Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Mr. Kerrey of Nebraska, to introduce a bill that we call the Crop Insurance for the 21st Century Act. We believe this bill represents an important step in improving the Federal Crop Insurance Program, and in creating greater access to the risk management tools that our farmers and ranchers simply must have. Senator Kerrey and I, and many others who are privileged to represent the agriculture community, have long discussed the need to address reforms to the Crop Insurance Program. However, the necessary demands from the agriculture community and the Congress to successfully reform this program, in my personal opinion at least, did not reach a crescendo until last fall when we approved something called the omnibus appropriations bill, and that contained approximately $6 billion in disaster assistance for our farmers and ranchers. I am sure, while Republicans and Democrats and individual agricultural groups were unable to agree on the necessary size and scope of the disaster package, one thing became abundantly clear to all involved--if we had a Crop Insurance Program that worked, without question, the situation would not have been so serious. This has been a longstanding effort. I can remember well, back in 1978, when I was a staff member in the House of Representatives to my predecessor, that was when the Crop Insurance Program was first established. It has been 20 years, and we still have an obligation to reform the program and make sure that it works for all regions, all farmers, all commodities. In response to the demands for the improved risk management tools, Senator Kerrey and I committed to pursuing major crop insurance reforms in this Congress. To aid us in this task, last November we contacted all of the major farm organizations and all of the commodity groups, all of the crop insurance companies, all of the agricultural lending groups, and requested their guidance on these issues. We were listening. We wanted to find out their advice in regard to what do we need to pay attention to, what is the most serious issue that we need to address in the Crop Insurance Program. We received feedback from over 20 of these major organizations. These comments we received served as a guidepost in developing this legislation. And, while the comments received were wide ranging, there was near consensus in several areas. These included as follows: First, the need for increased levels of coverage at affordable prices to all producers. Second, we need expanded availability of revenue-based insurance products. Third, program changes to address the needs of producers suffering multiple crop failures. Fourth, structural changes to the Risk Management Agency--the acronym for that is RMA, and that is what I will call it from now on, but it is the Risk Management Agency--that will allow for increased access to new and improved crop insurance policies. Senator Kerry and I took these comments to heart, and the legislation we are introducing today has been developed in large part by really trying to work to incorporate these comments into legislative language. Our bill inverts this existing subsidy structure. Currently, many producers do not purchase the highest levels of coverage because the greatest level of Government assistance simply occurs at the lowest levels of coverage. This often makes the higher levels of coverage simply unaffordable. It causes many producers to have insufficient coverage, which eventually leads to calls for the ad hoc disaster bills that are so expensive. We cannot continue to pass a disaster package every year. I tell the Presiding Officer, we were just discussing this in a previous meeting, it costs the Federal Government about $1.5 billion on average in regard to the disaster bills. They seem to occur on even numbered years. I think the Presiding Officer knows what I am talking about. We cannot afford that. Therefore, under our legislation, the highest level of subsidy will occur at the 75/100 coverage levels. While the inversion of subsidies will be the most important change for many producers, we have included several changes that we believe will benefit America's farmers and ranchers. These include, first, the average production history--that is called APH in the crop insurance acronym world--APH adjustments for producers that have no production history because they are beginning farmers or they are farming new land or they are rotating crops. Let me add, at this juncture, that is exceedingly important, because under the farm bill that how exists, farmers have a lot more flexibility, and when they move to a new crop, obviously, they ought to be able to simply insure that crop. Second, mandating APH adjustments for producers suffering from crop losses in multiple years. Third, requiring the RMA to work to undertake a pilot project to develop new rating structures for undeserved areas of the country, and particularly the southern part of the United States, with the intention it will eventually become a permanent change in the program. Here is a suggestion or a part of the bill that will be of interest to Senator Thomas--removing the prohibition on coverages for livestock. I just indicated that we had a good visit this morning about this very subject. The livestock sector is going through a very difficult time in our country today. We need to address this problem with regard to insurance and how it would dovetail into the livestock industry and give our stockmen and our ranchers some protection. In addition, the legislation provides for major changes in the structure of the RMA, the FCIC, that will allow for accelerated product approval and the development of improved crop insurance policies. Many people understand the Risk Management Agency serves as a regulator over the crop insurance industry. What many do not know is that this same outfit, the RMA, also serves as a developer for products that are then sold in direct competition with privately developed products. Thus, the RMA serves as a competitor with the industry it is supposed to regulate. I am aware of no other private industry that faces these same hurdles. Senator Kerrey and I believe it is time to change this culture that has often served as a roadblock to producer access to new and improved products. Our legislation will, first, change the structure of the FCIC board of directors to bring reinsurance and expertise in the agriculture economy to the board. Second, make the FCIC the overseer of the RMA. Third, allow the RMA to continue to develop policies for specialty crops and underserved areas. Fourth, to create an Office of Private Sector Partnership to serve as a liaison between private sector companies and the FCIC board of directors. Fifth, to leave the final approval or disapproval of all policies in the hands of the board. And, finally, allow companies to charge a minimal fee on each policy when one company decides to sell another company's product. Hopefully, Mr. President, this will allow the companies to recover the research and development costs and will encourage the creation of new policies. While these steps will not be the answer to solving all of the problems in the Crop Insurance Program, we believe they will be an important step. Each year our producers put the seed in the ground with great faith and optimism and believe that, with a little faith and a little luck and the good Lord willing and the creeks not rising, they will produce a crop. But the task is not easy. Between the multiple risks of drought and flood and fire and hail and blizzard and disease and insects and also a little market interference in regard to the Federal Government, it often seems the deck is stacked against them. If producers do survive these risks, they are often still at the mercy of weakened exports, and Asian flu or the global contagion, as we call it, caused by a global financial crisis and inadequate access to foreign markets. I will be the first to admit that reforming this program cannot come without budgetary costs. At the same time, I can think of no other industry that faces the number of multiple risks that must be addressed on an annual basis by those in production agriculture. Congress must not and cannot be forced to pass these ad hoc disaster bills every year. We must give our producers the risk management tools that they need. I believe this legislation is an important first step, and I ask our colleagues to join Senator Kerrey and myself in this difficult but absolutely vital task. I yield the remainder of my time to my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I should be able to finish in 15 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President I rise today to voice my strong support for this legislation that is designed to provide fair compensation, improved educational opportunities, enhanced financial saving program, and a fair retirement system for the men, women and families of the Armed Forces of the United States. America is facing a serious crisis in the recruitment and retention of key members of the military. This crisis is a very complicated issue and one that has a complex answer. I am confident that the elements of this bill, S. 4, are an integral part of the solution to these problems. But I am also confident that passage alone will not correct all of the problems we face. Near the end of the last Congress and after talking to soldiers in the field, senior enlisted and officer leadership of the US military, I was struck with the myriad of problems facing our service members. These problems are contributing to the rapid decline in mid grade retention and the growing inability to recruit new members of our military. I might add that I was just out to Fort Leavenworth, KS, and the Army is 40 percent short in regard to the recruiting targets they have to have to simply accomplish their mission. That is as of last week. I came to the floor and laid out what I saw as the key components of their discontent. Rather than restate my comments of last fall, let me just highlight my key points: 1. We have significantly increased the work load on a substantially smaller military. Since the percentage of service members that are married has grown, this increased work load has amplified the negative effect of deployments on the morale of our troops and their families. The reluctance of families to continue to tolerate these separations contributes to the loss of mid-career personnel. 2. With a significantly increased deployment schedule on a substantially smaller force, the value and importance of today's missions impacts on the willingness of the men and women to join or commit to the military as a career. Without clearly articulated mission goals and objectives founded in the fundamental of the U.S. vital national interest, the ability to recruit and retain motivated men and women for our military will remain difficult. 3. Although the skill level required of the men and women of our military continues to grow, the pay differential between the same skilled civilian and the military continues to widen. The current pay of many of our young military families is so low that it is not adequate to keep them off of welfare programs. The prospect of continued and frequent, long deployments coupled with the opportunity to get better pay on the ``outside'' for the same work contributes to the inability to attract and retain the skills needed for today's military. 4. We ask our military to deploy at a much higher pace than ever before, we assign missions that do not meet the ``national interest'' threshold, we pay them less than they could get for the same or similar skills as a civilian, and in many cases we ask them to live in substandard housing. It goes without saying that the culmination of these problems contribute to the dissatisfaction with the military as a career and its attractiveness to potential recruits. 5. The members of our military are working harder, deploying more, receiving less pay than civilians are for the same job, living in inadequate housing, and now are seeing a reduction in their retirement benefits. It is not difficult to understand that with this collection of negatives, the military is experiencing problems in retention and recruiting. As I have stated before, S. 4 does not solve all of the problems contributing to the crisis in retention and recruiting but it does strike at the heart of many of the problems facing our military. Specifically: It works to close the gap between civilian and military pay for similar skills. Just as importantly, it reforms the military pay tables to better reward promotion rather than longevity. It establishes a savings program by authorizing members of the military to put up to 5% of their basic pay in a thrift savings plan--a plan already available to other federal workers. Additionally, it allows service secretaries to focus some matching funds for the thrift savings plan to certain critical skills. It corrects the problems of the current retirement system by giving service members a choice to stay on the current retirement plan and receive $30,000 to put in a savings plan for their future or opt to return to the pre 1986 retirement system. This $30,000 has been the subject of some discussion and perhaps some misunderstanding. I will address this issue later. It works toward getting our military family off of food stamps by giving special pay to food-stamp eligible members. I find nothing more disheartening or embarrassing than to know that our military compensation is so marginal that we have families on food stamps. It makes significant improvements to the Montgomery GI bill. The GI bill has long been a backbone in attracting and retaining military members. S.4 takes significant progress toward relieving the stress on our military families but there are key contributors to that stress that a bill such as this cannot address. This bill can not address the willingness of this administration to deploy our troops on mission that are not in our vital national interest. This bill can not address the willingness of this administration to assign them to missions where there is no clearly defined strategy or desired end state. This bill can not address the willingness of this administration to under fund the military for the many operations they are assigned. This bill can not address the willingness of this administration to under fund critical modernization and procurement accounts. The net result of the administration unwillingness to address the impact on the military by the high rate of long deployments, questionable mission quality, and under funding of critical accounts is a double whammy on the men and women of the military. They are not only deploying longer and more frequently and therefore spending much more time away from their families, but when they return to their home base, they also are faced with long hours in repairing old equipment or making preparation for the next deployment. I am told that this the real pain for many in our military families--they can't even relax with their family after a long deployment. Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues are concerned that there has been little study to show the elements of this bill are necessary or will give a return that is proportionate to the cost of this bill. Without doubt this is a very expensive bill but the cost to national security by not correcting the problems of retention and recruitment are not even calculable. But before I discuss the lack of hard data, let me return to the $30,000 bonus for staying on the REDUX plan. The concern voiced by some is that military members may spend the $30,000 on short term needs or even gratification such as a new car. That certainly could happen but I am counting on the solid leadership of military commanders to educate and explain the investing opportunity that money represents to the very bright, well educated men and women of today's military. There are already several examples of how that $30,000 could grow over a career if reasonably invested. The very fact that our members are apparently concerned about their future retirement gives me comfort that if they choose to stay on REDUX and except the bonus, most will not squander this opportunity to invest for their retirement. Some members of Congress are not convinced that REDUX is a problem at all and does not contribute measurably to the retention problem the military faces. They are asking: Where is the study that shows REDUX is why many members are leaving the military? Mr. President, there is no study. There is only the alarm of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the Service Chiefs, and the senior enlisted members of all of the services. Additionally, I do not find it surprising that there is no data because the people that are affected by REDUX are just now reaching the point in their career that they are thinking about the decision to stay in the military for a career or leave. I ask the members of Congress to remember that the decision to except or reject REDUX as a retirement plan or leave the military rests solely with each military individual and not because an analysts' projection of how many will accept or reject REDUX. Our senior leaders of our military are saying REDUX is a significant part of their decision to leave. Shall we ignore them and wait until enough service members have left to satisfy the statistician? Do not forget we are also having a exceptionally difficult time recruiting new members. Nor can we forget that while we run this data gathering experiment, critical, un- replaceable skills are walking way from military service every day in alarming numbers. Unfortunately, we are too accustomed to working with weapons systems that we can halt production until the wing-drop problem is fixed, or until the required testing is completed to our satisfaction. Unquestionably the men and women are the key element to all of our weapon systems but they cannot be put on hold until the retention problem is clearly defined nor can we slow retirement or withhold pay until the theorist have the problems neatly packaged. We do not have that luxury to delay or wait for all the data to be generated with the people that are willing to defend this Nation. We have created an ``all volunteer service'' and they volunteer to join and they will go home if they perceive they are not being treated fairly or the Nation does not care that they and their families make great sacrifices to serve in the defense of our country. We can only listen to them and their leaders and make our best judgment about the right course of action to recruit and retain the people we need for today's military. S. 4 makes significant progress toward addressing the problems they tell us are contributing to the crisis in retention and recruiting facing the United States military. I strongly support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Maybe 13\1/2\.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have some general remarks about the bill. I know that under the previous order we are to recess at 12, and I will try to make my remarks as brief as possible. I know the senior Senator from Kansas has some remarks as well. I know there is a lot of concern about the U.S. involvement in putting troops into Kosovo. I wish to bring to the attention of my colleagues a conference report that was passed last year as part of the defense appropriations bill that says--as a matter of fact it is law-- the President and the administration must come to the Congress with a report of that deployment. Senator Hutchison and I will be making some remarks sometime later this afternoon in regard to this provision. I ask unanimous consent to have this page of the Conference Report printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan and my distinguished friend and colleague from Colorado for their time. This is sort of a news update on Kosovo, if I could describe it that way, because several Senators have indicated a strong desire to offer amendments to this bill in regard to the United States' role in Kosovo. I hope that we won't do that. We need this bill to be expedited to send a strong message to our American men and women in uniform. This is not to say, however, that we do not need a frank discussion of ongoing discussions about the United States' role in regard to Kosovo. I have, as of 3 o'clock this afternoon--we are about an hour after that--the latest report from the peace talks in Rambouillet, France. Secretary of State Albright has just indicated that: After 17 days of laborious negotiations, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said today that ethnic Albanians have agreed to sign a Kosovo peace agreement within two weeks but the Serbs continue to balk at a deal. I will go on with this very briefly. According to senior U.S. officials, the Serbs still refuse to permit ethnic Albanians to have a president and are unwilling to cooperate with a war crimes tribunal looking into atrocities against civilians. * * * * * At a news conference by the six-nation Contact Group overseeing the talks, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine announced that a new conference on the Kosovo conflict would be held in France beginning March 15. So we have a lull. So the peace talks can continue. A cynic might say we drew a line in the sand. And yet, at another time we have gone beyond that line in the sand and our credibility is at stake. Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, called for the parties to ``use these three weeks, use them to build peace. . . . We have done a lot here, even if we have not done enough.'' The agreement came 1\1/2\ hours after the deadline for the peace conference had passed. However, in regard to the Serbs, the news is not that good, to say the least. Their Deputy Prime Minister has described the talks as a bust, blaming the United States officials, who he said ``want the blood of the Serbs.'' He said, ``I am afraid the Rambouillet conference failed and we must say very clearly who is guilty for that. But peace appeared as elusive''--right during these talks, Mr. President. ``New fighting''-- or continued fighting. Actually, it is old and continued and new fighting--``broke out between the Yugoslav army troops and the Serb police and the ethnic Albanian rebels.'' So we still have war. The reason I brought all of that up is that there was an article in Monday's Washington Post written by Dr. Henry Kissinger. I think Dr. Kissinger has pretty well summed up some of the concerns, at least, and the frustrations that many Senators have in regard to the lack of clarity in regard to the situation in Kosovo. And, of course, it affects everything we do in the Balkans, not to mention Bosnia. Dr. Kissinger said this: In Bosnia, the exit strategy can be described. The existing dividing lines can be made permanent. Failure to do so will require their having to be manned indefinitely unless we change our objective to self-determination and permit each ethnic group to decide its own fate. But in Kosovo, Dr. Kissinger certainly pointed out that option doesn't exist. There are no ethnic dividing lines and both sides actually claim the entire territory. Our attitude, the U.S. attitude toward the Serbs attempts to insist that their claim has been made plain. It is the threat of bombing. But how do we and NATO react to Albanian transgressions? Are we prepared to fight both sides and for how long? As a matter of fact, Secretary Albright indicated if the Albanians didn't get along, we could not bomb the Serbs. That seems to me to be a little bit unprecedented and unique. As a matter of fact, I think it is a little nutty. But at any rate, are we prepared to fight both sides and for how long? In the face of issues such as these, the unity of the contact group of powers acting on behalf of NATO is likely to dissolve. Russia surely will increasingly emerge as the supporter of the Serbian point of view. And then Dr. Kissinger goes on, and I will not take the time of the Senate in regard to his entire statement, but he sums up by saying: ``Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to weaken our ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North Korea.'' You draw the line in the sand. That time expires, and it is a problem in terms of our credibility. The psychological drain may be even more grave. Each time we make a peripheral deployment, the administration is constrained to insist that the danger to American forces is minimal--the Kosovo deployment is officially described as a ``peace implementation force.'' Such comments have two unfortunate consequences: They increase the impression among Americans that military force can be used casualty-free,-- And obviously that is a big concern on the part of everyone-- and they send a signal of weakness to potential enemies. For in the end our forces will be judged on how adequate they are for peace imposition, not peace implementation. I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of Dr. Kissinger be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. The reason that I brought this up is that we have several Senators who are considering amendments on Kosovo. One I think would simply say that the Congress would have to vote before any deployment of any American pilot in any kind of a military mission and/ or ground troops would set foot on Kosovo. That is the extra step, if you will, to certainly include the Congress in any decisionmaking. But I would point out to my colleagues, and I made mention of this when I spoke on behalf of this bill, i.e., the bill in regard to retirement reform and pay reform, and I pointed out that we have in the law--and let me just point out it is Public Law 105-262, October 17, 1998. It is a public law, and the President signed it. And there is section 8115(a), and we say: None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act may be obligated or expended for any additional deployment of forces of the Armed Forces of the United States to Yugoslavia, Albania, or Macedonia unless and until the President, after consultation with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the minority of the Senate, transmits to Congress a report on the deployment that includes the following: And I want my colleagues to understand this. This is the law of the land. And the National Security Council is aware of this. As a matter of fact, my staff just an hour ago contacted the staff at the National Security Council, and we said, ``Where is the report?'' We keep hearing about progress and incremental steps or lack of progress with the peace talks and yet we have 4,000, 5,000, maybe 7,000 American troops ready to deploy in regard to Kosovo. This requires the administration to come to the Congress and report on the following things: The President's certification that the presence of those forces in each country to which the forces are to be deployed is necessary in the national security interests of the United States. That is pretty basic. Does our involvement really involve our vital national security interests? Can a case be made? Now, the President spoke to it in terms of his radio address. I think that is good. That is the first time he has spoken to it on national radio. But we really need to know why is our intervention in Kosovo in our vital national security interests? Is it the future of NATO? I think so to some degree. Are we talking about we don't want another Palestine in the middle of Central Europe? I know that. But vital national security interests? I don't know. (2) The reasons why the deployment is in the national security interests. . . . (3) The number of United States military personnel to be deployed. . . . (4) The mission and objectives of forces to be deployed. (5) The expected schedule for accomplishing the objectives of the deployment. (6) The exit strategy-- Mr. President, the exit strategy-- for United States forces engaged in the deployment. We are talking about a 3-year engagement here. This is 4 years in regard to Bosnia. The costs associated with the deployment and the funding sources for paying those costs. Now, I have quite a bit of blood pressure in this regard since we have spent literally billions of dollars in Bosnia but we didn't pay for it up front. We didn't pay for it with a supplemental. We do pay for it when the pressure comes on the appropriators to come up with an emergency funding request. So we need to find out what the costs would be in regard to this deployment. And finally: The anticipated effects of the deployment on the morale, retention and effectiveness of United States forces. I made mention that one of the considerations why the people are leaving the service today is the quality of mission, and we have the situation where 60 percent of our service people today are married, obviously part of families, and they go to Bosnia, and perhaps Kosovo, and the Mideast and Korea, and we do not have enough people to really fill those billets now so they are deployed for 6 months, 9 months, come back for a month, bang, they are right over there again, plus the Reserve and the Guard. That is one of the considerations in regard to operation tempo, personnel tempo, as to why people are leaving the service, but mission quality is also a good reason. That is No. 8 in regard to the anticipated effects of the deployment on the morale, the retention and effectiveness of U.S. forces. Now, we say if there is an emergency here in terms of our national security, obviously the President can intercede. Now, I want to see this report. We met with Secretary Albright, Secretary Cohen, and our national security director, Sandy Berger, about 2 weeks ago during the impeachment trial. It was early in the morning. We made them aware of this particular provision in this report. Now, I understand from staff of the NSC that a report will be coming, because in the words of the staff member, ``There is a lull over in Kosovo.'' We have a 3 week time period to try to work something else out in regard to the peace agreement. Let me just point out something, Mr. President. The Secretary of State said that we would not commit American men and women to a peacekeeping role in Kosovo unless there were benchmarks for peace. I would only remind this administration and my colleagues, on behalf of all those in the military, that if you are a peacekeeper, there better be a peace to keep because when there is not a peace to keep, you become a target. That is a whole different situation. So, consequently, I am very hopeful that the National Security Council will be coming forth with this report and giving the report to our leadership and the appropriate committee chairs. Since this is the law, perhaps we can think about delaying any other amendments to this bill in regard to the Kosovo situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I had directed that question, sir, to the White House counsel. It was my intent to direct it to White House counsel. I do not know what the proper procedure would be at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 2563 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I called the Senate's attention to several issues in the military that are contributing to problems in recruiting and retention of key, midcareer military personnel. Briefly, those issues were as follows: We are asking the military, significantly smaller than it was during the cold war, to operate and deploy much more frequently. We are asking the military to deploy on missions that may not be in the vital national interest of this Nation. We are not paying servicemen and women a salary that is comparable to the pay they could get outside the military for the same skills. We are not providing quality health care for the families of the military, and we have not provided the promised health care for the retired members of the military. We are not providing quality housing to all military families. And we are not providing a retirement program that is adequate to justify a career commitment to the arduous lifestyle and the difficult family separations that are necessary in military life. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to address military retirement. The bill that I am introducing repeals the Military Reform Retirement Act of 1986, also known as REDUX. This experiment in the military retirement system was introduced in 1986 with the intended purpose--and it was a good one--of encouraging members of the military to stay longer than the popular career of 20 years. The service chiefs now say that retirement is one of the top reasons that our men and women are leaving the service. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, listed it among the most pressing problems facing the military in retaining key people. The Secretary of Defense has voiced very similar concerns. Pay is being addressed slowly, including a 3.6 percent pay raise in this defense appropriations bill. The Department of Defense is working on housing issues that may solve the problems. Problems with the health care programs are very complex and multilayered and requires detailed study to solve. The issue of the high rate of deployments and the quality of missions rests at the feet of the administration and this Congress and are now the subject of policy debate. Congress must address, however, the issue of retirement. We must show the men and women of our armed services that we are listening to their concerns and that we deeply care about them, their families and the commitment they make to the defense of this Nation. While the purpose of this bill is to repeal the 1986 retirement program, I want to emphasize it is not the final solution to the military's retirement problem. I urge the Department of Defense to start a comprehensive study--I think they are--and to examine all creative options to solve the recruitment and retention problems that now face the military. The repeal of REDUX is only but one option. There may be others. I know that private industry has many creative retirement programs that may serve as part of a final solution. The civilian sector of the Federal Government has long experience in retirement programs. Whatever course we end up taking, the bottom line must be a retirement program that is perceived as fair and adequate by our service men and women. The fundamental job of the Federal Government is to provide for the security of the Nation. That security begins and ends with people. It is clear that they are sending a strong message that we are letting them down. We are not providing adequately for their welfare and their postmilitary life. So providing better benefits for members of the military will pay dividends for national security. And, Mr. President, it is the right thing to do. We owe it to our military men and women who are making the personal and family sacrifices to do such an important job. They do an outstanding job under the most difficult of circumstances. It is not too much to ask that we provide adequate support for them and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, a few weeks ago I called the Senate's attention to several issues in the military that are contributing to problems in recruiting and retention of key, midcareer military personnel. Briefly, those issues were as follows: We are asking the military, significantly smaller than it was during the cold war, to operate and deploy much more frequently. We are asking the military to deploy on missions that may not be in the vital national interest of this Nation. We are not paying servicemen and women a salary that is comparable to the pay they could get outside the military for the same skills. We are not providing quality health care for the families of the military, and we have not provided the promised health care for the retired members of the military. We are not providing quality housing to all military families. And we are not providing a retirement program that is adequate to justify a career commitment to the arduous lifestyle and the difficult family separations that are necessary in military life. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to address military retirement. The bill that I am introducing repeals the Military Reform Retirement Act of 1986, also known as REDUX. This experiment in the military retirement system was introduced in 1986 with the intended purpose--and it was a good one--of encouraging members of the military to stay longer than the popular career of 20 years. The service chiefs now say that retirement is one of the top reasons that our men and women are leaving the service. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, listed it among the most pressing problems facing the military in retaining key people. The Secretary of Defense has voiced very similar concerns. Pay is being addressed slowly, including a 3.6 percent pay raise in this defense appropriations bill. The Department of Defense is working on housing issues that may solve the problems. Problems with the health care programs are very complex and multilayered and requires detailed study to solve. The issue of the high rate of deployments and the quality of missions rests at the feet of the administration and this Congress and are now the subject of policy debate. Congress must address, however, the issue of retirement. We must show the men and women of our armed services that we are listening to their concerns and that we deeply care about them, their families and the commitment they make to the defense of this Nation. While the purpose of this bill is to repeal the 1986 retirement program, I want to emphasize it is not the final solution to the military's retirement problem. I urge the Department of Defense to start a comprehensive study--I think they are--and to examine all creative options to solve the recruitment and retention problems that now face the military. The repeal of REDUX is only but one option. There may be others. I know that private industry has many creative retirement programs that may serve as part of a final solution. The civilian sector of the Federal Government has long experience in retirement programs. Whatever course we end up taking, the bottom line must be a retirement program that is perceived as fair and adequate by our service men and women. The fundamental job of the Federal Government is to provide for the security of the Nation. That security begins and ends with people. It is clear that they are sending a strong message that we are letting them down. We are not providing adequately for their welfare and their postmilitary life. So providing better benefits for members of the military will pay dividends for national security. And, Mr. President, it is the right thing to do. We owe it to our military men and women who are making the personal and family sacrifices to do such an important job. They do an outstanding job under the most difficult of circumstances. It is not too much to ask that we provide adequate support for them and their families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support of the conference report on H.R. 4101, which is being discussed on the floor and has been discussed on the floor by my colleagues from the northern plains. I also rise today to express my serious concerns with President Clinton's threatened veto of this conference report, the agriculture appropriations bill--the bill that contains the spending for all of the essential programs that are of great benefit to farmers and ranchers. I want to pay, as my colleagues have, very deserved tribute to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, who down through the years has been a champion on behalf of America's agriculture producers and basically serves as an oversight commissioner in regard to the spending we desperately need for research and development for our farmers to be competitive. He has done another outstanding job under very, very difficult circumstances, because we are going through some tough times in farm country. So I thank the Senator. Madam President, it is not my intent to get partisan in this debate. Goodness knows we have enough of that going around in this session. But I do think it is time for a little candor. In so doing, I noticed a report from World Perspectives, Inc., which is a publication that comes out every day that provides Members of Congress and subscribers very pertinent information regarding the global marketplace and worldwide agriculture. There is a young man that writes for them by the name of Gregg Doud. Last week, he pretty well summarized, I think, what this debate is all about. He said this: On the legislative calendar, Christmas doesn't always come on 25 December. When a sector of the U.S. economy is faltering or votes are up for grabs, it usually means that politicians will come bearing gifts sometime before the November election. Now, that is a little harsh. I am not too sure I would buy all of that. He went on to say: This year's low commodity prices, world financial difficulties, and serious drought means that both U.S. political parties are currently in a bidding war over how much to spend in farm country. Obviously, we are doing that because we think we have severe problems. Those are my words, not his. In their minds, the votes will eventually go to the highest bidder. As a result, considerations about an appropriate strategy for U.S. domestic farm policy could end up last on the list of a policymaker's priorities. In other words, if we are going to provide emergency assistance to farmers and ranchers, that is one thing in the short term. But for goodness' sake, let's not turn the firehose on and let it get away and destroy a policy that makes sense over the long term. Then Mr. Doud pointed out the history of these two proposals that had been discussed on the floor. He said, ``The announcement by congressional Republicans of their package came only 2 days after Agriculture Secretary Glickman''--Mr. Glickman of Kansas, my former colleague, and my good friend--``announced that he was reversing his stance to be in favor of lifting the cap on the nonrecourse marketing loan rate''--that is the basis of the Democrat plan--and then stated, ``This flip-flop was likely an effort to avoid the appearance of conflicting policy positions within the Democratic Party.'' He continues, ``Secretary Glickman's announcement was coordinated with an amendment offered by Senator Tom Harkin''--my colleague and friend in Iowa who is the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and long a voice in regard to farm program policy advice and counsel to his Iowa constituents and the Nation as well. But, at any rate, that was ``. . . to the Interior Department's appropriations bill.'' By my count, I think we debated this--I don't know how many hours had been devoted on the other side, because in the northern plains the situation is much more severe. I don't know if the Senator from Mississippi has tallied up the hours. There must be 50, 75 or 100 hours on this side. We have spoken to the issue probably not as much as we should have. But this is an issue that has been debated. As a matter of fact, I think we have had five votes. I think this is No. 5 in regard to a vote that we are going to have on this issue. So we have done quite a bit of debating. I will continue with what I think is a candid assessment, and this is in regard to the Democratic plan to raise the commodity marketing loan rate. Mr. Doud points out, however: ``It is not well suited to providing disaster relief. How did the Government make a larger loan deficiency payment to a farmer who hasn't raised a crop?'' That is a good question. ``In addition, this delivery mechanism does not reach livestock producers and other nonprogram commodity producers.'' That certainly is a good quote. Then he goes on to mention one thing, and this is sort of an aside. I am going to have to skip over here to a point that has been made by some of my good Democrat colleagues, more especially the distinguished Democratic leader, who, to be very candid, has never been too supportive of the current farm bill. The Senator from North Dakota decried the fact that under the new farm bill, Freedom to Farm, in what he describes as the ``Freedom to Fail'' bill, ``farmers were told to plant fence row to fence row.'' As Mr. Doud pointed out, and others of us would like to point out: ``. . . but WPI thought farmers were told to respond to market signals, rather than Federal programs.'' Let me point out that in regard to wheat, the farmers made the decision. They made that decision. They responded to the market signals, and we haven't gone fence row to fence row. What happened was we had 11 percent fewer acres planted to wheat under the new farm bill than the old farm bill. That means this fence row to fence row business is not accurate. What happened, of course, is the farmer put the seed in the ground, and it was better seed. And with better farming practices and precision agriculture, we knocked their socks off. We had great yields. In the northern plains, they have all sorts of problems, wheat scab, weather, unfair trading practices, across the board, border contagion, you name it, they have had it. Quite frankly, a Federal farm program in regard to sugar makes the land prices a little high and raises their price and cost of production. It is high risk up there. Everybody knows that. But not any of these things have anything to do with the farm bill. The extra production came that drove the market prices lower--from China, 200 million bushels more in regard to wheat production; the European Union was about 300 million bushels more. I don't know of any U.S. farm law that can restrict China, or the European Union, or, for that matter, Australia that has a record crop. It is not all in yet. We don't know yet. But the global supply situation has changed dramatically. That has nothing to do with the current farm bill. It has everything to do with our export strategy in regard to being competitive and using all of the tools we would like to have in regard to the administration's conducting an aggressive export policy. As a matter of fact, the president of the Wheat Growers said we have to quit taking a knife to a gun fight. We have to really get tough. And we haven't done that. That is one of the problems. So I guess that would be an accurate statement. Let me get back to the article. This is by Mr. Doud, again: Is the term ``crisis'' an appropriate way to describe the situation in farm country today? I will tell you one thing. If you are a farmer and you can't get a loan from your banker, and the price is about half of what it was several years ago, it sure is a crisis. It is 100 percent. ``At least one question needs to be answered before deciding how serious this situation really is.'' --I am back to Mr. Doud's comments--``Will prices stay at the current (a 10-20-year low) level into next crop year? If so, next year may bring reopened discussions, leave no stone unturned, on a major overhaul of U.S. farm policy.'' I think that is appropriate. And I will be right in line with the rest of the people who are privileged to represent agriculture States, if, in fact, that is the case. We have the unfair trading practice. We can't get our exports cracking. We don't pass the trade legislation that we should pass that the President continues to sort of hunker down in the weeds in regard to fast track and other things. Then he went on to say: ``In a Congressional election year, the debate isn't about whether or not money should be allocated to farm country. It's about the delivery mechanism itself.'' Then he lists some information that ``. . . suggests that, even in Washington, DC, terms, the amount of Government expenditures in farm country this year is serious money.'' ``The potential direct U.S. Government outlays to U.S. producers are as follows: No, it is not the $5.3 billion that showed up on the chart over there from my colleagues. But, in September 1998, this year, the second half of the transition payments will come to farmers. Transition payments, called AMTA payments--that is the Agriculture Marketing Transition Assistance payments. I see the distinguished Senator from Mississippi raising his head. The reason I wanted to point that out is that it has been ignored in the debate. Hardly any Member on the other side mentions that we even have transition payments. Everybody says, ``The bridge is washed out. I can't swim. My farmers are on the other side.'' That is country western music. It has the wrong notes. We have the transition payments here. They ignore that. ``In September 1998, the second half of FY 1998 transition . . . payment''--by the way, that transition payment is the highest of any payment during the entire 6-year period of the farm bill. And I know it is the highest as of this year because I helped write the bill. I thought at the end of 2 years that we probably would be going through some kind of a price swing. And I thought that assessment should be the greatest in this particular year, and it is. How much? $5.7 billion is the total with the first half having already been paid in December of 1997, or January of 1998. ``In October 1998, $5.5 billion will be made available in FY 1999 transition . . . payments.'' That is next year. Farmers probably wouldn't want to accept that. I wouldn't, if I can get by with my lender and I can tighten up, because of the world markets and the situation. I probably wouldn't want to take that. But it is available. And that is $5.5 billion. ``Emergency assistance programs that are currently being discussed . . .'' That is what this debate is all about here. That is in addition to those two transition payments that many of my colleagues are ignoring. That is going to be about $4.1 billion. You add that up. Then our Senate Agriculture Committee chairman, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Dick Lugar, recently put the possible marketing year price tag for the loan deficiency payment. I am not going to get into a description of that payment. As a matter of fact, I talked about all of these payments. People wonder. My goodness. How many payments are we making to farmers, and what kind and shape and form? But those will be about $2 or $3 billion. And then, finally, crop insurance for the entire marketing year is $2 billion. According to Mr. Doud, that totals up to $16.4 billion. That is a lot of money. Yes, the farm crisis is very serious. I understand that. But $16.4 billion is quite an investment in regard to agriculture. Let me see if I can find a closer here. In regard to Mr. Doud's article: Policymakers should not ignore the message this [debate] sends to trading partners and the WTO regarding U.S. domestic farm policy, particularly as it applies to the next round of trade negotiations. Once again, [we want to emphasize] that in an even-numbered election year, the debate isn't about whether or not money should be allocated to farm country. It is about the delivery mechanism and whether or not ``Freedom to Farm'' will be maintained. U.S. agricultural trading partners will be paying [very] close attention to see if ``Freedom to Farm'' survives. Now, as the principal author of Freedom to Farm, I have an interest in this, but I said it didn't come down from the mountain on any tablet saying this was the only farm bill; if the farm bill didn't work, you ought to change it. And I think once this emergency assistance is provided, if we can see what happens in 1999--and I hope the global contagion gets better and I hope all the other factors improve--why, perhaps we won't have to do this. And if we can enact some of the promises we made in conjunction with Freedom to Farm, we shouldn't have to do it. But Congress has not done that and the administration has not done that. I want to now return to the threat of a Presidential veto. The President has sent a letter to Congress stating he will not support legislation that does not include agricultural relief provisions similar to the plan to uncap loan rates as proposed by Senators Harkin, Daschle, Wellstone, Kerrey, Conrad, Baucus, and Johnson. He, as a matter of fact, took time out in his Saturday radio address to talk about two things--well, three; one, we have a serious farm crisis. Right. Second, we need to uncap the loan rates. Wrong, because of what it will do that will be counterproductive to long-term policy to farmers and ranchers. Three, we ought to pass IMF. Yes. Yes, I am for that. And I am just as unhappy with Members of my own party in the other body who oppose that. I think we need IMF. So the President was right about two out of three. Let me talk about the plan that is promoted by the northern plains' Senators--not trying to pick on them; they have a very legitimate point of view--that would uncap the marketing loan rates and provide approximately $1 billion in disaster assistance to the northern plains. But the other side of the story is that their proposal provides less than $500 million for the rest of the United States, from New Mexico to Maryland, which has experienced drought, flooding, or a combination of both. I really find the President's arguments for his threatened veto rather frustrating and difficult because the administration really threatens to veto this package--I am quoting here. . . . if the bill presented to the President includes agriculture disaster provisions that provide inadequate indemnity assistance or are inconsistent with the Daschle- Harkin proposal. It is obvious the President really believes we need to provide assistance to our producers. I believe that as well. Yet he threatens to veto a bill that provides $4.1 billion in assistance to our farmers and ranchers. And as long as we are mentioning vetoes, he has also threatened to veto a House-passed tax bill that also provides very needed relief to farmers and ranchers. As to the two vetoes, one on the emergency assistance and the tax bill, let me just list all of the provisions that have been passed by the House of Representatives in its tax bill: 100 percent deductibility of health insurance--every farm association I have ever been associated with has passed this in their resolution; permanent extension of income averaging for farmers--God bless Conrad Burns, the distinguished Senator from Montana, for putting it in originally with a tax bill; an immediate $25,000 expense deduction for small businesses; and an additional net operating loss carryback period. These are steps that, when combined with the $4.1 billion in income assistance, would immediately put money in the pockets of farmers and ranchers and, most importantly, they are positive answers for the long term as opposed to the Democrat plan which I personally think would be very, very counterproductive. On several occasions earlier this year Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman made the comment that trade is the ``safety net'' for America's farmers and ranchers, yet I am concerned that the Secretary and the administration refused to support fast-track legislation when it was considered in the House. I said they were AWOL during the debate. And they even asked, as I recall, some of my colleagues across the aisle in the other body to vote against the legislation. ``Not this time,'' ``not the proper time,'' that was the quote, to pass fast track. Meanwhile, our foreign markets for agriculture products have collapsed and we know that. And, Latin American countries are waiting for fast track to pass before entering into agricultural trade with the United States. I went with Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to Latin America. Every country we visited asked, ``When are you going to pass fast track? The European Union is knocking on our door. And we need this particular provision.'' I do not know; I would like to ask the President, if now is not the proper time to open up new markets for our producers, when will the proper time be? I agree with him on IMF. I do not agree with the decision to hunker down in the weeds with regard to fast track. And I must say the failure to pass fast track holds the potential to become one of the most serious U.S. agriculture foreign policy blunders since the shattered glass embargo policy of the late 1970s and early 1980s. When we withdrew, it may have been a mistake. And when it went down to defeat, it was a terrible mistake. Consequently, I should also add that I am not very happy with my Republican colleagues over in the House of Representatives who decided not to vote for fast track. That was a very bad mistake as well. So the President apparently has refused to support these trade and tax and income assistance initiatives that I believe will help our farmers and ranchers in both the short and long term, but he continues to support a proposal that will provide virtually no assistance to producers who have suffered losses in 1998. We can raise the loan rates as high as we want. As a matter of fact, in the six or seven farm bills I have been associated with, there was always the debate, do you use the loan rate as a market clearing device or income support? And several farm bills ago we agreed that when you raise the loan rate to the degree you really interfere with markets, that is not the proper way to do it. And we used to have deficiency payments to assist farmers during the tough times when their markets would decline due to unfair trading practices or some other reason. We changed those to transition payments. What will raising a loan rate do for producers in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and Maryland who have lost all or most of their crop to some kind of a weather situation? What about the farmer in Louisiana or Mississippi who lost most of his rice crop due to drought and had his cotton crop get hit with 16 inches of rain from a tropical storm earlier this year and then was hit by Hurricane Georges in late September? That was incredible. These producers are facing a serious situation. They will receive virtually no assistance from higher loan rates, and the Harkin-Daschle proposal provides less than $500 million for 1998 losses, but it contains almost $1 billion for multiple year losses in the northern plains. I am not trying to pick on them. But I think it is skewed just a bit. I don't question the problems suffered by producers in the northern plains in recent years, nor do I question that prices are low. We have heard time and time again about the painful crop losses experienced in the northern plains over the past years, but, ``thank goodness, South Dakotans are expecting a good crop this year--that is a welcome change--after the blizzards and flooding of 1996 and 1997, scab disease, and unfair trading practices.'' That quote comes from a September 1998 edition of the National Farmer Union News. Thank goodness they do at least have a crop. But let me get back to the plan that is within the Ag appropriation bill and why I think it is the proper course. The plan to be included will provide $4.1 billion to producers. Of this amount, $1.65 billion, 29 percent of the transition payments--the infamous transition payments that are ignored and forgotten or somehow have disappeared in the debate on the other side--will be provided to farmers as payments for lost export markets caused by world economic pneumonia, the global contagion, the Asian Flu. Not to mention U.S. sanction policies that shut out our producers, out of world markets, and the inadequate agricultural trade initiatives of this administration--compounded by some in this Congress. Any farmer who received AMTA payments--the transition payments that do not exist, on the other side of the aisle--in 1998 will receive an additional 29 percent of this amount. Those receiving payments will include southern cotton, wheat, corn and rice farmers who had little or no crop to harvest. The Harkin-Daschle plan leaves them empty-handed. The plan in the agriculture appropriations bill includes $1.5 billion for losses and $675 million for multiple year losses. The Daschle-Harkin plan provides approximately $1 billion for the northern plains, $500 million for the south. Again, I am not trying to criticize problems in the north. But the plan does not do much for any grower suffering losses in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland--and the list goes on. Senators from those States, wake up. Here is the real issue that is now being debated. The northern plains Senators, and now the President, have stated repeatedly that we have yanked the rug out from underneath the producer--no safety net. ``Tough luck,'' I think it was described by my good friend and colleague, the Senator from North Dakota. As they have said, there is no bridge, nothing. But they fail to mention that the Government has provided approximately $17.5 billion--$17.5 billion in transition payments since the inception of the new farm bill in 1996 through 1998. It is estimated the old bill, the old supply/demand bill, the old command and control bill where the USDA would tell the farmer what seed to put in the ground and maybe he would qualify for a subsidy--that bill would have provide only around $10 billion during this time. That is a difference of $7.5 billion. They are getting more money under the new bill, less money under the old bill, but the new bill is the problem? Hello. It is estimated, as I said, the old bill would have provided only about $10 billion during this time. They forget to mention the estimated $4 billion the producers will receive in loan deficiency payments in 1998. And, what about the $5.5 billion in advance 1999 payments? Again, if I'm a farmer I'd be mighty careful with that. And if you add these together and include the additional $4.1 billion included in the agriculture appropriation bill as put on the floor by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, total funding provided over the 3-year period is $31 billion. Mr. President $31 billion; that is nothing? That is tough luck? That is a bridge that has been washed out, $31 billion? Still, the Senators on the other side of the aisle from the northern and great plains argue this is not enough. It may well not be, over the long term. I understand that. If things do not improve, with all the things that have gone wrong it may well not be. They say their producers have been forgotten. They even cited this on the floor in a Congressional Budget Office table. This is going to get a little tricky here. The table that is called the CBO study showing a side-by-side comparison of the two plans--we have all seen it in regard to this debate. In addition, I think the CBO plan was sent with a letter attached to numerous State Governors, certainly trying to gain support for their plan. But there was only one problem with these actions and this CBO study. It is my understanding, and I think I am right, it is not a CBO study. In fact, CBO was not even involved in running these numbers. Rather, they were put together by staff members of the appropriate Senators who have proposed the Democratic plan. I don't want to play this business of, ``How much is enough?'' I have said before, the problem is very serious in the northern plains, and for that matter all over the country, where we have had these unprecedented problems in regards to farm country. But I thought perhaps we should do some ``truth in spending'' and take a look at the level of payments the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa have actually received under the 1996 farm bill. It may not be enough. But with all of this talk about, ``no bridge, tough luck, you are just out of luck, we are not going to support you''--Here we go: North Dakota in 1996, North Dakota farmers and ranchers received $309.7 million; 1997 $245.1 million and 1998, $245.2 million. Total, $800 million. That is more than nothing. The yearly State average in Government payments in 1991-1995--the old farm bill which has been defended saying this might be the foundation for the next farm bill, this one is not working--what would have that provided? That average, 1991-1995, $265.4 million. In 1996 through 1998 the average was $266.6 million. In July, the House Agriculture Committee estimated North Dakota farmers will be eligible to receive $215.1 million in advanced 1999 payments. Again, I am not sure I would take that, but some may have to. The 29 percent bonus payments for 1998 crops will equal approximately $71 million. Adding the 1998 payments to the 1998 bonus payments and the advanced 1999 payments together, North Dakota farmers could receive up to $531.3 million during the calendar year 1998, this year. South Dakota, 1996, $161.8 million; 1997, $183.1; 1998, $161.3-- total, $506.2 million. The yearly State average in Government payments in 1991-1995 under the old farm bill, $149.7. The 1996 through 1998 average was 168.76 million--19 million more per year. In July the House Agriculture Committee estimated South Dakota farmers will be eligible to receive $160.7 million in advance 1999 payments. The 29 percent bonus payment for 1998 crops will equal approximately $46.7 million. When you add them all up, South Dakota farmers could receive $368.9 million during calendar year 1998. I am going to skip Montana. Nothing personal, I just think we ought to shorten it up. Minnesota, the Democratic Senator from Minnesota has been on the floor indicating that times are tough in Minnesota. They are. It is a crisis. He is entitled to say that. In 1996, $261.5 million; 1997, $383.8 million; 1998, $322.6 million; total, $968.1 million--almost $1 billion. That is not nothing? Is that a double negative? The yearly State average in Government payments in 1991-1995 under the farm bill--you haven't heard one word on the other side about the failures of the old farm bill and people standing in line waiting on the USDA to issue all the paperwork so they could fill out the paperwork to plant less, not at least respond to market signals but so that they might get a subsidy. Not one word. That was $270.2 million. In 1996 through 1998, the average was $322.7 million--over $50 million more. In July, the House Agriculture Committee estimated Minnesota farmers will be able to receive $336.8 million in advanced 1999 payments. The 29 percent bonus for 1998 crops will equal approximately $93.5 million. Add them all up, $753.08 million during calendar year 1998. That is a lot of money. It is, perhaps not enough for the dire situation they face and in absentia of other things that we should be doing. The question is not how much is enough, but the claim, again, by the other side, that we are not providing any assistance. Nebraska: 1996, $303.2 million; 1997, $490.082 million; 1998, approximately $400 million. Total: $1.193 billion. The yearly State average in government payments in 1991-1995 was $349.9 million. That was back under the old farm bill. The 1996 through 1998 average was $397 million; $349 million to $397 million, about $50 million more. I am not going to go through the advanced payments and the 29-percent bonus. I will add them all. Nebraska farmers, as well as being No. 2 in the Nation in football, could receive up to $830 million during the calendar year 1998. Iowa--Senator Harkin, my good friend on the Ag Committee who has a very honest and sincere difference of opinion about the direction of the farm policy program: 1996, $350.2 million; 1997, $680 million; 1998, $535 million. Total: $1.566 billion. The yearly State average under the old farm program was about $449 million; under the new farm program, $522 million. Madam President, $522 million is more; $449 million is less. OK. Advanced payments, the bonus payment, add them all up: Iowa farmers could get about $1.288 billion during calendar year 1998. Madam President, I apologize to my colleagues for taking this much time and going over all the figures. The facts are clear. The rug has not been yanked out from producers in the northern plains. In fact, these States have fared quite well under the 1996 act's payments. When compared to the old farm bill--I realize we have extenuating and very dire circumstances now--the farmers who need assistance the worst-- those without a crop--receive nothing--nothing--from higher loan rates. Yet, this is the situation many southern farmers will face under the proposal that is the alternative to the conference report. I have made some remarks on the floor on several occasions against the loan rate proposal, uncapping loan rates. I don't disagree with my colleagues across the aisle that we need to provide assistance to farmers; that is a given. But history has shown us that their plan will not work, and I believe several myths should be addressed about their proposal. Myth No. 1: Higher loan rates will put more money into the pockets of all producers and do not lead to excess stocks and lower prices in the long run. It is also argued that higher loan rates will not eventually lead us back to Government set-asides. Contrary to these assertions, history has shown us that higher loan rates lead to excess stocks, greater production, a long-run depressing effect on price, and uncompetitiveness in the world market. In addition, due to the difficulty in predicting budget outlays with marketing loans, it inevitably leads us back to command-and-control policies in an attempt to limit the budget exposure. Again, some in the House and Senate do not feel we should spend $4.1 billion in emergency funding. How are we going to pay for $7 billion? And, more to the point, if you encourage more Government stocks and a tie-up of the transportation system and more production, you are going to extend that loan beyond the 15 months and you are going to get into more expenditures. We have been down that road before and farmers overwhelmingly tell me they do not want to retrace the journey. I think we should look forward and not backwards. Myth No. 2: There is no safety net. I have gone over the payment numbers. I have mentioned previously that there is a safety net. How can an extra $7.5 billion, at a minimum, over the last 3 years, compared to the old program, be hurting farmers and ranchers? I want a safety net that is a trampoline, not a hammock. If we go down this loan rate trail, it will be a hammock--we will sag in the middle. On the other hand, if we can get our export policy straightened out, our trade policy straightened out, and our tax policy changes and regulatory reform, and get cracking, it may well be a trampoline with this assistance we are providing. Myth No. 3: New trade markets will not help us get out of this problem. There are, indeed, some in this body who argue that trade is not the answer to avoiding these problems in the future. How can you discount the importance of trade when we have to export a large proportion of our ag products? We must continue to work toward trade agreements and sanctions reforms that do not continue to shoot our producers in the foot and lock them out of world markets. And we must encourage producers to maintain the flexibility that allows them to plant according to the demands of the world market. Raising loan rates won't achieve these goals. Several weeks ago, Senator Craig--the distinguished Senator from Idaho, who has been a very aggressive and constant champion of the American farmer and rancher and all the commodities and all the producers of those commodities in his great State of Idaho--and I sat down, along with others, in a small group, and we made a list of what we thought would be appropriate to address this farm crisis. We decided on lost market payments and disaster payments. That is in this bill. We decided on crop insurance reform. Got some. Not enough. Need to make it better. First order of priority in the next session. Wish we could have done it this year. We decided on tax relief. I have already mentioned that. It is in the House bill. The President says he is going to veto it. That will be the best long-term--perhaps not the best--one of the best long-term things we could do for farmers and ranchers in 1999, 2000, and the year beyond. Trade expansion. I have gone over that. Folks, you have to sell it or you are going to smell it, and we are smelling it right now. We need fast track and normal trading status with China, we need IMF, and we need sanctions reform. As I said before, we have to quit taking a knife to a gunfight. Full enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program. The agriculture appropriations bill contains $4.1 billion in payments and also protects the sanctity of crop insurance. The bill does not include the important reforms that are needed, but I am pleased the protections included in the bill, and we are going to work for that reform next year. I mentioned tax relief, and Senator Craig, who is on the floor now, and I sent a letter to the Secretary requesting full enrollment in the CRP program. This is an administrative action. The Secretary doesn't need any congressional action. We don't need to debate this and delay it. He can undertake it right now. It will provide an important tool to address the problem of marginally productive land that repeatedly suffers from natural disasters or disease problems, land like the northern plains. One of the things he can do right away is enroll the CRP in that part of the country. He can do it with the stroke of a pen. Madam President, it appears that we will not be able to achieve all of the goals that Senator Craig and others of us have proposed in this Congress. However, this agriculture appropriations bill, combined with the House tax bill and the trade tools the administration already has available, will provide an important step in addressing the economic problems throughout our rural areas. But the President must be willing to step up and work with us, if he is serious about helping our farmers and ranchers. Webster's defines a ``statesman'' as one who exercises the political leadership at his disposal wisely and without narrow partisanship. I am hopeful that we will see the President and my colleagues across the aisle act as statesmen on this issue and that we will not prevent farmers and ranchers from receiving this much-needed assistance. This agriculture appropriations bill is too important--too important--for our producers. I urge the President to reconsider his veto threat on this bill. I thank my colleagues for their patience, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a related issue. The Senator from Nebraska touched on foreign policy and how it affects our national security. I want to express my concern that President Clinton and the United States, in coordination with NATO, is once again preparing to take military action with very little, if any dialog, with the Congress or the American people. Once again, the President of the United States may be about to ``plant the flag'' of U.S. credibility that will lock this Nation in another expensive, long involvement without any clear discussion--it may be warranted; it may be in the national interest, but without any clear discussion of U.S. vital national interest--and that involvement is in a place in the world called Kosovo. The news today is pretty grim. The news from Kosovo has been and continues to be very grim. In the Washington Post, here is a story as of this morning: ``New Kosovo Massacre May Spur NATO To Act.'' This is not pretty. I am quoting from the Post story by Mr. Guy Dinmore: Their bodies lay as they fell, throats cut or shot in the back of the head--19 ethnic Albanians believed to have been executed by Serbian police units in the most harrowing massacre of civilians since warfare erupted in Kosovo seven months ago. Relatives and neighbors today dug graves for the dead--most of them women, children and elderly people--as they tearfully recounted the massacre that occurred Saturday when government forces entered this village in the Serbian province of Kosovo following the killing of seven policemen by separatist guerrillas. With the death toll in the bitter conflict between government forces and ethnic Albanian rebels steadily mounting and little sign that Serbia will adhere to a unilateral cease-fire senior NATO sources said today there is a growing possibility that the Western alliance will intervene militarily in Kosovo as early as next month. Serbia is the dominant Republic of Yugoslavia, and NATO sources say the alliance's next step would be to deliver an ultimatum to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic demanding a cease-fire and full access to refugees from the Kosovo conflict. If the demands are not met, they said, NATO would proceed with plans set in motion at a NATO defense ministers meeting last week to launch airstrikes against Serbian targets. Last week, the U.N. Security Council issued a call for an immediate cease-fire and the withdrawal of government forces from Kosovo. In the New York Times--and as Senator McCain pointed out a few short moments ago, and completes the pictures--there is a very disturbing story summed up: Senior officials in Washington and NATO last week stepped up their threats of military force against Milosevic and demanded that his forces stop their rampage. A USA Today headline, ``Yugoslavian Army Takes Steps to Avoid Strikes.'' Up to 150 Yugoslavian army vehicles pulled out of southern Kosovo Tuesday in an apparent move to avoid NATO airstrikes, Yugoslavia media reported. But the Pentagon said it had seen no evidence of a large-scale pull back, and NATO stepped up its plans for military strikes to stop the Yugoslav onslaught. Then in the London Times, a story by Tom Walker, the reporter who discovered the tragedy: I discovered the bodies of 16 Albanian civilians [now it is up to 19] massacred by Serb forces in a remote village in Kosovo yesterday. I won't go into the gory details. The international press and our local national press are forecasting what I think everybody in the Senate certainly is aware of. I commend to my colleagues the latest issue of Time Magazine. The headline reads, ``The Balkan Mess: The West has been fiddling while Kosovo burns and regional peace strategies falter.'' This is precisely the topic that Senator Hagel was talking about. I don't like saying this, but the headline says it: ``And Bill Clinton is too distracted to pay proper attention.'' The highlights of the article are as follows: But Kosovo is far and away the worst of the current crises. Vowing not to permit another slaughter like Bosnia's, the NATO allies threatened Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic last June with airstrikes unless he halted his security forces' attacks on the rebellious Albanians. Even if Clinton hadn't been bedeviled by scandal, the threat would have been difficult to carry out. France [in typical fashion] refused to go along with the military action unless the U.N. Security Council approved, and Russia promised to veto any resolution that authorized it. Washington was also stuck in internal wrangling. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wanted the White House to push harder for NATO military action, but Defense Secretary William Cohen balked, fearing air strikes would only embolden the Kosovo Liberation Army, then at the peak of its strength and demanding an independent state, which Washington opposed. Clinton was too distracted to knock bureaucratic heads or force the allies to carry out their threat. The indecision ``proved to be a disaster,'' said a U.S. diplomat. ``Milosevic took the measure of the west and decided he could take advantage of it.'' By last month, The Serb leader had turned his counteroffensive against the rebel army into a campaign of terror against Albanian villages. Suddenly, whole sections of the population were being driven from their homes, but the Western response remained inaudible. In part, critics charge that the U.S. tacitly let Milosevic go ahead because the West also wanted to break the back of the rebel army, whose lack of structure threatened regional stability. That is a sad, sad commentary if in fact that is true. So last week the Security Council finally passed a Franco- British resolution demanding that Milosevic halt his offensive and begin negotiations, or face the possibility of armed intervention. The attack plan calls for U.S. cruise missiles to be launched first . . . I'll repeat that. The attack plan calls for U.S. cruise missiles to be launched first against Serb military targets in Kosovo; then, if needed, NATO would mount a wider air campaign outside Kosovo against security facilities in Serbia. Even if the Administration rouses itself to take charge of the Balkan situation-- Senator Hagel tried to point this out, and Senator McCain has tried to point this out, as others have-- damage to U.S. foreign policy may have already been done. Allies sense distraction and are growing worried, but are unable to step in. Enemies may see opportunities for making mischief. That is certainly true, with the third-stage rocket being tested by North Korea, and Saddam Hussein is certainly not behaving. And India and Pakistan are continuing their war of words. There is very little justification, by the way, for the missile strike in regard to Sudan and the Khartoum chemical plant. I won't go into all of that, but let me say on record that I do not think that the justification can be verified: Enemies may see opportunities for making mischief. For rogue leaders like Saddam Hussein and North Korea's Kim Jong Il, the Balkans may convey a different message: Now is the best time to take what they want. Senator McCain talked about this last week, and he did so a few moments ago, also. Last week, he repeated the observation made by the former majority leader, Bob Dole of Kansas, who tearfully told an audience he had been to Kosovo and was shocked in regard to the number that have been killed, the atrocities, and the tragedy that 250,000 people are in the mountains hiding, trying to prevent them and their families from being killed. I don't know what is going to happen, but it is a human tragedy. Bob Dole said, ``For goodness sake, let's not repeat Bosnia.'' Let me say that I just came from an intelligence briefing as of yesterday with Senator DeWine of Ohio. He and I are extremely concerned about the situation. I can tell you that our sources from the various intelligence assets certainly confirm what the press has reported--a human tragedy in the making, a foreign policy disaster that bears upon the ability of NATO to function. Now, what do we do about it? Last July, I offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that required the President to come before the American people and the Congress before he committed the U.S. to a military involvement in terms of Kosovo. The amendment asked the President to address several items to make his case before we intervened. Why is it in our national interest? You can argue it both ways. You can say we are into another Bosnia, another $10 billion, and year after year of presence; or you can say that the future of NATO is in danger. You can even make a case that it is in our national interest to intervene. But regarding the amendment, I went on to ask, how many troops will be required? Now, that is a good question because when the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I were visiting the new NATO countries just a month or 2 ago, we were at a social event and one of the generals who certainly plays an important role regarding NATO indicated to me privately that it would take 70,000 troops to be on the ground-- ``peacekeepers,'' as he called them. I have no idea how 70,000 troops can be in that part of the world, with that rough terrain, in the middle of winter, with no accessible roads and a very difficult situation where the Serbs are trying to kill the ethnic Albanians. I don't know how we can put 70,000 troops in there. But if we are going to do that, we at least ought to go over those contingencies. Then, again, I stated it should be mandatory to state what the objectives would be, when we expected the troops to be withdrawn, and what criteria would signal ``mission complete,'' what the cost would be and what would be the funding source. I am going to interrupt again and say that, yesterday, as Senator McCain pointed out, the Joint Chiefs of Staff came before the Congress, and it was a pretty candid session. That is putting it mildly. I don't agree with the press coverage in the Post as of this morning regarding Senators raising holy ned with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We wanted candor and they gave us candor, and it pointed out that the joint chiefs--all of the services combined said we need $21 billion to keep our services in a status where at least we could honor our responsibilities regarding readiness. I pointed out that the President has requested $1 billion. It has to be offset in the rest of the defense budget. The Marine Corps needed $1.9 billion just to put new tires on trucks, and other essentials. So he is going to get $51 million, but he has to offset it in another way. The rest of the services said we need $5 billion or $6 billion, or the ``nose of the plane,'' in terms of readiness, will go into the ground, and the President requested $1 billion that has to be offset, and $1.9 billion in terms of emergency funding regarding Bosnia. This is a disaster. We do not even have enough funds to keep our services in a readiness posture, and here we are talking about going into Kosovo, and perhaps we should, but there has been no dialog. What would be the impact on an overstressed military? We are stressed and we are strained and we are hollow in some portions. The distinguished present occupant of the Chair summarized it very well when we had that hearing. The Senator from Oklahoma was the Readiness Subcommittee chairman. He had a hearing last week that pointed this out. The first obligation to the Federal Government is to guarantee our national security, and we are not doing that today. Also, as of today, nothing has been heard on the subject from the administration regarding Kosovo. Now, that train has left the station while the Nation has been preoccupied with other matters. Let me point out what has happened in the Serbian province of Kosovo since July. Mr. Milosevic has steadily increased the level of violence against the Albanian majority. Estimates put the number of deaths at several hundred. We read the latest reports, and the number of refugees is probably around 250,000. As I have indicated before, we have intelligence assets and there is talk of humanitarian relief--and I am for that--but we can't even find these folks. Why? Because they are hiding in the trees, on the mountains, in the snow, and women and children are starving, because they are afraid Serbs will kill them. NATO has developed plans for military action against the Serbian forces. I will point out that NATO had a flyover, called ``Determined Falcon.'' That was one falcon who wasn't very determined. These planes flew over for about 3 minutes. What was the signal sent to the Serbs? We were not really serious about it. They took advantage. What was the message that was given to liberation army on the other side? It was: I think the United States is going to come to our aid. So there wasn't any real dialog. I wonder why that demonstration was even started. Humanitarian groups, including U.S. State Department, have warned that a human disaster is in the making if the refugees do not find shelter and food before winter starts. Winter has started. This week, the first snows have fallen in Kosovo. The U.N. has adopted a resolution under Article 7 of the U.N. Charter demanding an immediate cease-fire. Under Article 7, military force can be used to ``compel compliance,'' Mr. President. NATO members are being canvassed about the number of troops and equipment they are willing to commit to an ``undefined operation in Kosovo.'' We have several hundreds troops in Macedonia. The general told us, when we were over in the NATO countries, they need at least 70,000 people. You know the U.S. would have a larger portion than 200 or 300. I am calling for the administration to come to the Congress now and not after a military action and the commitment of U.S. credibility and fully discuss what the plans are, what is the objective, how many troops, what is the cost, what is the national interest for military action in Kosovo. None of the questions addressed in my amendment have been answered, but it is clear to me the United States and NATO are very close to a prolonged, costly involvement in another part of the Balkans. And the risks of such an involvement is great. The risk of not taking action is equally great. As I have indicated, we have several hundred U.S. troops on the ground in the neighboring country of Macedonia. What risk would they be in if we strike? What is the risk of destabilizing the entire region if we incite a broader conflict in Kosovo? What is the risk if we do not? How likely will a conflict in Kosovo draw Turkey and Greece into the fray as opponents? These are tough issues. They require very close examination before we get involved, and not after a military demonstration strike of cruise missiles. The administration and the national security team, with all due respect, is the most doggone outfit I have ever seen in terms of planting the flag; and, then, after the flag is planted we have the choice of whether we are going to withdraw while the troops are in the field. You can't do that. So the flag is planted, and then we are stuck. If the administration thinks threats of military action may alter the behavior of President Milosevic, what clearer signal of intent could we send that we were prepared to forcibly stop the violence against the Albanians than by having the President of the United States lay out the issues to the American people? It might be a good idea to come back and confer with the Senate, as Senator Warner, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the leading spokesman for defense and foreign policy, has requested the administration to come up and consult. It might be a good idea to get off the fundraising trail, Mr. President, and come back and do that. The President owes this Nation and the Congress the full explanation of intent if we are to become even more involved in Kosovo. There is no need to discuss the military details of any proposed action. I am not asking for that. No one is asking for that. We don't need to know the timing, or the types or selection of weapon platforms. But we do need a dialogue on why this is necessary, and why this is in our U.S. vital national interests. I indicated just a moment ago that Senator Warner has requested Secretary Cohen, our national security adviser to the President, Sandy Berger, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and anybody else that will listen, especially the President of the United States, to please come down here, to please come to the Capitol, and to please consult with us. What is going on? As I have indicated, we are having a very tough time in regard to the national defense. As I said, it is a national disgrace. And before we commit American men and women in uniform to a possible combat role overseas and an additional role as opposed to what we are doing in Bosnia, we have to be consulted. Mr. President, what is going on? Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first, I commend my good friend and colleague from Nebraska for providing the Senate and all of our colleagues and all who have listened, and I hope, the Nation's press and the international press, a comprehensive statement with regard to foreign policy. We have many Senators who certainly have expertise in this field, but I know of no one in the Senate who has given a more articulate overview of what America faces in our role to the world than Senator Hagel. Senator Hagel and I have been extremely concerned about the trade policy of the United States, not only in regard to the administration, but in regard to this Congress. In Nebraska and Kansas, States we are privileged to represent, our livelihood, our very livelihood, depends on progressive, consistent trade policy. We both know and we both have talked for almost a year now about the Asian flu, the global contagion, and how that has impacted especially agriculture--our Kansas farmers and our Nebraska farmers--but everybody that depends on trade. We have been very concerned about the lack of funding for IMF and normal trading status for China, fast-track legislation--which, I must say, the withdrawal of fast track and now the defeat of fast track in the House is a terrible blow; it is like shattered glass, if you will. It is like an embargo. I think we are going to pay enormous penalties for that. And then sanction reform, as the Senator mentioned. Until we get our act together, until we get a consistent and positive policy in regard to trade, I am afraid we will go through some very, very difficult times. The Senator from Nebraska has seized the issue. He has given a very comprehensive view. I want to thank him for it. I hope that many pay attention. I look forward to working with the Senator in this regard.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I now ask for its second reading and would object to my own request.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 4579 has arrived from the House and is at the desk. I now ask for its first reading.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday at 10 a.m., there will be a period of debate until approximately 10:40 a.m. in relation to the Higher Education and Department of Defense conference reports. At the conclusion of that debate time, the Senate will proceed to three stacked votes, the first on adoption of the Higher Education conference report, followed by a vote on adoption of the Defense Appropriations conference report, followed by a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Internet tax bill. Following those votes, the Senate will begin a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. and then recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet. After the caucus meetings, the Senate will resume morning business until 3:15 p.m., at which time the Senate could consider any legislative or executive items cleared for action. The leader would like to remind all Members that there will be no votes on Tuesday afternoon and all day Wednesday in observance of the Jewish holiday.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I further ask consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 30. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be waived, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 534, H.R. 3096.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill be read the third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and the title, as amended, be agreed to, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.