proposed assistance now being debated, the total is unprecedented-- unprecedented--but even before these disaster payments you still had more income under the current farm bill than farmers would have received under the old one, under the 5-year average. So from that standpoint, I do think we have a safety net. In the past 3 years in Minnesota, for the benefit of my dear friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, the safety net for farmers under Freedom to Farm averaged $136 million more in total payments compared to the state average under the old bill. In South Dakota, the safety net for farmers under Freedom to Farm averaged for the past 3 years was $58 million more than the state average under the old bill. In North Dakota--Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad are two Members who fight for their farmers and believe very passionately that we must address this problem--$15 million more; in Nebraska, $109 million more; and in Iowa, the safety net for farmers under Freedom to Farm in the last 3 years provided $162 million more than the previous bill. Is it enough in regard to the problems we face that are unprecedented? Is it enough for the northern prairie States with border problems and wheat scab and weather you can't believe? I do not know. That is for those Senators and those farmers to determine. But there has been a significant increase in that direct income assistance to those producers. Finally, for those who like roosters at the dawn and coyotes at dusk, crow and howl that we have ripped the rug out from underneath our farmers and the safety net, let me point out that during the first 3 years of Freedom to Farm, the average amount of income assistance to hard-pressed farmers was higher in every one of the 50 States than the 5-year average for each State during the previous farm bill. Again, these higher 3-year averages do not include emergency assistance that producers received through the structure of the Freedom to Farm Act that farmers received last year and they will receive this year when we finally get to the determination of whatever emergency package we should pass. In making these statements, let me urge my colleagues to do their homework. Take time to read an assessment of the 1996 Farm Act by the Coalition for Competitive Food in the Agriculture System, published this June. In brief, the summary concluded the act did not cause the low commodity prices--I mentioned the two causes--supported the underlying health of the farm economy, and has provided a strong safety net--yes, buttressed by the emergency legislation--and, one of the biggest conclusions, forces U.S. competitors to adjust to the world market. There is a summary of this report, and I ask unanimous consent to have the summary printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, most of the critics of the current act have recommended that we rewrite the farm bill, and I think most, at least--and I don't want to be too specific here because I am not sure-- have indicated they would like a return to set-aside programs and higher loan rates and farmer-owned reserves, basically a return to the old farm bill. They say we need to do it so we can control production and increase the price of our commodities. Lord knows, I would like to try anything, almost, to increase the price of our commodities. My question is this: How do we convince our competitors to follow suit? Past history shows us that when we reduce our acreages, our competitors do not follow suit. World stocks are not reduced. They increase their production by more than we reduce ours. There is no clearer example than during the 5-year period from 1982 to 1988 when the United States harvested 12 million fewer acres of soybeans and, during the same period, Argentina and Brazil increased their production by 14 million acres. Guess which countries are now the largest competitors of the United States in the soybean market. Critics will also claim that plantings and stocks have increased and prices have plummeted because our farmers were allowed to plant fence row to fence row. That is not true either. The United States was not the cause of increased world production. In 1996, farmers in the United States planted about 75 million acres of wheat. Under Freedom to Farm, that fell to 70 million in 1997, 65 million acres in 1998. That is almost a 14-percent drop in wheat acreage. The farmer made that decision, not somebody in Washington, a voluntary set-aside. It was a paid diversion because he got the AMTA payment. USDA projections are an additional decrease this year of another 9 percent. That is a voluntary farmer set-aside, not a government mandated set-aside. If U.S. wheat farmers planted less wheat, where did the record crops come from? We have been blessed with near perfect growing conditions in most of wheat country. The average farmer's yield went from 36 bushels an acre to 43 last year, 47 this year. Once again, the American farmer's record of productivity is simply amazing. I don't know of any farm bill that has ever been able to control production in other countries, or the weather, or growing conditions. I don't think even our friends across the aisle who are most critical would propose trying to limit the farmer's yield. Still despite these facts, the naysayers say we must control production and raise loan rates. Raising loan rates will only increase or prolong the excess levels of crops in storage and on the market and actually result in lower prices down the road. Excess stocks will depress prices. Do we then extend the loan rate or raise it, leading to an endless cycle, leading to a return to planting requirements and Washington telling farmers to set aside ground to control production and limit the budgetary costs? How do higher loan rates help producers who have suffered crop failures and have no crop underneath the loan? We had low prices in the mid-1980s. As a matter of fact, in 1985, and, it seems to me, in 1986, we spent almost $25.9 billion. We tried PIK and Roll; we tried certificates; we tried set-asides. We tried everything under the sun. We passed the 1985 act dealing with unprecedented world conditions. So we tried that. We had the higher loan rates. It is one thing to propose a new farm program, albeit we haven't seen anything too specific. But how do you pay for the budget cost, notwithstanding the emergency declaration of this legislation, which I think is appropriate? There was no request from the President, after 3 years of complaining, no request from Secretary Glickman for additional funding. It seems to me it is one thing to propose changes in the farm bill in the form of increased loan rates, however you want to change it--or, as the President says, we just need a better farm bill--and another to propose how we pay for it. The reason I am bringing this up is, I think we need a little truth in budgeting, aside from the proposed emergency legislation that we need. Do the advocates of change pay for the new program, set-asides, and increased loan rates or whatever it is in regards to the new farm program by taking away the transition payments now provided to farmers under Freedom to Farm? Will farmers willingly give up the transition payments, direct income assistance, and go back to the days of standing in line at the Farm Service Agency, filling out the forms and the paperwork, and set aside 20 percent or more of their acreage? What do we tell farmers who have on their own made historic planting changes from primary crops in the past to crops of higher value--oil seeds, sorghum, dry peas, navy beans, soybeans, and, yes, cotton? Under Freedom to Farm, I tell my distinguished friend and colleague from Mississippi, in the heart of cotton country, we have 40,000 acres in Kansas that are now in cotton production. When Steve Foster wrote the song ``Those Old Cotton Fields Back Home,'' he was talking about Kansas. We have the most cost-efficient cotton in the world because the temperatures are so low, you don't have to use pesticides on the insects. None of that would have happened without the flexibility in regards to the new farm bill. The reduction in wheat acreage going to other crops has been dramatic in 1997 to 1998: 15 percent down in North Dakota, 15.5 percent in South Dakota; 18 percent in Kansas; 18 percent in Minnesota; 15 percent in Texas. These are farmer-made decisions, and the changes in American agriculture have exceeded all expectations. Farmers have switched because it made economic sense. The plain and simple and sometimes painful truth is that all U.S. producers are no longer the most efficient producers of certain crops, now wheat, in the world. That is true of other crops. But if you give the farmer the proper research and the proper export tools and the proper precision agriculture tools and the proverbial so-called level and fair trading field--which does not exist right now--he can be. But we must also have the flexibility and the freedom to respond to market signals. So instead of looking back to the failed policies of the past, I think we must look to a long-term agenda for the future that allows our farmers and ranchers to be successful. That agenda includes most of what was promised during the passage of the Freedom to Farm Act--promises, promises, promises. I held up this ledger. I had two of them. On one side it said, if we go to a market-oriented farm program, these are the things we will have to do to complement it in order that it may work. And we listed them. That was the other side of the ledger. Unfortunately, I am sad to say that those promises have not been kept by either side of the aisle. If I get a little thin skinned in regards to all the criticism in regards to the act that we put together, I am more than a little unhappy in regards to the Republican and Democrat leadership and the lack of progress on things we promised that would complement Freedom to Farm, things that attract bipartisan support from all of us who are privileged to represent agriculture. I am talking about an aggressive and consistent trade policy, fast track legislation, sanctions reform with authority to use USDA export programs, a strategy for WTO negotiations that puts agriculture first, a renewed effort to complete the trade breakthrough we had with China. I am talking about tax legislation. Some of it is in the tax bill. Unfortunately, we have a political fussing and feuding exercise, and some of these will not actually take place--100-percent self-employed health insurance deductibility, farm savings accounts. If we had farm savings accounts, this situation would be tough but it wouldn't be grim. Capital gains and estate tax reform. I am talking about crop insurance reform. Senator Kerrey and I have what I think is a very good crop insurance bill. I am talking about regulatory reform and about commonsense management of the Food Quality Protection Act. And, yes, I am talking about reasonable emergency assistance to provide income assistance due to the unprecedented record crops, EU subsidies, world depression of the export markets. And that brings us to the two proposals we have before us today. Let me point out that, given the dynamic change in agriculture and world markets, no farm bill has ever been perfect or set in stone. That has been the case with the seven farm bills I have been directly involved with since I have had the privilege--seven of them. That statement is buttressed by the fact that, in the last 10 years, there have been no less than 13 emergency supplementals or disaster bills. Given the current drought in the Atlantic States and our price and cash flow problems due to the unprecedented developments I have already discussed, there are going to be 14. It is just what form it will take. But it seems to me we should not be in the business of spending more than is necessary, or making changes in farm program policy that will be market disruptive, or that will lead us back down the road to command and control agriculture in Washington. That, of course, depends on your definition. There are several questions, or concerns, I have in regard to the emergency assistance package introduced by my friend, Senator Harkin, and my friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee. The income loss assistance that has been proposed by Senator Harkin, as I understand it, has a fixed amount of $6.4 billion made available. But it sets up a parallel supplemental loan deficiency payment system with a separate $40,000 payment. It provides that payments be made to producers with failed acreage, or acreage prevented from plantings, based on actual production history, and provides for advance payments to producers as soon as possible. And we want that. I think we are headed toward a train wreck in regard to the payment limitation. One of the major concerns among farmers is the $75,000 payment limitation on an existing $7 billion to $8 billion worth of loan deficiency payments. Now we are trying to cram an additional $6.4 billion through a payment limitation half that size, and it seems to me we are going to have some real problems. Per unit payments will go up, and a smaller and smaller percentage of production will be covered. Now, if this new payment form is supposed to go to those who produce, it is ironic that we are going to see 85 percent of the producers who produce the field crops shortchanged to bulk up payments to those that really create 15 percent of the crops. This isn't the big producer/ small producer argument. I think the penalty will reach down to the medium-size commercial farmer, while the part-timer with a job in town may reap a windfall. Discretion to the Secretary. Last year's disaster program was predicated on giving the Secretary maximum discretion to use his expertise to create a fair and speedy program. The delivery of disaster payments was delayed for 8 months. This program relies even more heavily on the Secretary. I hope that Secretary Glickman has magic in the way he can get the payments out. The Secretary must take a fixed amount of money and fairly divide it among producers; guess in August the total production of a variety of crops for the year; determine which producers will have failed acres and determine their actual production history; calculate how a $40,000 payment limit will affect the division of the funds; create a per bushel, pound, or hundredweight payment for crops not yet harvested; determine how to make advanced payments; and he must prorate payments when and if all the guesses happen to turn out to be wrong. Last year, with a far simpler task, the Secretary gave up and waited until June to make the payments. Let me point out that transition payments under the AMTA supplemental plan went out in 10 days. They were delivered to producers in 10 days. Direct income assistance: A farmer could take the check and show it to his banker and say: I can make it through the next year. WTO limits. Almost unnoticed in the farm crisis is the rapid increase in payments made to producers. The United States is rapidly approaching the limit allowed in the treaty for payments defined in something called the amber box as trade distorting. All payments associated with commodity loans, including LDPs, are counted in the amber box. They are not counted in the AMTA box if you provide farmers direct assistance due to unprecedented things. That will nearly double LDPs in 2000 and may very well put us over the limit, making it very difficult for the President to sign a bill that would violate the Uruguay Round agreement. My question is: What is the White House position on the Harkin amendment as it applies to payments to farmers through the loan deficiency payment program, as opposed to the AMTA payments? I have other questions, too. I have indicated to my colleague from Minnesota that I would not take too long, and I have already done that. I apologize to him. Again, we know the money can be distributed through the AMTA system in as little as 10 days.

Mr. ROBERTS. I only have about 2 minutes left.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today, by a previous order, the Senate will begin a series of stacked votes on the Abraham Social Security lockbox amendment, the Baucus motion to recommit, and the Robb amendment regarding effective dates of the provisions in the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999. Following the votes, Senator Gramm of Texas will be recognized to offer a substitute amendment containing across-the-board tax cuts, estate tax relief, and reductions in capital gains taxation. By previous consent, there then will be 10 hours of debate time remaining on the bill today. Therefore, it is the intention of the majority leader and other rational Senators to continue to make significant progress on the bill and complete action on this legislation no later than tomorrow. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as a reminder, a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill was filed on Friday, and that vote has been scheduled to take place at 10:30 tomorrow morning. Therefore, that cloture vote will be the first vote of this week. For the information of all Senators, it is the intention of the majority leader to complete action on as many appropriations bills as possible prior to the August recess. Therefore, Senators should expect votes into the evenings and on Mondays and on Fridays all throughout the next 3 weeks. I thank my colleagues for their attention. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin a period of morning business until 1 o'clock. Order of Procedure Following morning business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate begin debate on the motion to proceed to the intelligence authorization bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I now object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately proceed to a period of morning business until 1 o'clock. By previous consent, at 1 p.m. the Patients' Bill of Rights will be the pending business. Amendments to that legislation are possible. However, any votes ordered will not take place until tomorrow at a time to be determined by the two leaders. Following this week's debate on health care, the Senate will resume consideration of the remaining appropriations bills. It is imperative that these funding bills be completed prior to the next legislative break. As a reminder to all Senators, a cloture vote on the pending lockbox amendment to S. 557 is scheduled to take place on Friday, July 16.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with Senator Moynihan, or his designee, in control of the time between 10:30 a.m. and 11, Senator Grams, or his designee, in control of the time between 11 o'clock in the morning and 12 noon, and Senator Specter, or his designee, in control of the time between 12 noon and 12:30. Following morning business, the Senate will stand in recess until 2:15 p.m. so the weekly party conferences can meet. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, there will be an additional 2 hours of morning business equally divided between the two leaders. The Senate is then expected to resume consideration of the pending and long-suffering agriculture appropriations bill. Therefore, votes are expected to occur. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, there is strong bipartisan support to address the problem of unequal quorum call time charges. We simply cannot let this injustice go on. Let us take action. So to rectify this situation, I now suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1233, the fiscal year 2000 agriculture appropriations bill. I commend Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl for bringing forward what I believe is a solid bill to fund our most important programs in agriculture and provide continued benefits to rural America. This has been no easy task. With the tight budget caps that are in place, preparing this bill was a very difficult task, and I applaud the Senator for his hard work in this area. Let me just say a word about the Senator from Mississippi in this regard. There is a routine procedure in this body and that is to thank the hard-working chairmen of our Senate committees, and, of course, their ranking members, for their hard work in bringing important legislation to the floor. That practice is certainly appropriate in regard to the Senators who have worked to bring this bill to our consideration, including the chairman, as I have indicated, and the distinguished ranking member from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl. But I would like to offer three cheers and a ``well done'' to Senator Cochran. If there is a Senator who I think everyone would agree is the epitome of a Southern gentleman and a Senator who goes about his work with dignity and decorum and truly still gets things done, that Senator is Senator Cochran. Here we are in the midst of all sorts of problems and challenges in agriculture today, unprecedented situations, really, what with the world depression that is still hindering our markets, unfair trading practices by our competitors, record world production that has caused market declines in virtually every commodity, trade policy that is hampered by all sorts of challenges, the need for sanctions reform, crop insurance reform, and tax policy changes and reform. The list goes on, as has been mentioned by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, including the need for emergency assistance under the current farm bill. We are going to be debating all this and the answers individual Senators will bring to this debate and to this legislation. But through it all we will have the steady hand of Senator Cochran and his calm and reasoned and experienced leadership. I thank the Senator for the job he has done for our farmers and ranchers, the men and women of rural America who work so hard to feed our Nation and a troubled and hungry world. Chairman Cochran has presented a bill that really freezes the discretionary spending at the fiscal 1999 level, while still managing to provide increased funding in several areas, including agriculture research, the staffing for the farm service agencies, and the Food Safety Inspection Service. I mention the freeze in particular because what we would like to do, as we consider the 13 major appropriations bills, as we are going through that process, is stick to the budget as best as we possibly can. Obviously, if we do that, interest rates will remain low. Hopefully, we will control inflation, because interest rates are of tremendous importance to the farmer and rancher, and, for that matter, every business person in America. Investing in agriculture research, as Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl have done, is perhaps one of the most important investments we can make as a nation. Today our farmers and ranchers actually produce more food to feed more people on less land--on less land--than ever before. That is a modern day miracle, and it is a miracle in no short part because of agriculture research. Ag research has played a major role in increasing the productivity of our Nation's farms in the past century. The projections indicate that as the world's population continues to grow in the next 50 years, the world understandably will have to dramatically increase its agriculture production and its food output. The United States will be the leader in this quest to feed, as I have indicated before, a troubled and hungry world with a growing population, but we are not going to be successful without this continued commitment to agriculture research funding. The Senators have done that in regard to their subcommittee work, and it is now before the Senate for our consideration. I also thank Senator Cochran for his efforts to increase funding for the Farm Service Agency staff. I know any increased funding for any Government program or Government agency staff is not very popular in Washington. I have often had my own concerns with such increases. I assure my colleagues that this increased funding is desperately needed. Many county farm service agencies--that is the old ASCS--have been swamped by the number of loan deficiency payment and USDA lending requests they have had to address. As a matter of fact, when we considered the farm bill of 1996, I do not think any of us would have imagined the vulnerability of the Farm Service Agency or the demands on the Farm Service Agency as a result of the LDP payments that came into play. Despite the best efforts of our county offices to serve our producers in a timely and efficient manner, the staffing necessary to accomplish this goal simply has not been up to the level needed to provide the quality of service that our producers expect. I also thank the chairman and the ranking member for increases in the FSIS budget. That is an acronym which stands for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. A safe food supply is essential, and our consumers demand it. As my colleagues know, my State of Kansas is one of the largest beef producers in the world, with a large number of packing operations as well. With a continued shortage of inspectors in the Topeka district, I am concerned, and I hope and expect the Secretary of Agriculture to address these deficiencies--I know he will--through this increased funding. I also ask him to contact the Congress and inform us of any continued shortfalls that may be occurring. Before I close, I want to address what I know is also a very critical concern of many of my colleagues, and that is the tough times we are experiencing throughout rural America. Every farm organization, every commodity group, every producer one visits with obviously tells the same story. I thank Senator Cochran for making it very clear we are going to work with the President and we are going to work in a bipartisan fashion--we have already had several meetings since the first of the year--to try to address this. When the President does inform the Congress, along with the help of Secretary Glickman and others, on what kind of an additional package is necessary and some of the specifics as the crops are harvested, we will be more than willing to take a hard look at this need as harvest season moves along. We did last year. The process, as the Senator has pointed out, was a little backward in regard to how we approached that. Let's do the right thing in regard to the President making his recommendation and working with us and we will work with him. I agree with Senator Cochran; prior to the President's request, we can do a lot of talking about it, and we have for the last several years, but I believe that would be premature. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, my good friend and colleague from Kansas, was quoted in the press last week as saying it would be preferable to go in that direction and it was too early to determine the size of any package that may be needed. In the meantime, I am committed, as a member of the authorizing committee, the Senate Agriculture Committee, to pursuing the long-term goals needed to ensure the long-term financial viability of our farmers and ranchers. Senator Cochran and others have talked at length in this Chamber about these, about the crucial needs--expanded export markets, sanctions reform, embargo policies, tax reform, regulatory relief, crop insurance reform--all of the things we talked about, by the way, when we were trying to put together the 1996 farm bill. There was a list. There was a ledger, as a matter of fact. In those days, I had the privilege of being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee as we put that together. We said: Look, if we go to a more market-oriented farm policy--we all wanted that and we wanted producer flexibility to meet the producer's individual needs, to restore the decisionmaking back to the farm level as opposed to Washington--we can do that but only in a component package of other things we need to do. Quite frankly, I must tell my colleagues that we, and I am using the editorial we--Democrats, Republicans, the administration, the Senate and the House--we have not done that. We have not gone down that list that I and others put on the ledger. There is no pride of authorship here. We need to do it now. Had we done it then and 2 years ago, I do not think the situation would be nearly as grave throughout our rural areas. Let's get cracking on these challenges, as well as meeting the crucial spending needs or the appropriation needs in regard to U.S. agriculture. I mentioned expanded export markets, sanctions reform, tax reform, regulatory relief--all of that. We need to pass this legislation and move to a very quick conference with the House. The programs funded in this legislation are too important to be delayed. We need action on them. I commend, again, Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl for their fine efforts on this legislation under very difficult funding circumstances. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation to quick passage and then working with my colleagues on the other policy changes I have mentioned, and, yes, I know at the end of harvest, we will work with the President, we will work with everybody on that side of the aisle to put together a reasonable program of relief because we have yet to see the relief in our markets. This has been going on now for 2 years. Again, I thank Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl for their efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. A week ago yesterday, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and I took the opportunity to travel about 5 miles from Skopje, Macedonia, to a scrub pine-covered hill that was overlooking the Skopje Airport and the valley that leads to Kosovo. On the way, we saw the U.S. troops, primarily the Army, and then the British, Germans, and the French, all part of the NATO command we now call KFOR, making the preparations for ground entry into Kosovo. Beyond those encampments, the dusty road led to some high ground. As we topped the hill, about 100 yards into the scrub pine were the members of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Force led by Col. Kenneth Glueck and his XO Lt. Col. Bob Taylor. Some 1,900 marines and 186 vehicles were deploying into Kosovo. Just a few days earlier, these men and women were aboard ship in an Italian port as members of the Marine Expeditionary Unit. Despite all of the delay in regard to the bureaucratic problems--road and transportation snafus and unfriendly but rather benign protests by some demonstrators in Greece--the marines were deployed and the command post was up and running when the advance units were reporting in. With great respect for our allies, while their units were conducting maintenance and they were relaxing prior to moving out, the marines had already conducted 2 days of training. In recent weeks, there has been much discussion and criticism about the use of ground troops in the Balkans. The point has always been made that, simply given the opposition by NATO countries and the administration to the use of ground troops and the lack of contingency planning, it would take months to put together any contingency plans, the necessary unified command and control, supply lines and battle plans--it would take months. No need to worry. When the order was given, your Navy-Marine Corps team, a true force in readiness, was there. They were deployed in days--not weeks or months. I asked Col. Glueck and Lt. Col. Taylor why the marines chose the high ground miles away from the U.S. and allied forces. He responded: Well, sir, we arrived at 2300, set up our command post and staging base, secured the area, and were ready to go by morning. We just didn't want to lose our edge. And they haven't. Today those marines are keeping a difficult peace. They are serving as protectors, as police, as judge, as jury, as peacekeepers, and as possible targets. Along with the 82nd Airborne, they are doing an outstanding job. They were doing their best in the Balkan briar patch. Senator Campbell and I had the privilege of visiting with individual marines and found their dedication and morale was second to none. It was a real ``battery charger'' for me. As a result, we both stood taller that day. In a day and age when our military is stressed and strained and hollow in parts, with recruiting and retention reaching alarming levels--so serious, by the way, that the President had to mandate a stop loss order, meaning those on active duty who are scheduled to leave active duty cannot--and with serious problems all throughout our military, asking a military that has been cut by one-third to do more in 93 nations around the world, not to mention the problems in health care, in the quality of life, personnel tempo and operations tempo, readiness, modernization and procurement, mission quality, and all the rest, how on Earth can the U.S. Marine Corps meet its recruiting and retention goals and perform so well in the field? I will tell you how. It is called leadership, and it is called standards. Those standards, those values, are set by the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps: Honor, courage, and commitment. They have not changed, and they will not change. Let me state why, with the following quote: To Marines, Honor, Courage and Commitment are not simply words or a bumper sticker slogan. They reflect our deepest convictions and dramatically shape everything that we do. We imbue Marines with our core values from their first moments in the Corps because we know that Marines, not weapons, win battles. As an institution, we have had to fight hard to maintain our standards. To some, they may seem old-fashioned, out of step with society, or perhaps even extremist, but we know that our high standards are the lifeblood of the Corps, so we have held the line! In this regard, what individual Marines are doing everyday counts far more than anything that is done in Washington. The standards of our Corps are not simply maintained by generals, colonels, and sergeants major, but, far more importantly, by leaders throughout the Corps, at every level. The Marine conviction that Semper Fidelis is a way of life, not just a motto, speaks powerfully and unites us. In typical fashion, the Marine who spoke those words, gave credit to all Marines for the accomplishments achieved by the Marine Corps these past few years while at the same time providing the leadership that made those accomplishments possible. I am speaking of the 31st Commandant of the Marine Corps who is retiring after four years of outstanding service, General Charles C. Krukak, a Marine's Marine. It is both an honor and a personal privilege to join Majority Leader Lott, Senator Burns of Montana, and other senators as we pay tribute and say thanks and well done to Chuck Krulak. My colleagues have already spoken to General Krulak's outstanding record, his personal sacrifice, bravery, combat record, accomplishments. A modest, self effacing man, the last thing Chuck Krulak would want is personal tribute, no matter how well deserved. Simply put, the biography of achievement of one Charles C. Krulak is synonymous with honor, courage, and commitment. A few personal observations however, for the Record. The latest buzz word in military tactics is called ``asymmetrical warfare''. Quoting from retired army colonel Ralph Peters, the provocative author of the book, ``Fighting for the Future, Will America Triumph'': Around the world, American soldiers, American interests and American citizens face violent men who do not play by the time-honored rules of warfare. These new enemies are warlords, terrorists, charismatic demagogues, international criminals--and the militaries of rogue states. Driven by hatred, greed, and rage, the weapons they use range from knives and bombs to computers and weapons of mass destruction. They fight in urban landscapes and information jungles--not on the neatly contained battlefields of yesterday. Simply put, Mr. President, as Kosovo will prove--in my personal opinion--all too often the United States is fighting today's wars with yesterday's tactics. The service chief who has seen this emerging threat with foresight, clarity, and resolve has been General Krulak. A student of history and military tactics and strategy, a veteran of a limited, political war of gradualism where specific mission was difficult to define, Chuck Krulak has literally shaped the U.S. Marine Corps to meet these future challenges. In this regard, the Commandant has provided members of the Armed Service Committees and those within our military schools and think tanks valuable insight and leadership. His 45 minute presentation, starting with the mistakes the Romans made in 9 AD and ending with modern day threats should be required reading for all who care about out national security and individual freedom. General Krulak has also enabled the Marine Corps to be on the cutting edge of consequence management regarding weapons of mass destruction-- especially in regard to the very real dangers of biological contamination whether the situation be on the battlefield or resulting from a terrorist attack. Majority Leader Lott stressed in his remarks how much he valued General Krulak's candor and honesty. In my own case, coming from the House to the Senate, my tenure on the Senate Armed Services Committee has been synonymous with General Krulak's service as Commandant of the Marine Corps. Throughout this time, despite budget restrictions, difficult policy debates and quite frankly a time when the administration and the Congress have asked our military to do more with less, the one thing Chuck Krulak provided our committee and our Marines was honesty. No hedging, no fence straddling, no saluting one way and hunkering down in the weeds when the going got tough the other. No Sir! General Krulak told it just exactly like it is. The Congress, the President, our country and especially our Marines are owed that. And, we owe Chuck Krulak as we work to restore and strengthen our nation's fighting forces. My father, Wes Roberts, was privileged to serve in the Marine Corps and saw action on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. As it turned out, one of men he has honored to know on a personal basis was the historic and legendary Commandant of that time, ``Lem'' Shepherd. When I joined the Corps and was a ``shave-tail'' lieutenant serving in the Marine Education Center in Quantico, it was my good fortune to serve with General Oscar Peatross, the hero of the Makin Island Raid and then Lt. Col. and later Commandant Robert ``Bob'' Barrow as the Marines published what I believe to be the first modern-day anti- guerrilla warfare manual in 1959. The commanding general at Marine Corp Schools and the driving force behind the change in tactics and strategy within the Corps at that time was General Victor ``Brute'' Krulak, our current Commandant's father. I am always amazed and humbled at the good fortune that life can bring us. I can assure you that, never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined I would have the privilege of serving in this body as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and having the honor of working with our Commandant, the son of the man I served under some 40 years ago--and on the very same challenges. I ask unanimous consent to have two speeches by General Krulak, his ``Farewell to the Corp'' within the Marine Corps Gazette, and remarks he made for the Pepperdine University Convocation Series last October, printed in the the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in those remarks, Chuck Krulak talked about character and individual responsibility as it applies to today's America and all of the obligations and challenges that we face today. Character; character--as usual, General Charles C. Krulak simply told the truth. We will be a better nation if we but heed his advice. Semper Fidelis Commandant Krulak and thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the attention of the Senate the retirement of Dr. John F. McCarthy, Vice President, Global Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, for the American Crop Protection Association. He is retiring after 13 years of service with ACPA where he served as the chief advisor on scientific and technical matters. He was named Vice President in 1988. Prior to joining the American Crop Protection Association, Dr. McCarthy spent 23 years with the Agricultural Chemicals Group of FMC Corporation. At FMC he was involved in all aspects of agricultural chemicals research and development, starting as a synthesis chemist and rising to the position of Director of Product Development and Registrations. John testified many times before the House Agriculture Committee when I served as chairman. He was always available to provide technical expertise when our Committee was considering amendments to FIFRA. He also testified in the Senate answering endless questions about difficult scientific and policy issues. John was always able to put the issues in perspective and kept the protection of public health at the forefront of his presentation. His retirement will leave a void in the agricultural crop protection community which can not be easily filled. He received his B.S. degree in Pharmacy from the Albany College of Pharmacy in 1958 and his Ph.D in Medicinal Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin in 1962. Previous to joining FMC, he did research at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. John is very family oriented and his wife, Ann, should also be recognized for her willingness to loan John to us for all these years. Without her commitment and understanding, those long hours and late evenings would not have been possible. Please join me in wishing John the best for a well deserved and fulfilling retirement.