[Pages S12449-S12465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 1906,
which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Conference report to accompanying H.R. 1906, making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the agreement, I yield myself such
time as I may consume on the Agriculture conference report.
As Senators will remember, we invoked cloture on this conference
report yesterday. I think the vote was 79-20. So by a very decisive
vote, the Senate has expressed its will that we should complete action
on this conference report. So debate has been limited, by agreement, to
6 hours, as described in the announcement to the Senate.
I am very pleased we have reached this point. This has been a very
difficult and hard to resolve conference agreement. There have been a
lot of issues extraneous to the appropriations process this year that
had to be considered because they were raised either in the Senate or
during consideration of the conference report.
We have reached the point, though, that it is time to complete action
on this conference report. We are appropriating funds for the fiscal
year that began on October 1. So we have already begun the fiscal year
during which the funds we will approve today will be needed. These
funds are going to be allocated for administration by the Department of
Agriculture among a wide range of programs. Sixty billion dollars are
made available under the terms of this bill for programs of the
Department of Agriculture including agricultural research, food and
nutrition service, conservation programs, agricultural support
programs, and rural development. We also have the responsibility of
funding the Food and Drug Administration and the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission activities under this bill. So funds are provided
for those agencies as well.
I am very pleased that the conference agreement reflects a very
strong commitment to the food safety initiatives. The President has
been very active in his effort to increase funding for a number of
those programs. Funds are provided for that--not all that the President
wanted for every aspect of the program, but it is a well-balanced
program.
We also fund the Food Safety Inspection Service of the Department of
Agriculture. Under that program, we have inspection that is conducted
at food processing plants throughout the country, trying to make sure
the food that is made available in the marketplace

[[Page S12450]]

in our country is safe and wholesome, trying to alleviate concerns and
the risks of foodborne illnesses.
I daresay we have the best record of any country in the world in
protecting our citizens from foodborne illnesses, and this is due in
large part to those industries and those people who are involved every
day in preparing and marketing the foods that make up the U.S. food
supply. So they are the ones who really deserve the credit, in my
opinion, and we very often do not recognize that. Government officials
like to take the credit for just about everything, and I think that is
wrong. In our society, we have a lot of people who work very hard and
in a very conscientious way with the latest technologies to try to help
make this country the best in the world, and they have done it.
We try to support the activities of food processors and producers,
but we sometimes fall short. This year, for example, we have had a very
serious problem in production agriculture because of low commodity
prices. There is an oversupply of some commodities in the world market
that has depressed prices a great deal. We have seen a lot of weather-
related disasters strike production agriculture this year. So in this
bill there is a response to that problem. A generous disaster
assistance program totaling $8.7 billion is included in this conference
report, providing emergency assistance for production agriculture.
The head of the Mississippi Farm Bureau was interviewed after the
House approved this conference report to get his reaction to the need
in agriculture for the funds that were provided in this bill. Here is
what David Waide of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation said about
this emergency assistance: It ``could well mean the difference in
massive foreclosures and the ability to continue farming'' in
Mississippi. ``It's that serious,'' he said, ``because of the market
situation and the extremely low commodity prices and the natural
disaster we've had with weather, every producer is impacted to some
degree.'' He went on to say, ``With the type of market losses that
we're seeing as a result of an extremely dry year, the producers are
still going to have to struggle.''

I point this out because there are some who think we have overreacted
to the problems in agriculture this year. Every farmer in every area of
the country may not be seriously affected by the problems I have
discussed and described but most are. In my State of Mississippi, David
Waide has it right. He has described what the problems are and what the
needs are, why it is important for this appropriations bill with this
emergency disaster assistance program to be approved.
I am hopeful Senators will come to the floor under the order that we
have provided for debate. We have a good amount of time available for
the discussion of sanctions legislation we adopted in the Senate on an
amendment offered by Senator Ashcroft, which would have limited the
unilateral power the President has to impose embargoes, in effect, or
trade embargoes, stopping the flow of agricultural commodities from
this country into the international marketplace as a means for trying
to discipline other countries or coerce them into some kind of change
of behavior. For many, this has seemed to be an area where we have
unfairly targeted agriculture and made agricultural producers and
exporters bear the brunt of American foreign policy and, in many cases,
it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked to change the behavior of those
countries against whom the trade embargoes or sanctions were imposed.
And it has hurt our own economy--not just the agricultural producers
and exporters but others, because it has had a ripple effect throughout
our economy. So I supported that initiative and I hope we can see
legislation of that kind enacted. But because it was legislation, a
change in law, there were objections to it being included on this
appropriations bill.
So there will be other opportunities to take up that issue, and I
hope the Senate will address that at the earliest possible time. We
have time available for Senator Ashcroft and others who are interested
in discussing that issue. Under the impression that there will be
Senators coming to the floor soon to discuss those issues and others, I
am prepared to yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent the
time under the quorum call be charged equally to both sides under the
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to make comments on the
Agriculture appropriations conference report. It is a bill which I
think is very important for America's farmers and ranchers. Clearly,
the agricultural community in America is in dire straits. Farmers need
relief quickly. But the irony about this bill is that farmers are
getting, in my judgment, shortchanged. They are getting short-term
financial relief, but they have been robbed of good policy; that is, a
policy to reform the unilateral embargoes of food and medicine that
have kept our farmers from being able to sell their products around the
world.
Before I get substantially into my remarks, I thank the Senator from
Mississippi, the chairman of the agriculture appropriations
subcommittee, for his support and vote to end unilateral food
embargoes, and for his very mannerly handling of this issue on the
floor and in the Senate-House conference. He has a strong record of
supporting an end to the food embargoes. I know he recognizes the
incredible groundswell of support for this policy change that is in the
Congress and, more importantly, in the farm community. Senator Cochran
is to be commended. I thank him. He has done an outstanding job.
Farmers in America are aware that the current U.S. embargoes tie
their hands and give an advantage to Canada, Brazil, Europe, and South
America, farmers from around the world, when competing against the
United States. Current U.S. policy favors foreign farmers--not U.S.
farmers. It is a tragedy that our own policies throw roadblocks between
our farmers and the world marketplace so producers in other countries
have a better opportunity to be more successful than producers in our
country.
Make no mistake about it. The history of U.S. food embargoes is that
they almost uniformly hurt only two parties: the American farmer and
innocent people overseas.
Food embargoes generally don't succeed in changing other nations.
They succeed in taking dollars out of our farmers' pockets and in
putting dollars in the pockets of foreign farmers. They succeed in
undermining our farmers' reputation as reliable suppliers in the world
market. We understand that because farmers have talked to us. Farmers
have come to me. I have met with them. Senator Bond and I have several
times sat down together and discussed it with farmers in the last 3 or
4 months at various places. We were in the foothills of Missouri. We
were in the central part of the State. We have been at various places
around the State. They have helped me understand this issue more
clearly than ever before.
A number of other Senators are very attuned to this. This is
something that goes on on both sides of the aisle. This is not an issue
that is defined by parties in this Congress. Senators Hagel, Baucus,
Dodd, Brownback, Dorgan, Kerrey, along with myself and many others--you
notice this is one of those things where you can go back and forth
across the aisle as you name the Members of the Senate--have been
working on a bill that would lift embargoes involving U.S. farm
products.
I wish to recognize the fact that Senator Lugar has for a long time
been working on measures to do the same and is chairman of the
Agriculture Committee in the Senate.
This understanding about the need to have markets where farmers can
sell what they produce is a pretty substantial understanding. It is not
partisan. We did not surprise anyone with this proposal. Americans have
long agreed it is generally unwise for the United States to use food as
a weapon. The weapon usually backfires and hurts us more than it hurts
anyone else.

[[Page S12451]]

Congress has endorsed the values of the American people. Our job is
to represent the values of the American people and not to allow a
select few inside Washington, DC, to go behind closed doors and impose
their values on America. I am here today to do what I was elected to
do--to promote farm policies that reflect the values of the farm belt
instead of caving in to the values of the beltway.
If Members listen to their farmers, they will most likely hear what I
have been hearing. This is a letter from Kansas City, MO, signed by 10
people with a strong interest in this issue. Let me read a part of it:

We believe that this legislation--

that is the legislation to allow farmers to market their products to
change the way we have embargoes imposed so we don't have the
unilateral embargoes against food and medicine imposed by the President
without Congress.

We believe that this legislation will help the United
States sell its valuable farm products and medicines as well
as help the receiver countries.
The President and Congress ought to review more carefully
unilateral embargoes against any country. Withholding food
and medicine is an affront against human rights as well as a
politically foolish practice. Such sanctions have never
toppled governments, but only serve to perpetuate hatred,
hunger, and poverty among the ordinary citizens.

This was signed by 10 individuals. This is one of a number of letters
I would like to submit for the Record.
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Latin American Task Force,

Catholics for Justice,

Kansas City, MO, September 13, 1999.
Hon. John Ashcroft,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft: Thank you for introducing the Food
and Medicine for the World Act as an amendment to the
agricultural appropriations bill and for championing it
through this far. We hope that you and Senator Bond will
continue to work to pass this important amendment.
We believe that this legislation will help the United
States sell its valuable farm products and medicines as well
as help the receiver countries.
The President and Congress ought to review more carefully
unilateral embargoes against any country. Withholding food
and medicine is an affront against human rights as well as a
politically foolish practice. Such sanctions have never
toppled governments, but only serve to perpetuate hatred,
hunger, and poverty among the ordinary citizens.
Thank you for your attention; we will look forward to a
report on the outcome of Food and Medicine for the World Act.
Letter signed by 10 people.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, not only do members of my constituency
and citizens of Missouri write letters to me, but they write letters to
the editor. They talk to the press and farm focus forums about the
significance of lifting food embargoes. Senator Bond and I not only
were in Columbia at one of these farm forums, but we were at the State
fair.
I am reading from a newspaper article out of Sedalia, MO, entitled,
``Farmers Meet with Bond, Ashcroft at State Fair.''
This is what some farmers said. This is what the article begins with.
It includes quotes by farmers.

Some farmers who are worried by low prices and the recent
lack of rain felt encouraged after talking with Missouri's
two U.S. Senators about emergency relief and trade barriers.
``I hope the relief comes soon,'' said Brent Sandidge, a
hog farmer. ``[But] rather than always giving us immediate
relief, help us so that we can live so that emergency money
won't be needed.

That is what the hog farmer was saying. Give us the capacity to sell
our products so emergency money won't always be needed.

One such long-range plan is Ashcroft's Food and Medicine
for the World Act. . . .

The article continues, and then Brent, the hog farmer who was with
us, said:

. . . lifting embargoes makes sense. We need to use the
agriculture in this country to feed the grave hunger of
people around the world.

I am pleased to have had that article in the Sedalia paper. The
bottom line is this: The final Agriculture appropriations conference
report should have included the embargo reform that was overwhelmingly
supported by American farmers and adopted by the Senate. Frankly, it is
a great disappointment to me that the Agriculture conference report
does not include reform for food embargoes. First of all, this reform,
which we had included in the Senate version of the Agriculture bill,
was a reform that would have required the President to collaborate with
Congress and get approval before imposing any unilateral sanction that
would embargo food or medicine.
The Senate approved that amendment by an overwhelming vote of 70-28.
That included a majority of positive votes from both sides of the
aisle--both Democrats and Republicans. This vote shows that not only do
we have more than a majority, but 70 votes would be more than enough to
invoke cloture, if these votes remain committed, more than enough votes
to even override a Presidential veto.

After the Senate 70-28 vote when the Agriculture appropriations bill
went to the conference, the House conferees voted on a proposal to make
the Senate reform even stronger. This is significant because it
reflects the view of many of the House Members with whom I have talked
that embargoes be brought to the House of Representatives for a
straight up-or-down vote, and the proposal would receive the same kind
of overwhelming support in the House that it received in the Senate.
They were confident of that if voted on by the House. Also, eight
Senate conferees to three favored keeping the Senate provisions along
with the stronger House provisions.
It is a mystery that the House wanted this, the Senate wanted this,
we voted 70-28 to have it, and then behind closed doors a decision was
made to strip out the reform provision that received overwhelming
bipartisan support in the Congress. It is something that the American
farmers want, that will help sell American goods overseas, that will
help reverse the currently depressed prices, that will help provide
food and medicine to people all around the world, and a reform that
would reverse the rather ridiculous policy in which America finds
itself alone so often as a nation using food and medicine as a weapon
of foreign policy.
A select few in Congress have tried to make the issue of embargoes on
food an issue about Cuba. I reject this narrow interpretation. It is
about the importance of consistent U.S. policy on food and medicine
embargoes. Since Cuba is one of those countries that we sanction or
embargo exports of wheat, rice, pork, and other vital farm products,
let me address that. Does it really make sense for the United States
not to sell food to Cuba when the entire rest of the world already
does? I don't think so. Does it really make sense for the United States
to deny food and medicine and thereby bolster Castro's anti-American
distortions?
Let's hear from the countryside on this issue. Here is an e-mail I
received from one of my constituents, Thomas Capuano, from Kirksville,
MO:

Dear Senator Ashcroft, I want you to know that I favor
loosening the embargo on Cuba. The best way for understanding
between our two peoples is by means of free markets, free
exchange of ideas and goods and services, and freedom of
movement. . . .

I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

To: John Ashcroft.
From: Tom Capuano.
Date: 15 July, 1999.
Subject: Cuba embargo.
Dear Senator Ashcroft: I want you to know that I favor
loosening the embargo on Cuba. The best way for understanding
between our two peoples is by means of free markets, free
exchange of ideas and goods and services, and freedom of
movement between Cuba and the U.S. Please consider supporting
the exemptions that are currently being proposed to ease the
embargo. Food and medicine should be totally exempted from
the embargo.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Here is another e-mail received from Ms. Janelle
Sharoni:

The blockade against Cuba has been going on for so many
years we have nearly forgotten about the terrible suffering
of the Cuban people and the total lack of any results to
point to from this blockade. The blockade has not worked and
has alienated us from other Latin Americans.
All this does is exempt food, agricultural supplies,
medicine and medical supplies for the trade embargo. It does
NOT indicate any change in American policy, just a change in
how we deal with the poor and suffering.

That is a description of the Food and Medicine for the World Act.
I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.

[[Page S12452]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

To: Senator Ashcroft.
From: ``Janell H. Sharoni''.
Date: 21 July, 1999.
Subject: End the Cuban Embargo.
Dear Senator Ashcroft: The blockade against Cuba has been
going on for so many years, we have nearly forgotten about
the terrible suffering of the Cuban people and the total lack
of any results to point to from this blockade. This blockade
has not worked and has alienated us from other Latin
Americans.
Businessmen are trying, against of course the wishes of the
Miami community, who seem to control our entire congress, to
make headway in working to establish relations with Cuba.
Please support or co-sponsor SB926 to end the embargo against
Cuba.
All this does is exempt food, agricultural supplies,
medicine and medical supplies for the trade embargo. It does
NOT indicate any change in American policy, just a change in
how we deal with the poor and suffering in the third world.
Is it not obvious that Fidel Castro will die in office and
never be removed?
This is the first step in ending our stupid cold war
relationships with a person who is head and shoulders above
most of the dictators we have supported in the past in our
anti communist stance.
The Pentagon is not afraid of Cuba, and especially the
Cuban people. Why, Senator Ashcroft, do we continue this
terrible ordeal against the people of a nation so close to
our shores.
Sincerely,
Janelle H. Sharoni.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I received many letters about this issue. Here is one
from a constituent in St. Joseph, MO, Mr. Craig Drummond, who is the
Drake University student body vice president.
I don't know why he went all the way to Iowa to get his education,
but Drake is a fine institution.
He states it this way:

The United States is a country that was founded on the
premise of freedom, democracy and sovereignty. We enact
policies, laws and regulations that best exhibit the highest
ideals of democracy and the American public. For the most
part, we do a good job and function well as a powerful global
leader. I am a proponent of democracy and capitalism and hold
the values and ideas of the aforementioned paramount to any
other country or government. The United States has problems
and for the most part we are aware of these and have good
people working to rectify our problems and wrongs. That is
why this whole Cuba situation intrigues me so much.
Why does America continue to have an embargo against trade
with Cuba? Why have we chosen to isolate Cuba and ourselves
from each other?

I think the point here that ought to be made is a point that needs to
be made over and over again. For food and medicine, we don't strengthen
the regime; we strengthen the people. Strengthening oppressed people is
what is fundamentally appropriate in terms of eventually allowing them
to survive oppressive regimes.
I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

June 22, 1999.
Dear Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri: I am writing this
letter in regards to the United States' embargo against Cuba.
I recently visited Cuba through a U.S. Treasury Department
licensed trip that was part of a class for Drake University.
In Cuba I was immersed in their culture and sense of
community and feel that after this experience, it is my
Lockean duty as an American citizen to write my elected
leaders and express my concern at the status quo foreign
policy that America practices in regards to Cuba.
The United States is a country that was founded on the
premise of freedom, democracy and sovereignty. We enact
policies, laws and regulations that best exhibit the highest
ideals of democracy and the American public. For the most
part, we do a good job and function well as a powerful global
leader. I am a proponent of democracy and capitalism and hold
the values and ideas of the aforementioned paramount to any
other country or government. The United States has problems
and for the most part we are aware of these and have good
people working to rectify our problems and wrongs. That is
why this whole Cuba situation intrigues me so much.
Why does America continue to have an embargo against trade
with Cuba? Why have we chosen to isolate Cuba and ourselves
from each other? This puzzles me dearly and I have searched,
with a patriotic mindset, to find answers, yet I have not
found any viable ones. Cuba operates as a socialistic
government and this government is by far one of the best
examples of true socialism that I have seen. The people are
educated, have access to medical care and the leaders do not
live lavish lifestyles. Cuba is poor and the people need
money and have wants, yet the division of wealth appears to
be fair and from the government leaders to the person on the
street, the people support their governmental system.
Why then has the United States, the world leader in human
rights, let itself place greed and the desires of a limited
minority of American businessmen above the needs of a people,
fair foreign policy, and the search for social justice in
U.S. action? American businessmen are upset because their
companies were nationalized in the Revolution of 1959. Cuba
has since offered retribution, but the former owners have
declined it on the grounds that the retribution is not for
the real amount that the assets were worth. Well, as someone
who has invested in foreign markets, I personally know of and
accept the higher degree of risk that is taken when investing
in foreign markets that are not under direct U.S. control. A
foreign investor must accept this risk and realize that there
is additional risk associated with transacting or operating a
business in a foreign country.
Cuba is a nation of great beauty and opportunity. The Cuban
people desire and need the help of the United States. I see
no reason for the current embargo and would ask you to
compare Cuba to China when talking about foreign policy and
governmental structures. I am asking as a constituent and
citizen that you look into this matter so that you can form
an educated opinion on this subject. Hopefully, education on
this subject will foster a desire to rise up and make the
necessary change to lift this embargo. There may have been
reasons in the past for the implementation of the embargo,
but Cuba and the U.S. have both changed since the 1950's and
it is time for our foreign policy to change as well.
The lifting of the embargo will not only help the Cuban
economy, but it will inevitably act as an impetus to spark
American investment and exports to Cuba. Such transactions
could only be considered a positive for the U.S. economy.
Thank you and if you have any questions or comments please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,

Craig W. Drummond,

Drake University Students Body
Vice-President.

Mr. ASHCROFT. A final letter from Mrs. Joan Botwinick in University
City, MO:

I want to thank you for introducing a bill which would lift
the embargo on food and medicine. Not only is it the humane
thing to do, but it would also benefit our farmers.

That is a clear statement of what I think is the important truth.
I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in its entirety in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

University City, MO,

Sept. 24, 1999.
Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I want to thank you for introducing a
bill which would lift the embargo on food and medicine in
Cuba. Not only is it the humane thing to do, but it would
also benefit our farmers.
The broader issue is: Do we promote democracy by putting
sanctions on countries we don't like or who may be a threat
to us, or do we try to help improve their economies by
engaging in commerce and dialogue. I believe our best course
is the latter.
Sincerely,
Joan Botwinick.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Comments about lifting the food embargo come not just
from the Midwest. An editorial from the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel,
August 16, 1999, states:

It clearly would be in America's best interest to expand
trade in food and medicine to Cuba, for more reasons than
one.

I continue to quote:

If nutrition and health-care conditions don't improve in
Cuba under the easing or lifting of U.S. trade restrictions,
Castro won't have the embargo to blame for his government's
failures.

In other words, we provide Castro with an opportunity to blame
America for hungry people, to blame America for sick people, as long as
we embargo food and medicine.
Quite frankly, there is a ground swell of support to lift the food
and medicine embargo on Cuba--and other countries.
An article from the Omaha World-Herald commends the cosponsor of this
legislation, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been such a
leader in this respect. I will read from that article:

Sens Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John Ashcroft, R-Mo., added
to the Senate's recent farm spending bill an amendment that
would exempt most food and medical supplies from U.S.
sanctions against foreign nations.
As an editorial in this space said on August 10, Cuba
provides the closest example of why Hagel and Ashcroft have a
good idea: Such sanctions usually harm only the people who
deserve it least, and they pointlessly exclude U.S. farmers
and pharmaceutical manufacturers from significant
international markets.

[[Page S12453]]

I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial from the Omaha World-
Herald, Friday, August 20, 1999, printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Omaha World-Herald; Fri. August 20, 1999]

A Gentler Face Toward Cuba

Maybe it's just a coincidence of timing. But lately it
seems that Midwesterners are at the forefront of a push to
start easing some of the barriers between the United States
and Cuba.
Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John Ashcroft, R-Mo., added
to the Senate's recent farm spending bill an amendment that
would exempt most food and medical supplies from U.S.
sanctions against foreign nations.
As an editorial in this space said on Aug. 10, Cuba
provides the closest example of why Hagel and Ashcroft have a
good idea: Such sanctions usually harm only the people who
deserve it least, and they pointlessly exclude U.S. farmers
and pharmaceutical manufacturers from significant
international markets.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Sen.
Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., recently came back from a visit to Cuba
with figures that undergird that idea. They said officials in
Cuba told them the country imports nearly $1 billion in food
and medicine annually and food imports could double in five
years. Cuban doctors and hospital officials told the
Americans that more than 200 important pharmaceuticals are
not to be found in Cuba and that a pressing need exists to
restock.
One must consider the source of such assertions. But even
if the numbers were substantially exaggerated, they still
point to real markets and real needs.
Now there's the visit to Havana by the Gold Nemesis from
Lincoln, Nebraska's top under-17 soccer team, with its
people-to-people sports diplomacy stint. What are the young
players (many of whose parents have no memory of a time when
there wasn't an embargo against Cuba) learning?
``People from Cuba are not stereotypical, real hard-nosed,
mean people,'' Gold nemesis co-captain Christian Mangrum told
the Associated Press. ``They're actually really nice, really
genuine.''
No surprise there, surely. The faceoff between the two
nations has never been about Americans vs Cubans. It is about
the corrupt and dictatorial regime of Fidel Castro and his
dreams of Pan-American revolution. And harbor no illusions:
Castro remains Castro. All in Cuba is not sweetness and light
Dorgn reported that Castro staunchly defended the current
system. ``He staunchly defends what he has done,'' Dorgan
said. ``He rejects the notion that there are human rights
violations.'' Dorgan said Cuban officials had told him and
Daschle they were free to speak to any Cuban. But that proved
to be untrue when they wanted to talk to four dissidents
recently sentenced to prison.
The overthrow of Castro is not a realistic prospect, but
after all, he will not live forever. It is time to think
about what happens after he's gone. If Americans demonstrate
to Cubans that we as a nation aren't out to starve them or
deprive them of medical care; if we show them more about
average Americans and the kind of life that is possible under
a more progressive form of government: doesn't it make sense
that in the post-Castro era they'll be open to a free and
open society?
For that reason, when the House of Representatives resumes
its session next month, it should join the Senate in easing
the food and medicine embargo.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Most people realize it is the good thing to do for our
farmers and it is the right thing to do in terms of humanitarian
interests of those abroad. That is why the Senate overwhelmingly
approved this concept, and that is why it should have been retained in
the conference report which provides relief for American farmers.
We provide financial relief, but we ignore the need for structural
relief so that their market can be expanded. It is no secret that what
happened to the appropriations bill for farmers has been construed by
some as an affront to farmers. Missouri farmers are not duped; they are
not fooled. They understand that while there is additional financial
assistance being given out, they are still being deprived of their
markets, and Missouri farmers want to be able to produce and to sell.
That is what farming is all about. They are bewildered as to how their
freedom to market, which had majority support from both sides of the
aisle, could be stripped out of the bill. I will do everything I can to
make sure they get the freedom to market we have been promising them
for years; we must deliver.
Quite frankly, there is growing consideration of an idea that says we
can't have Freedom to Farm if we don't have freedom to market. We have
never given it a real chance to work. We have to give our farmers the
chance to market what they produce as well as the freedom to be
producers.
If what happened over the last 2 weeks on sanctions policy keeps up,
I do not think we will be seeing this program work. We have to have
both freedoms: The freedom to farm and the freedom to market; and who
will be to blame but those who kept us from passing the freedom to
market?
Our amendment, the Food and Medicine for the World Act, is designed
to allow our farmers to market around the world and is designed to
restructure the way in which agricultural embargoes, or food embargoes,
would be imposed--if at all. That proposal would have put United States
farmers on more competitive ground with the Canadians and more
competitive ground with the Europeans and South Americans in world
markets. It would have put money in the pockets of U.S. farmers--clear
and simple; just a fact; there would have been money in the pockets of
American farmers.
It is hard to believe we simply--we? I should not say ``we.'' From
somewhere, in the dark of night in the conference committee, out goes
that provision which had overwhelming support, I believe, in both
Houses of the Congress. It would have restored the credibility of the
Congress worldwide, across America, and would have restored our
farmers' credibility worldwide as suppliers.
I will continue my efforts to win final approval for ending
unilateral food and medicine embargoes. Next week the sponsors of the
amendment, that was approved 70 to 28 and was added to the Agriculture
appropriations bill, intend to introduce the embargo reform as a
freestanding bill. We will bring it to the Senate and the Congress. We
will say to the Congress: This is not part of the Agriculture
appropriations measure as it was before, but we want to present this to
the Congress. I am grateful the majority leader of the Senate has made
a commitment to me to bring the proposal back to the Senate floor for
separate consideration this session. That is important to me.

I wanted the measure approved as part of the Agriculture
appropriations bill and sent to the President for signature. It would
have been easier. It certainly was an overwhelming consensus of this
body and I believe an overwhelming consensus of the House. But if that
can't be, then we try plan B. Plan B is to bring it up separately and
get it passed through the Senate, get it passed through the House of
Representatives, and sent to the President.
I thank the majority leader of the Senate who has made a commitment
to bring the proposal back to the Senate floor for separate
consideration. This debate will continue, therefore.
Let me reiterate a few points that are vital to the proposal we are
advancing. The general framework is this. We do not make it impossible
to have an embargo. We just say, before there can be an embargo, the
Congress has to approve it. So we do not tie the hands of the
President, but we ask him to shake hands with the Congress before you
take this draconian, drastic step which hurts American farmers, before
you have sanctions on food, fiber, and medicine. We will not allow the
President, with the stroke of a pen, to damage the livelihood of
American farmers or to cut off the subsistence of oppressed people
around the world. It will require consultation with the Congress.
I want to make one thing as clear as I can. This is genuinely a
proposal that supports the policy of helping our farmers and putting
products which will eliminate suffering and hunger into the hands of
those who need them most. This is not about shipping military equipment
or even dual-use items--things that could be used in the military
setting--to other countries. We want to keep those kinds of things out
of the hands of tyrants. But we do not want to assist tyrants, or
strengthen the hands of tyrants, by allowing them to blame America for
hungry people who are oppressed or people who are ill in health, so
that the tyrant can say: The reason you are ill and the reason we don't
have good medicine is the United States of America won't allow you to
have good health or won't sell us food.
Our approach helps us show support for the oppressed people who need
to be strengthened in these countries, at the same time we send a
message that the United States in no way will assist or endorse the
activities of the rogue

[[Page S12454]]

leaders of these nations which threaten our interests. If these rogue
leaders don't spend the money with the American farmers to buy food,
that leaves them hard currency to buy weapons and destabilize countries
around the world. We ought to hope they spend all their money on food
for their people instead of weaponry they use either to repress people
in their own regimes or destabilize neighboring countries.
Ending unilateral embargoes against sales of U.S. food and medicine
is good, solid foreign policy, it is good farm policy, and it promotes
U.S. interests around the world. In the past, we have imposed embargoes
that have done exactly the opposite from what we intended. If we use
food as a weapon, we have to be careful it doesn't backfire. Using food
as a weapon has really resulted in more backfiring than forward firing.
We have actually enriched the people we were seeking to hurt, and we
have hurt the people, the American farmers, who have been the producers
of what has made this Nation the greatest nation on the face of the
Earth, where hunger has been virtually abolished--or it should be.

Let me just give this example. It is a tragic example. It is not
humorous, but it is almost funny because it backfired so badly.
Everyone remembers the Soviet grain embargo in the 1970s. We canceled
17 million tons of high-priced exports from the United States. We told
farmers: You cannot make those sales; we are not going to allow you to
ship that grain to Russia.
Here is what happened. The Russians, having been relieved of their
contractual obligation to buy what they wanted to buy, went into the
world marketplace. Do you know what they did? They bought all the stuff
which we refused to sell them, and they saved $250 million in the
process. We really hurt the Russians with that one. Robert Kohlmeyer of
``World Perspectives'' brought that story to the committee as we had
hearings on sanctions. I thought to myself, that gun backfired in a big
way. The only people with powder burns, the only people suffering as a
result of that volley, were American farmers and individuals in the
production of American agriculture.
Our market reputation as a supplier in the world went down, and other
people decided they would bring on land to be producers, in South
America and other settings, so they could supply what we would refuse
to supply. All of a sudden, we brought new competitors into the arena;
we destroyed our reputation; we helped our enemy get $250 million he
wouldn't otherwise have gotten, and we hurt American farmers. Seldom
can a gun backfire so accurately in so many directions. I say seldom,
but it is just generally so in the arena of embargoes. Our embargoes
more often deny people who suffer under such regimes the food and
medicine they need and desire rather than hurting the leaders in those
countries.
America has been a nation that promotes freedom worldwide. We should
continue to talk truthfully about political oppression in other
countries. We should do so, though, without denying food and medicine
to the oppressed people who need to be strengthened, not weakened. How
can we ever expect to topple a regime by starving those who populate
it? Our foreign policy interests should be to strengthen, not to
weaken, those who could resist an oppressive regime.
We need to stop using food as a weapon against the innocent. It is
not good foreign policy. It is failed foreign policy. That gun
backfires. It is not working. It is hurting those abroad and is hurting
those of us who are back home. In terms of market access for farmers,
we can talk about the roadblocks that are laid down by foreign
governments--and I am pretty distressed about those roadblocks. The
Europeans have vast subsidies that make it hard for us to compete with
them overseas. But let us also be aware we have to stop throwing
roadblocks in the way of our own farmers here at home. We have built a
solid brick wall in front of our own farmers. Simply, it is an
impenetrable wall when it relates to embargoes and sanctions imposed
unilaterally on food and medicine against a number of countries around
the world. My message today to the Congress is simply this: Tear down
this wall we have built.

Let our farmers be free. Our food embargoes have failed. Our food
embargoes are not effective. Food embargoes are not the way for us to
win. That gun backfires. It is time to tear down this wall. And we
will. Starting next week, we will do our best to bring this measure up
as an independent, freestanding measure.
While I believe it is important to help our farmers in the
Agriculture appropriations bill upon which we are going to be voting,
that is a financial assist in the short term for a disastrous year, but
we need the long-term structural reform that the hog farmer in Sedalia,
Brett, came to me and said: We need the ability to market so we don't
need to come back for financial assistance over and over again. Tear
down this wall.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from
Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank the Presiding Officer, the other distinguished
Senator from Kansas. I appreciate his recognition. I ask unanimous
consent to speak for up to 10 minutes on the Ag appropriations
conference report which is before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of what my colleague
from Missouri just spoke about. As he was speaking, I was thinking
where I was when the embargo happened. In the late seventies, I was a
farm broadcaster in Manhattan, KS, when President Carter put the
embargo on the Soviet Union. My dad was farming, as he is today. We
were both long in wheat. Wheat went down lock limit for 3 days in a row
with that embargo. The markets did not recover when that big of a sale
was taken out of the system. We lost a lot of money.
Senator Ashcroft was talking about how much we lost as a nation and
how much our farmers lost. I remember what we lost as a family in that
embargo, not that it should be any deciding factor, but it galvanized
in my mind what happens when we do these sorts of things. That is, we
lose markets, we lose money, our farmers are penalized, punished--and
the Soviet Union got cheaper grain out of the deal. It was bad for us
all the way around.
One of my great disappointments with the Ag appropriations conference
report is that we had a chance to end once and for all the use of food
and medicine as a foreign policy tool. We did not take that chance, and
we are poorer for it. We should have gotten this monkey off the back of
U.S. farmers.
I rise to state my strong disappointment with this conference report,
even though my colleague from Mississippi, who chairs this
subcommittee, has done everything he possibly can. There is a lot of
good in this appropriations conference report, but we missed a chance
to lift these unilateral sanctions on food and medicine.
As you have already heard several times, the Ashcroft amendment was
adopted overwhelmingly in this body by a vote of 70-28. It is important
to keep mentioning that fact because it is astonishing to me that such
a clear message from the Senate could be so easily ignored.
In a place as diverse as America and as compact as Congress, there
are bound to be honest disagreements about any number of issues,
including sanctions. These disagreements were given a thorough and
extensive airing in the Senate, and the result was an overwhelming
majority decided it was not an effective policy tool to use food and
medicine in foreign policy. This is a conclusion that a vast majority
of the American public has already recognized for some time and
certainly the farming public has recognized this for a long period of
time.
What has occurred with the Agriculture appropriations bill is an
attempt to avoid this important policy issue. I am delighted we are
going to bring it back up next week and discuss it, but it is an
unfortunate tactic that has moved us to next week rather than now in
deciding this critical policy issue for U.S. agriculture and for
America's foreign policy. Compounding this wrong is the fact that U.S.
agriculture is in the midst of an economic struggle, and sanctions
serve to limit U.S. markets for no real policy effect.
Unilaterally using food and medicine as foreign policy weapons fails
to take into account that the U.S. has competition in agriculture. If
we do not

[[Page S12455]]

sell it, somebody else will, and that is what has taken place in the
past. It is time we limit the possibility of this happening again in
the future to the United States.
Even if the U.S. denies trade with another nation, other countries
will, and do eagerly, sell these products. We know this for a fact. The
only one who gets hurt in this process is truly the U.S. farmer, the
farmers across Kansas who do not get to make these sales.
While it is difficult to calculate the actual gain that lifting
sanctions would bring in the short term it is easy to see the long-term
benefits of sanctions reform. These benefits include the increased
sales to new markets because we tell that new market we will be a
reliable supplier; we will not just step in willy-nilly on this; we
will be reliable in our supplying. Perhaps even more profound, this
policy serves to reassure all our trading partners that the U.S. will
continue and will always be that constant and reliable supplier of
agricultural goods. This assurance is necessary in a competitive
market.

Efforts to reinstate this important sanctions relief language or find
a compromise have certainly been valiantly put forward by Senator
Ashcroft, Senator Dorgan, and a number of others, including the Chair.
I commend my neighbors in this principled fight and their persistence
on this issue. Still the few who oppose sanctions reform have blocked
any progress.
Reluctantly, I will vote for this bill because farmers and producers
are depending on the emergency aid funding contained in this bill. But
I truly believe the future of U.S. agriculture depends on the long-term
reforms such as this Senate-passed amendment lifting unilateral
sanctions. I will continue to fight on this issue and insist that the
will of the majority be followed.
In conclusion, we had a chance to once and for all remove the use of
food and medicine as a foreign policy tool, and we missed it. We could
do something good, something right, morally on the high ground, the
right thing for U.S. farmers, the right thing for those consumers in
places around the world who need and should have this good, high
quality food product we have. We missed that opportunity. We are poorer
for it, and so is the rest of the world. We will have this fight again
next week. I hope we can still move this bill this session of Congress.
I lament we did not do it on this piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is
recognized.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am glad to join my
colleague, Senator Cochran, in support of the conference report to H.R.
1906, the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill.
I congratulate Senator Cochran, chairman of the subcommittee, for
guiding us past many obstacles that have stood in the way of final
passage of this measure. At the end of today's debate, we will send to
the President an agricultural spending bill that will result in
immediate aid to hundreds of thousands of farmers across our country.
That is an accomplishment of which we can all be proud.
At times, work on this bill was contentious. The money we had
available to work with made it very difficult to fund adequately the
most critical programs at USDA, FDA, and the other agencies in this
bill.
Senator Cochran did a masterful job in finding a balance of
priorities, given the budgetary constraints under which we had to work.
In fact, we were even able to increase spending for some critical
programs. This conference report provides an increase for the
President's food safety initiative, as well as additional funds to help
avoid a shortfall in inspectors at the Food Safety Inspection Service.
An increase is provided for the WIC Program to help maintain caseload.
Other programs, such as research and education, conservation and rural
development are all funded at a very healthy level.
Most important, we have managed to include $8.7 billion in emergency
aid to farmers suffering from the price collapse that has hit too many
commodities. I realize some of my colleagues, especially those from the
Northeast, will argue that more is needed to address the needs of
farmers suffering from the effects of this summer's drought and
Hurricane Floyd. I agree. The administration should send us a separate
emergency request for these recent disasters, and Congress ought to act
on it immediately. But our commitment to help the farmers of the
Northeast overcome the natural disasters of the last several months
should not stop us from enacting aid for farmers all over the country
suffering from the economic disasters of the last several years.
I also want to note the efforts made to ensure that harmful
legislative riders, such as attempts to undermine USDA reform of dairy
policy, did not become part of this conference report. We have spent
months putting together a fair bill--not perfect, but fair. Efforts to
incorporate dairy compacts into this legislation were defeated more
than once. It is time to pass this bill and get much-needed funding to
dairy farmers and to hardworking farmers across the country.
And let me emphasize that last point. This bill contains almost $9
billion in emergency assistance to struggling farmers everywhere.
Within days of the President signing the bill, almost $5 billion of
that aid will be on its way to farmers. It is all well and good for us
to spend days listening to talk about this money--how it is distributed
and how much there should be--but there are hundreds of thousands of
farmers who need it now to plant, feed, and operate. All the words in
the world will not help farmers get next year's crop in the ground or
milk the cows. We have talked enough--it is time now to pass this bill.
In closing, let me say how much I have enjoyed working with Senator
Cochran. This is my first year as ranking member on this subcommittee
and his exceptional leadership, good judgment, and helpful hand has
been indispensable in making this a positive experience for all of us.
I would also like to thank his distinguished staff, Rebecca Davies,
Martha Scott Poindexter, Les Spivey, and Hunt Shipman, for their
important contributions to this bill. And, of course, I must thank
Galen Fountain of the minority staff for his wisdom and patience. Galen
is an invaluable resource to me, to all Democratic Senators, and to the
Senate itself.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter on the Foreign Market
Development Program from the USDA be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Department of Agriculture,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, DC, September 29, 1999.
Hon. Herbert Kohl,
Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kohl: This is in reply to your request for
information about the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
Charter Act and the President's budget to fund the Foreign
Market Development Program (FMD) through CCC.
The President's budget proposes to shift funding for FMD
from the FAS appropriated account to the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC). The budget also proposes to fund a new
Quality Samples Program through CCC. In conjunction with the
budget, the Administration has forwarded to Congress
legislation authorizing the use of CCC funds for FMD and
capping expenditures for that purpose at the Fiscal Year (FY)
1998 program level of $27.5 million.
You questioned whether such legislation was necessary or
whether the Administration has the authority to fund these
programs through CCC administratively. You are indeed
correct: although it is the Administration's position that
such legislation should be enacted, CCC has the authority to
fund FMD and the proposed Quality Samples Program under the
Section 5(f) of the CCC Charter Act without additional
legislation. The legislation we submitted does not expand the
Secretary's existing authority; it limits it by imposing a
cap on CCC expenditures for the two programs.
If FMD ultimately is funded through CCC rather than from
the FAS appropriated account, the Administration intends to
continue to fund FMD at not less than the historic level of
$27.5 million annually.
Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional
information.
Sincerely,

August Schumacher, Jr.,

Under Secretary for Farm and
Foreign Agricultural Services.

Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KOHL. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.

[[Page S12456]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.
Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding and also
thank him and the Senator from Mississippi for their efforts on behalf
of this legislation. But I must come to the floor today in opposition
to this bill because it is not fair legislation for all the farmers of
America--certainly not fair to the farmers of the Northeast, in Rhode
Island, New England, the Mid-Atlantic States, because they have
suffered a tremendous loss this year because of a drought that has
historic implications. It was the worst drought in the history of this
region in over 105 years of record keeping by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. This has had a devastating impact on the
farmers of my State and of the region.
Most people do not consider the Northeast to be a place where there
are lots of farms, but in my own small State of Rhode Island there are
over 700 farmers who grow vegetables, turf, nursery stock, cranberries,
strawberries, and potatoes. We also have numerous orchards and dairy
farms. All of these farms have suffered devastating losses. And these
are family farms; these are not large agricultural combines--certainly
not in Rhode Island. They are family farms that are struggling to make
do. This year they had a difficult struggle because of this historic
drought.
We originally thought that farm losses would be about 50 percent of
the crop--a serious blow. But I have just been given data today from
our agricultural authorities where in Rhode Island they are suggesting
that the August estimates were not as severe as the reality is turning
out to be. In fact, the estimate is that the percentage loss of sweet
corn in the State is 80 percent, silage corn is 70 percent, potatoes is
60 percent, mixed vegetables is 75 percent, and hay is 50 percent.
These are difficult losses to bear, particularly difficult to bear
without assistance.
We have received some rain through the last few weeks, but it has not
been enough to reverse the damage that already was done April through
August with the worst drought in the history of our region.
That is why I am here today, because, frankly, the resources in this
legislation that are being made available to the Northeast, to the Mid-
Atlantic farmers, are insufficient. We have tried, over the last
several months, to structure a meaningful relief package that would
help the farmers throughout this country--every region.
In the 1999 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, Democrats
offered an amendment to provide disaster relief for America's farmers
and ranchers which would have taken care of all of our farmers
throughout the country. This provision was rejected by the majority.
Later, Democrats offered additional disaster relief amendments to the
fiscal year 2000 Agriculture appropriations bill as it was being
considered in the subcommittee. Those amendments were rejected also.
On the floor of the Senate in August, I joined my Democratic
colleagues in supporting an emergency farm package that would provide
over $10 billion to producers in need of relief, including $2.6 billion
in disaster relief and $212 million in emergency conservation
assistance, both of which would have been very critical to my farmers
in Rhode Island and throughout the Northeast. Sadly, that proposal was
also rejected. There was even discussion to try to work out a
compromise, a bipartisan effort, on the order of $8.8 billion. This,
too, failed.

Finally, I think in the hopes of moving the process forward, we did
agree to the final $7 billion package proposed by the majority, as a
downpayment, if you will, on the necessary support we hoped we could
obtain through the conference process and we hoped we would be voting
on today in this final conference report.
But today we are faced with a bill which we cannot amend, which we
must either accept or reject; and, sadly, despite all the efforts, all
the earnest efforts of my colleagues, I must vote against it because it
does not provide the kind of assistance that is necessary for the
farmers of my State and my region.
Of the $8.7 billion in emergency farm relief in the appropriations
bill, only $1.2 billion is set aside for all disasters declared by the
Secretary of Agriculture in 1999. In the Northeast alone, our Governors
have told us we are facing nearly $2 billion in total losses. And as
today's data indicates, those are probably conservative estimates. For
the Department of Agriculture to cover 65 percent of our region's
losses alone would cost about $1.3 billion. Yet we have only
appropriated $1.2 billion for the entire country--every region, for
every natural disaster from January 1 to December 31.
So as you can see, all of this money that is within this bill could
easily be used in the Northeast, in the Mid-Atlantic alone, but it will
be spread throughout the country and, in fact, be spread in such a way
that my farmers will be particularly disadvantaged.
It is unlikely this $1.2 billion of disaster relief money will be
available to my farmers until sometime in the middle of next year
because, as the legislation is written, the Secretary must wait until
the end of the year to calculate all of the damages throughout the
country and then begin the cumbersome process of proration and
distribution of these funds, which could take months. That is another
problem with the legislation. Not only are there insufficient funds
available to the Northeast, but these funds may not come until the
middle of next year.
That is in contrast to what my colleague from Wisconsin pointed out
with respect to those farmers who are part of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act. There is $5.5 billion there. That money will be flowing
out immediately. They will get assistance immediately. Not only will
they get this assistance, but they will also qualify for this $1.2
billion of natural disaster money if they suffered their loss through a
natural disaster. They will get essentially two bites of the apple,
where my farmers in the Northeast will get what is left.
There are many States throughout this country that qualify for this
disaster program, this $1.2 billion--33 States, in fact. So there will
be a long line of farmers who have to be satisfied by this insufficient
amount of money.
There are things we could have done, I believe we should have done,
in addition to putting more money into the natural disaster program so
we could take care of the real needs of all the farmers across the
country.
I had hoped we could have increased the Crop Loss Disaster Assistance
Program, which is something that has been helpful in the past. There is
also a Livestock Feed Assistance Program which is also critically
important to my farmers in the Northeast because much of the silage has
been lost. In our dairy farms particularly, that is a critical loss.

We also, as we go forward, should think about the structure of the
program for noninsured crop disaster assistance, the NAP program. There
is a trigger in that program that requires a 35-percent areawide loss.
Sometimes we can't meet that loss, but, frankly, most of the crops in
my State are noninsured. They are strawberries, vegetables, et cetera.
They individually sometimes can't meet this trigger, and they are
denied any assistance whatsoever. If that program were more flexible,
we could address some of the concerns we are talking about today in
terms of insufficient funding.
In addition to this lack of resources, in addition to the unfairness
of the distribution, in addition to the lack of timely response to the
problems of my farmers in the Northeast and Rhode Island, there is also
the issue of the dairy compact. Failing to extend this undercuts a
program that was working, a program that provided not only support to
the dairy industry in my State but, frankly, provided consumers with
milk at reasonable prices. It also provided tremendous environmental
benefit to the State of Rhode Island and other States because of the
pressure of development, particularly in the Northeast. Many of these
dairy farms, given the choice of producing at a loss each year or
selling out to developers, will sell out. In Rhode Island, the little
green space we have becomes less and less and less.
For all these reasons, I must oppose this legislation. I hope in the
remaining days of this session we can, in fact, find ways and other
legislative vehicles, perhaps even a supplemental, to

[[Page S12457]]

direct assistance to the farmers throughout this country, including
farmers in the Northeast, particularly in my home State of Rhode
Island.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to
the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Grams.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Minnesota is
recognized.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I will talk a few minutes this morning in
support of the Ashcroft amendment to the Agriculture appropriations
bill dealing with sanctions. I know this Agriculture appropriations
bill covers many areas, including dairy, as we just heard our colleague
from Rhode Island discuss. I have a different view, of course, on the
dairy situation. I hope to have more on that in another statement that
will also be entered into the Record in regard to the Agriculture
appropriations bill.
I was disappointed the conferees decided to drop the Ashcroft Food
and Medicine for the World amendment added by 70 Senators to the Senate
Ag appropriations bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill to be introduced
by Senator Ashcroft and the cosponsors of his amendment. While I would
prefer this bill addressed all unilateral sanctions, not just food and
medicine, I strongly support the bill as a good start to reforming our
sanctions policy. As a cosponsor of the Lugar Sanctions Reform Act, I
believe it is long overdue that the administration and the Congress
think before we sanction.
it makes no sense to punish the people of a country with which we
have a dispute. Denying food and medicine does nothing to penalize the
leaders of any country. Government leaders can always obtain adequate
food and medicine, but people suffer under these sanctions, whether
they are multilateral or unilateral. Those two areas should never be a
part of any sanction.
At the same time our farmers suffer from the lingering effects of the
Asian financial crisis as well as those in other areas of the world, we
either have, or are debating, sanctions that further restrict markets
for our farmers and medical supply companies. Since most of our
sanctions are unilateral, it makes no sense to deny our farmers and
workers important markets when those sales are made by our allies. I
need not remind any of you that we are still experiencing the aftermath
of the Soviet grain embargo of the early 1980's when the United States
earned a reputation as an unreliable supplier.
Another example of how we have harmed our farmers is the Cuban
embargo. I have for several years supported Senator Dodd's Cuba food
and medicine bill, similar to this proposal. For 40 years this policy
was aimed at removing Fidel Castro--yet he is still there. This is a
huge market for midwestern farmers, yet it is shut off to us for no
good reason. Because Cuba has fiscal problems, many of its people are
experiencing hardship. Those who have relationships with Cuban-
Americans receive financial support, but those who don't have relatives
here need access to scarce food and medical supplies. Higher shipping
costs from other import sources has restricted the volume of food that
can be imported. Yet here we are 90 miles away. We could help these
people, but we cannot. It is time to develop more contact with the
Cuban people and time to help those who do not have relatives in the
United States. This bill does not aid the government, as United States
guarantees can only be provided through NGOs and the private sector.
Currently, donations are permitted, as well as sales of medicine, but
they are very bureaucratically difficult to obtain, and they don't help
everyone. Our farmers are in a good position to help and they should be
allowed to do so.
I applaud Senators Ashcroft and Hagel and many others for there work
to ensure farmers and medical companies will not be held hostage to
those who believe sanctions can make a difference. Any administration
would have to get Congressional approval for any food and medicine
sanction. This is our best opportunity to help farmers and to show the
world we are reliable suppliers. I urge the support of my colleagues
for this long overdue legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, seeing no Senators seeking recognition, I
suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time
be charged equally among all sides to the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to
the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is
recognized for as much time as he may consume.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
for the work that has been done on both sides. I know this is a very
difficult issue, one about which Members have very different ideas
concerning resolution. I do appreciate the work that has been done.
Certainly, one of the things that has occurred and has an impact on
what we are talking about today has been the difficult times we are
having in agriculture. In my State of Wyoming, we have basically three
areas of economic activity. This is one of the three; minerals is the
other. Both have not been good lately. Fortunately, there are some
signs of improvement, particularly in the livestock area, which is of
course the most important part of Wyoming's agriculture.
I come to the floor to talk about what we need to do in the long run.
We are talking in this bill about a great deal of fairly short-term
remedies. I don't argue with those particularly. I guess maybe we have
spent a little more money than we should, used the emergency technique
for some things that probably are not bona fide emergencies. On the
other hand, we have a great deal to do in our community in agriculture
and all that needs to be done.
No one doubts the urgency of providing the short-term relief, whether
it be from emergencies in weather, from emergencies in markets, or
whether it be other kinds.
But the fact is that this, in my view, is not the long-term solution
to the problems we have. Producers in Wyoming generally do not favor
returning to the Government farm programs. I think they would much
prefer the idea of being in the marketplace, producing for the
marketplace, developing new markets.
We had an agricultural seminar in our State recently, and those were
the things that were talked about--that we do need to develop markets;
we need overseas markets because we are great producers. We produce
efficiently and at good prices. But in order to do that, we have to
continue to develop markets. I think we have to, in addition, reduce
the kinds of restrictions that prohibit the sort of production we
choose. So we need to follow up, and I think many of the agricultural
leaders in the Senate believe we have some things we have to do to make
Freedom to Farm work. Those are the things we must do in following up
to make that marketplace work.
One of them, of course, is to reduce unfair trade barriers throughout
the world. We have a great many of those, and probably the most
pressing one is the European Union, where they have found various ways
through tariff barriers, or nontariff barriers, to keep agricultural
products in the country moving--beef, for example, which is important
to me and others.
We have a great opportunity, as we go forward with the WTO meetings
in Seattle soon, to take to that meeting the kinds of things that are
important to us. I happen to be involved as chairman of the
subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific rim. So I have been involved with
some of the countries with which we deal to a great extent.
Japan has a 40-percent tariff on American beef. This is not a
realistic thing to do. If we are going to have trade organizations and
trade treaties that are designed to level the playing field and be
fair, those kinds of things should not happen. We have some
opportunities in China, as a matter of

[[Page S12458]]

fact, where they moved this summer to suggest they would take more
wheat and also more beef. So we have some great opportunities to do
that. We just this week had some hearings with respect to the NAFTA
treaty with Canada. In this instance, we had some hearings before the
International Trade Commission to seek enforcement of those trade
agreements.
So what I am saying, of course, is that these are the kinds of
things, over the long term, that we have to do to cause American
agriculture to produce for the market and to be able to produce from
that market a reasonable price. We can do that.
Unilateral sanctions. We have had a great deal of talk and discussion
about unilateral sanctions. I think most people would agree that
unilateral sanctions are not an effective tool for foreign policy.
Basically, what we do is bar our own producers from selling in those
particular places and gain no advantage from it. If there have to be
sanctions, they certainly ought not to be unilateral. They should be
through some kind of a trade organization.
So that, coupled with enforcement, I believe, of trade agreements is
something that agricultural people are very anxious about. Obviously,
foreign trade is not the only remedy, but it is one of the major ones.
It was unfortunate that at the time we were moving into the marketplace
in agriculture, we had the currency crisis in Asia, a place where we
have a potential for great markets. Of course, now, hopefully, the
Asian market is strengthening and we will find we will be able to move
back there again.

As I mentioned, foreign trade is not the only remedy and not the only
issue on which we ought to be working. I think we have to have some
other innovative avenues to spur market competition. I think one of
them that, again, was talked about at our seminar in Wyoming was
producer-owned cooperatives that move on through to the retail
marketing of these products.
I think it is pretty clear, particularly in the case of beef--or at
least it is very appropriate there--where you had a major reduction in
the price received by producers but no reduction in the retail market,
no reduction in the grocery store when you went there--so there is some
sort of a problem in between. We think producer-owned cooperatives may
be a way to do the processing and to ensure that, indeed, producers are
given their fair share of the final product. Another is niche
marketing. A great number of things are taking place on the Internet,
where people are marketing products in specialties areas.
I think we need to look at the concentration of packers, where there
are only two or three packers that handle 80 to 85 percent of the
livestock. I think there are some similarities in the grain industry,
where very few buyers are available to go into the marketplace. So you
have to ask the question, Is there, indeed, a competitive, fair
marketplace? We have the Packers and Stockyard Act which is designed to
do that. Over the years, we have appealed to the Justice Department a
number of times to look at whether there was, indeed, a monopoly
factor. They have said that, under the law, there is not. Not everybody
agrees with that. Nevertheless, that has been the result.
We are going to, I think sometime this week, introduce a proposition
that would have to do with packers' ownership of livestock and see if
we can do something about reducing the potential for monopolies so the
market prices are there. In this bill, I think there is a market-price-
revealing requirement that is very important.
Financial solvency, of course, for agriculture is always difficult.
Crop insurance. The Senator who is presiding at this time continues
to do a great deal with crop insurance, and we need to do that--at
least from the weather emergency standpoint. That is the kind of thing
that needs to be in place to protect the investment of farmers. In the
form of tax relief, we have tried to do some things to extend income
averaging. As you can understand, because some years are good and some
are not, there needs to be the ability to income average.
There is interest in estate taxes. Most agricultural people have
their estate in property, and they make very little profit often, but
it accumulates toward their estate under the circumstances, and after
they get beyond the exemption of 55 percent, that estate has to be paid
in taxes. That is extremely difficult for agriculture. So we are going
to be doing some things there.
Regulatory relief is particularly important in States such as ours,
where 50 percent of the land belongs to the Federal Government, where
much of agricultural activity, particularly livestock, is carried on,
on public lands. The restrictions sometimes are very difficult.
So I am pleased we are going forward with this bill. As is the case
with many, it probably isn't the way I would do it if I were in charge.
But I am not in charge, nor is anyone else. So when you put it all
together, it is difficult. I think the committee has done the best they
could and has done a good job, but we need to focus on the long-term
prosperity in agriculture, the family farm. We need to focus on
continuing to keep U.S. producers competitive in the world market and,
finally, opening those markets throughout the world for our
agricultural products on a fair basis, so we are not kept out of those
markets by nontariff barriers, and, in addition, of course, to develop
domestically the things we do.

So, again, I say to the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, good
job. He has worked very hard in doing this, and we are pleased that
this bill will be sent to the White House.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Minnesota is
recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me, first of all, repeat what I
said on the floor yesterday, which is that I am going to support this
emergency package, both the financial emergency package and the
disaster relief emergency package.
I am going to do so because, may I say for the Record, Tracy Beckman
tells me this will mean $620 million in AMTA payments to Minnesota, and
this will be important for some 60,000-plus producers. I hasten to add
that most of this money to farmers will end up being used to pay back
bankers.
I also am going to support this because I want to get some assistance
out there. I don't think we are going to have enough with this $8.7
billion package. I don't think there is enough for disaster relief.
Clearly, our farmers in the Northeast are saying we don't figure in.
And in northwest Minnesota where we have had so much wet weather and
some farmers haven't been able to get a crop in or much of a crop in, I
fear there won't be enough assistance.
But I think that when we are at least talking about something we can
pass. We need to get this to the President and have President sign it
in order to get some of this financial assistance out to our
communities within the next couple of weeks. For this reason, I am
going to support it. I also want to say that I hope to have to never
vote for such a package again.
I believe these disaster relief bills are becoming a disaster. I
think they are a complicated way of acknowledging the fact that we have
a failed agricultural policy. Who would ever have dreamed that we would
have spent over $19 billion now to keep farmers going post-Freedom to
Farm bill. This doesn't make a lot of sense.
The producers in my State, the farmers in my State, much less the
rural communities, the small businesses that are affected by this, the
implement dealers, and those who sell tools all say: What we want is a
decent price.
I want to make it real clear that I wish--though I appreciate the
work, I don't think there is any Senator on the floor who has any
unkind words to say about Senator Cochran, publicly or privately,
because I think he is held in such high regard--I wish we were doing
this through a somewhat different mechanism because I fear that too
much of the support will be in reverse relation to need. I think we
will have yet another supplementary emergency package to deal with,
especially disaster relief because there is not enough in here.
In any case, we ought to deal with the root of the problem. The
family farmers in my State of Minnesota and in the rural communities
that have been so affected by this economic convulsion in agriculture--
it is a depression in agriculture--I want to see a

[[Page S12459]]

new policy. The Freedom to Farm bill has become the ``freedom to fail''
bill. I do not hear very many Senators talking any longer about staying
the course. We have to change the course of agricultural policy.
I make a plea on floor of the Senate that before we finish, before we
adjourn, before we leave Washington, before we go back to our States,
we pass legislation to change farm policy; that we pass some
legislation to deal with the price crisis; that we pass legislation to
give our farmers and our producers some leverage in the marketplace so
they can make a decent price and so they can support their families.
The plea or the cry in rural America from family farmers is nothing
more than to say for all you people who believe there should be a
family wage, or a living wage, and a parent or parents ought to be able
to make enough of a wage to support their families, well, those of us
who produce the food and the fiber for families in this country ask for
the same thing.
That is what this is all about.
I want to translate this crisis in personal terms.
Lynn Jostock is a Waseca, MN, dairy farmer. He tells his story:

I have four children. My 11-year-old son Al helps my
husband and I by doing chores. But it often is too much to
expect of someone so young. For instance, one day our son
came home from school. His father asked Al for some help
driving the tractor to another farm about 3 miles away. Al
was going to come home right afterward. But he wound up
helping his father cut hay. Then he helped rake hay. Then he
helped bale hay. My son did not return home until 9:30 p.m.
He had not yet eaten supper. He had not yet done his
schoolwork. We don't have other help. The price we get at the
farm gate isn't enough to allow us to hire any farmhands or
to help our community by providing more jobs. And it isn't
fair to ask your 11-year-old son to work so hard to keep the
family going. When will he burn out? How will he ever want to
farm?

Gary Wilson, an Odin farmer, says:

Received the church newsletter in the mail. What's normally
to the entire congregation had been addressed to only
farmers. The newsletter said farmers should quit farming if
it was not profitable. If larger, corporate-style farms were
the way to turn a profit, the independent farmers should let
go and find something else to do. ``What he doesn't
understand is that the farmers are his congregation. If we
go, he won't have a church.''

Oh, how right Gary Wilson is.
The point is, if we continue with this failed policy, we are going to
lose a generation of producers. We are going to see this convulsion in
agriculture play out to the point where we have a few large
conglomerates that control all phases of the food industry. Believe me,
if you have just a few landowners versus a lot of family farmers who
live and buy in the community and invest in the community, there won't
be the support for the church. There won't be the support for the
synagogue. There won't be the support for the small business. There
won't be the support for the school system.
Darrel Mosel is a Gaylord farmer.

Farming for 18 years. When he started farming in Sibley
County, which is one of Minnesota's largest agricultural
counties, there were 4 implement dealers in Gaylord, the
county seat. Today, there are none. There's not even an
implement dealer in all of Sibley County. The same thing has
happened to feed stores and grain elevators. Since the farm
policies of the 1980s and the resulting reduction in prices,
farmers don't buy new equipment they either use baling wire
to hold things together or quit. ``The farm houses have
people in them but they don't farm. There's something wrong
with that.''

That is a direct quote from Darrel.
John Doe--this is a farmer who wants to remain anonymous:

This family has gone through a divorce and the father and
three children are operating the farm. The father has taken
an off farm job to make payments to the bank and has his 12
year old son and 14 year old daughter are operating the
farming operation, unassisted while he is away at work. The
neighbors have threatened to turn him in to human services
for child abandonment and so he had to have his 18 year old
daughter quit work and stay at home to watch the two younger
children.
The 12 year old boy is working heavy farm equipment, mostly
alone. He is driving these big machines and can hardly reach
the clutch on the tractor. It's this or lose the farm.

I could go on and on, but I will not. I want to repeat what I have
said, which is that I am going to support this emergency assistance
package. But all it does, at best, is enable farmers to live to farm
another day. The truth of the matter is it isn't going to help the
farmers who it needs to help the most.
In addition, I am going to support it because at least it gets some
assistance to some families. It doesn't do anything for the small
businesses. Most important of all, farmers simply will not have any
future.
Ken and Lois Schaefer from Greenwald, MN, will not receive much
assistance. Ken and Lois are one of the few small, independent hog
operations still remaining, with roughly 400 hogs. They raise feeder
hogs and sows. Lois has an off-farm job to make ends meet. Ken is
considering an additional job. This is common. People who farm have
jobs off the farm; it is unbelievable stress on the family. There is no
choice if they are to survive.
A recent hog operation opened near the Schaefer farm and is seeking
employees. Ken's neighbor started working part time for the hog
factory. Ken and Lois will not receive much assistance; there is not
near enough livestock assistance. However, Ken and Lois do not
necessarily want assistance. What they want is a decent price for their
hogs.
They ask the question: How can it be that we as hog producers are
facing extinction and these packers are in hog heaven? How can it be
that we as hog producers are facing extinction and the IBPs and the
Cargills and the ConAgras are making record profits?
Several weeks ago, I spoke about the crisis that is ravaging rural
America. I told my colleagues about farmers I visited in Minnesota,
Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas. Today, I want to talk about
why there is this convulsion, why every month more and more family
farms are put on the auction block; why every month more and more
family farmers are forced to give up their way of life; why they lose
their work; why they are losing their hope; and why they are sometimes
losing their communities.
We ought to act now. I have said to the majority leader three or four
times that I want an opportunity to bring to the floor of the Senate
some legislation that will alleviate the suffering. I want to talk
about this today. I want the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on
a moratorium on any further mergers or acquisition of any huge
agribusiness. We have a frightening concentration of market power.
These big conglomerates have muscled their way to the dinner table and
are driving out family farmers. At the very minimum, we can put into
effect the moratorium and have a study so over the next 18 months we
can come up with legislation while this moratorium is in place that
will put some competition and free enterprise back into the food
industry, giving our family farmers, our producers, a fighting chance.
Several weeks ago I spoke on the floor at some length about the
crisis that is ravaging rural America today. I told my colleagues about
some of the farmers I've visited with in Minnesota, in Iowa, in Texas,
and around the country who are on the brink of financial disaster
because of record low farm prices.
Farmers from all around the country were in Washington, DC, that week
because they know that the future of the family farm is at stake. Every
month, more and more family farms are put on the auction block. Every
month, more and more family farmers are being forced to give up their
life's work, their homes, and their communities. We must act now.
In Minnesota, about 6,500 farmers are expected to go out of business
this year. That's about eight percent of all farmers in my state. In
northwest Minnesota, which has been hit especially hard by this crisis,
about 11 percent are expected to go under. An August 1999 survey of
Minnesota County Emergency Boards reported that more Minnesota farmers
are quitting or retiring with fewer farmers taking their place; more
Minnesota farm families are having to rely on non-farm income to stay
afloat; and the number of Minnesota farmers leaving the land will
continue to increase unless and until farm prices improve. We must act
now.
Today I want to take a step back and look at the larger picture. I
want to examine what is going on in American agriculture and why; what
it means for farmers and for us as a society; and, most importantly,
what we can do about it.
I want to talk about record low farm prices. I want to talk about
record high

[[Page S12460]]

levels of market concentration and the absence of effective competition
in almost every major commodity market. I want to talk about the
failure of our antitrust enforcement authorities to do much of anything
about this.
I want to talk about the need for Congress to take immediate action
to restore competitive markets in agriculture and give farmers more
equal bargaining power against corporate agribusiness. And I also want
to make the case for a moratorium on large agribusiness mergers and
acquisitions, effective immediately, which I have recently proposed
along with Senator Dorgan.
In my travels around Minnesota and around the country, I've found
that many people are not even aware of the crisis afflicting rural
America today. Even fewer have any idea to what extent market
concentration and anti-competitive practices have substantially
eliminated competition in agriculture. So let me just start by ticking
off a few statistics that some of my colleagues may find surprising.
In the past decade and a half, an explosion of mergers, acquisitions,
and anti-competitive practices has raised concentration in American
agriculture to record levels.
The top four pork packers have increased their market share from 36
percent to 57 percent.
The top four beef packers have expanded their market share from 32
percent to 80 percent.
The top four flour millers have increased their market share from 40
percent to 62 percent.
The market share of the top four soybean crushers has jumped from 54
percent to 80 percent.
The top four turkey processors now control 42 percent of production.
49 percent of all chicken broilers are now slaughtered by the four
largest firms.
The top four firms control 67 percent of ethanol production.
The top four sheep, poultry, wet corn, and dry corn processors now
control 73 percent, 55 percent, 74 percent, and 57 percent of the
market, respectively.
The four largest grain buyers control nearly 40 percent of elevator
facilities.
By conventional measures, none of these markets is really
competitive. According to the economic literature, markets are no
longer competitive if the top four firms control over 40 percent. In
all the markets I just listed, the market share of the top four firms
is 40 percent or more. So there really is no effective competition in
the processing markets for pork, beef, chicken, turkeys, ethanol,
flour, soybean, wet corn, dry corn and grain.
This development is not entirely new. In some sectors of agriculture,
there was already considerable horizontal concentration at the turn of
the century. Pork and beef slaughtering and processing were dominated
by Wilson, Armour and Swift. That's why Congress passed the Packers and
Stockyards Act in 1921.
But now, with this explosion of mergers, acquisitions, joint
ventures, marketing agreements, and anti-competitive behavior by the
largest firms, these and other commodity markets are becoming more and
more concentrated by the day.
Recently the Justice Department approved a modified merger between
Cargill and Continental. Just a few weeks ago Smithfield Foods, a major
meat processor, announced the acquisition of Murphy Family Farms, a
giant hog producer. DuPont is buying Pioneer Hi-Bred International. ADM
is buying more and more of IBP. Among seed companies and input
suppliers, there has been more than $15 billion worth of combinations
in the last three years.
In my hands I have a monthly listing of new mergers, acquisitions,
and other agribusiness deals through March 1999. Let me just read a
sample of some of the headlines to give you a sense of how rapidly this
concentration is taking place. March 1999: Dupont to buy Pioneer.
Farmland-Cenex to discuss combining grain operations. Smithfield to
acquire Carroll's.
February 1999: Three California dairies preparing for merger.
December 1998: Monsanto completes Dekalb purchase. Smithfield gains
control of Schneider. Cargill buys Bunge's Venezuelan units. November
1998: Cargill buys out rival grain operation; deal boosts firm's hold
on market. Dow Chemical completes purchase of Mycogen. IBP buys
appetizer business in expansion move. And so on.
The effect of this surge of concentration is that agribusiness
conglomerates have increased their bargaining power over farmers. When
farmers have fewer buyers to choose from, they have less leverage to
get a good price. Anybody who has been to an auction knows that you get
a better price with more bidders. Moreover, when farmers have fewer
buyers to choose from, agribusinesses can more easily dictate
conditions that farmers have to meet. And fewer buyers means farmers
often have to haul their production longer distances, driving up their
transportation costs.
In addition to this horizontal concentration among firms in the same
line of business, we are also seeing another kind of concentration.
It's called vertical integration. Vertical integration is when one firm
expands its control over the various stages of food production, from
development of the animal or plant gene, to production of fertilizer
and chemical inputs, to actual production, to processing, to marketing
and distribution, to the supermarket shelf.
The poultry industry is already vertically integrated, by and large.
95 percent of all chicken broilers are produced under production
contracts with fewer than 40 firms. Now the same process is occurring
in the pork industry. Pork packers are buying up what's called captive
supply--hogs that they own or have contracted for under marketing
agreements. If these trends continue, grain and soybean production may
soon be vertically integrated just like poultry.
The problem with this kind of vertical concentration is that it
destroys competitive markets. Potential competitors often never know
the sale price for goods at any point in the process. That's because
there never is a sale price until the consumer makes the final
purchase, since nothing is being sold outside the integrated firm. It's
hard to have effective competition if prices are not publicly
available. Today there is essentially no price discovery, and therefore
no effective competition, for chicken feed, day old chicks, live
chicken broilers, turkeys and eggs. If vertical integration of pork and
dairy continues at the current pace, we can expect much the same in
those industries.
Vertical concentration stacks the deck against farmers, as we can see
clearly in the case of the rapidly consolidating hog industry. An April
1999 report by the Minnesota Land Stewardship Project found that:

Packers' practice of acquiring captive supplies through
contracts and direct ownership is reducing the number of
opportunities for small- and medium-sized farmers to sell
their hogs;
With fewer buyers and more captive supply, there is less
competition for independent farmers' hogs and insufficient
market information regarding price; and
Lower prices result.

Even the USDA's Western Corn Belt hog procurement study showed price
discrimination against smaller farmers. Smaller farmers were paid lower
base prices, lower premiums, and they were given little or no access to
long-term marketing contracts.
The combined effect of these two different kinds of concentration is
to put enormous market power in the hands of a handful of global
agribusiness giants. Not only do these conglomerates dominate
processing for all the major commodities, but the same firms appear
among the top four or five processors for several different
commodities. ConAgra, for example, is among the Top Four for beef,
pork, turkeys, sheep, and seafood, and it's number five for chicken
broilers. To make matters worse, many of these firms are vertically
integrated. Cargill, for example, is among the Top Four firms trading
grain, producing animal feed, feeding hogs and beef, and processing
hogs and beef.
Farmers clearly see the connection between this concentration and
lower farm prices. Leland Swensen, president of the National Farmers
Union, recently testified that

The increasing level of market concentration, with the
resulting lack of competition in the marketplace, is one of
the top concerns of farmers and ranchers. At most farm and
ranch meetings, market concentration ranks as either the
first or second in priority

[[Page S12461]]

of issues of concern. Farmers and ranchers believe that lack
of competition is a key factor in the low commodity prices
they are receiving.

Well, no wonder. How else can you explain the record profits that the
large agribusiness conglomerates are racking up, at the same time low
prices are causing a depression for family farmers? IBP's earnings in
1998, for example, were up 62 percent. In the second quarter of this
year, they were up a whopping 126 percent. Packing plants, food
processors and retailers are all reporting record profits.
While corporate agribusiness grows fat, farmers are facing lean
times. The commodity price index is the lowest since 1987. Hog prices
are at their lowest since 1972. Cotton and soybean prices are the
lowest they've been since the early 1970s. Feed grain prices are the
lowest they've been since the mid-1980s. Food grain prices are at the
lowest levels since the early 1990s. Agricultural income in the mid-
Western states is predicted to fall between 15 and 60 percent this
year.
Current prices are so low that many family farmers are lucky to stay
in business. Market prices are lower than their cost of production. The
value of field crops is expected to be more than 24 percent lower in
1999 than it was in 1996--42 percent lower for wheat, 39 percent lower
for corn, and 26 percent lower for soybeans. But farmers' expenses
aren't falling by the same amount. In fact, they're not falling at all.
Farmers can't cash flow if their selling prices are falling through the
floor while their buying prices are shooting through the roof.
It all comes down to market power. Corporate agribusinesses are using
their market power to lower prices, without passing those price
savings on to consumers. The gap between what consumers pay for food
and what farmers get paid is growing wider. According to the USDA, the
so-called farm-to-retail price spread--the difference between the farm
value and the retail price of food--rose 4.7 percent in 1997. From 1984
to 1998, prices paid to farmers fell 36 percent, while consumer food
prices actually increased by 3 percent.

In other words, the farmer's share of farm profit is falling. The
farmer share of every retail dollar has fallen from 50 percent in 1952
to 25 percent today. By the same token, the profit share of farm input,
marketing, and processing companies is rising. The agribusiness
conglomerates claim that this is because they're putting more ``added
value'' into food products. Actually, it looks like they're taking
additional value out.
Some people have blamed low farm prices on other factors, such as
declining exports. That's a big debate that will have to wait for
another day. But let me just say this. We can hardly expect export
growth to translate into higher prices for American farmers if the
multinational agribusinesses still have enough bargaining power to keep
farm prices down.
As Jim Braun, a third-generation Iowa farmer, wrote recently,
``Unfortunately, increased exports do not necessarily mean more money
for farmers. IBP has doubled exports since 1990 and quadrupled profits
in 1998, while it destroyed family farmers by paying below Depression-
era prices for hogs. If Cargill, ConAgra, or ADM, the three major grain
processors and exporters, could sell corn overseas for $20 per bushel,
they could still pay American farmers below the cost of production
simply because they have the power to do so.''
What we do know for sure is that low farm prices are driving
thousands of farmers into bankruptcy, and concentration is helping to
depress prices. That's reason enough why we should take immediate
action to address the problem of concentration. But there are plenty of
other reasons why we should be concerned about concentration in
agriculture.
First of all, concentration is bad for the environment. When large-
scale corporate feedlots replace family-size farms, they create large
amounts of waste in a relatively small space. That puts enormous strain
on the local ecology. The lower prices resulting from unequal
bargaining power also put pressure on farmers to abandon careful soil
and water conservation practices.
There's another reason why we should be concerned about concentration
in agriculture. The price effects of unequal bargaining power are
tremendously destructive of community and family values. This
connection was made explicit in an infamous 1962 report by the
Committee for Economic Development, whose members included some of the
biggest food companies.
Amazingly, the Committee had this to say about community and family
values. They recommended investment ``in projects that break up village
life by drawing people to centers of employment away from the village .
. . because village life is a major source of opposition to change.''
They went on to say, ``Where there are religious obstacles to modern
economic progress, the religion may have to be taken less seriously or
its character changed.''
So the largest agribusinesses were afraid that ``village life'' and
religion would stand in the way of modern economic progress. But what
exactly did they mean by the term ``modern economic progress"? It turns
out they meant the bankruptcy and forced emigration of two million
farmers. That's what their report recommended. These agribusiness
giants were advocating lower price supports for farmers in order to
lower farm prices. And the primary benefits of lowering farm prices,
they argued, would be to lower input prices for the food companies, to
increase foreign trade, and to depress wage levels by putting two
million farmers out of business and dumping them into the urban labor
pool.
There's a third reason why we should be concerned about concentration
in agriculture. As the Committee for Economic Development report makes
clear, this concentration is harmful to the economic development of
rural communities. It's been estimated that when a farm goes under,
three to five jobs are destroyed. For every six farm failures, one
rural business shuts down.
The reason is pretty simple. When production is controlled by more
non-local corporations, profits don't get reinvested in the community.
When family businesses operate local farms, elevators, and grocery
stores, they plough profits right back into other local businesses.
Those revenues circulate locally three or four times, creating what's
called a multiplier effect. But there's no multiplier effect when non-
local corporations drain profits out of the community. Rural
communities become little more than a source of cheap labor inputs for
agribusiness multinationals--to be purchased as cheaply as possible in
competition with low-wage labor overseas.
Obviously, this kind of concentration is not good for the social and
economic health of rural communities. According to the Nebraska Center
for Rural Affairs, virtually all researchers have found that social
conditions deteriorate in rural communities when farm size and absentee
ownership increase. Studies have shown that communities surrounded by
large corporate farms suffer from greater income polarization--with a
few wealthy elites, a majority of poor laborers, and virtually no
middle class. The tax base shrinks and the quantity and quality of
their public services, public education, and local government declines.
John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs sums it up this way:
``Replacing mid-size farms with big farms reduces middle-class
entrepreneurial opportunities in farm communities, at best replacing
them with wage labor. . . . A system of economically viable, owner-
operated family farms contributed more to communities than systems
characterized by inequality and large numbers of farm laborers with
below-average incomes and little ownership or control of productive
assets.'' He concludes that ``Societies in which income, wealth, and
power are more equitably distributed are generally healthier than those
in which they are highly concentrated.''
I think this last point is true not only of rural communities, but
of our country as a whole. ``Societies in which income, wealth, and
power are more equitably distributed are generally healthier than those
in which they are highly concentrated.'' In other words, we all do
better when we all do better. When we have a thriving middle class,
including a thriving family farm sector, our economy performs better.
Our democracy functions better.

The idea that concentrations of wealth, of economic power, and of
political power are unhealthy for our democracy is a theme that runs
throughout American history, from Thomas

[[Page S12462]]

Jefferson to Andrew Jackson to the Progressive Era to the New Deal. But
this idea was perhaps most forcefully expressed by the People's Party
of the late 1800s, sometimes called the Populists.
The People's Party embodied popular disgust with rampant
monopolization and concentration of economic and political power. The
Populist platform from the 1892 nominating convention in Omaha
declared, ``The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to
build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of
mankind.'' People's Party founder Tom Watson thundered, ``The People's
Party is the protest of the plundered against the plunderers.''
In the Gilded Age of the late 1800s and the Progressive Era of the
early 1900s, the danger of concentrated economic power was widely
recognized and hotly debated. The Populists argued that a free and
democratic society cannot prosper with such concentration of power and
inequalities of wealth. As the great Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis said, ``We can have democracy in this country, or we can have
wealth in the hands of a few. We can't have both.''
The Populists were reacting to a concentration of wealth, economic
power, and political power that was remarkably similar to what we've
experienced in the late 1900s. Today, despite wage gains for low-income
workers over the past couple years, inequality in America has reached
record levels.
According to reports by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
and the Economic Policy Institute, the gap between rich and poor is
greater today than at any time since the Great Depression. CBO data
shows that after-tax income is more heavily concentrated among the
richest one percent of the population than it has been since 1977. CBO
projects that in 1999 the richest 1 percent of Americans (2.7 million
people) will receive as much after-tax income as the poorest 38 percent
(100 million people) put together.
At the same time, we are witnessing the biggest wave of mergers and
economic concentration since the late 1800s. Not only in agriculture,
but in media and communications, banking, health care, airlines,
energy, hi-tech, defense, you name it. There were 4,728 reportable
mergers in 1998, compared to 3,087 in 1993; 1,529 in 1991; and a mere
804 in 1980. And as Joel Klein, head of Justice Department's Antitrust
Division, has pointed out, the value of last year's mergers equaled the
combined value of all mergers from 1990 through 1996 put together.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the political scientist E. J. Dionne,
and the philosopher Michael Sandel, among others, have all drawn
parallels between the conditions of today and the heyday of monopoly
power in the 19th Century. In the Gilded Age, the welfare of farmers,
rural communities, and small businesses was sacrificed for the economic
interests of burgeoning bank, railroad, and grain monopolies. Today,
the welfare and future of our family farmers and rural communities is
being sacrificed to the economic interests of near-monopoly global
agribusiness.
While the Sherman Act was written by a Republican senator and signed
into law by a Republican president, in 1896 William McKinley and the
Republicans openly sided with the titans of industry and decided to
write off rural America. They felt that the ``social reformers,
agrarian rebels, church leaders, and others who challenged the
authority of the industrial giants'' were being hopelessly sentimental,
as E.J. Dionne puts it. The McKinley Republicans presumed that monopoly
interests were on the right side of history, of economic progress, and
of civilization.
Interestingly enough, Populist demands were initially rebuffed with
many of the same arguments that have become conventional wisdom today.
The Populists were told that monopoly power was the legitimate outcome
of free markets, that concentration was the inevitable result of
technological progress, that concentration represented economic
efficiency, and that there were no viable alternatives.
These arguments are no truer today than they were at the turn of the
century. The current trend towards concentration in agriculture is not
the product of the ``free market,'' nor of Adam Smith's invisible hand.
For starters, with no effective competition in the major commodity
markets, these can hardly be held up as models of free market
competition. What they really stand for is market failure.
In any event, these near-monopolies were not created by the free
market at all. They were created by government, just like the railroad
monopolies of the 19th century. Instead of Adam Smith's invisible hand,
we are seeing the hand of multinational food conglomerates, in the
words of Iowa farmer Jim Braun, ``acting inside the glove of
government.''
The role of government in creating and fostering these monopolies is
probably most obvious in the context of intellectual property rights,
such as patents and copyrights. These are monopolies by definition. The
whole point of intellectual property protection is to prevent
competition. Without that patent protection, there would be a lot more
companies selling seed and other inputs to the farmer, there would be a
lot more competition, and the farmer would pay much lower prices. And
because of that protection, intellectual property rights generate
outsized profits and market power.
My point is not that these patent protections are a good thing or a
bad thing. The answer will probably depend on a lot of different
factors in each particular case. My point is that they are not an
example of the free market at work. On the contrary, these are
monopolies formally granted by the government.
The issue here is not just competition for the patented goods, but
barriers to competition for the entire agribusiness industry. If one of
these conglomerates engages in high-handed behavior, new businesses
could normally be expected to enter the market and steal its market
share. But smaller competitors can't enter the market if the barriers
to entry are too high. And intellectual property rights are a mighty
high barrier.
In fact, one of the motors driving consolidation of agribusiness
today is biotechnology. Soon biotech companies will be able to control
the entire food production chain with their genetics. Already Monsanto,
DuPont, and Novartis are gobbling up smaller biotech companies' market
share, patent rights, and customer base. And biotech patent monopolies
on plant and animal genomes will be a nearly insurmountable barrier to
market entry in the future.
Professor Bill Heffernan, who was commissioned by the National
Farmers Union to study these trends, projects that the entire
agricultural sector will soon consolidate into a small number of ``food
chain clusters,'' revolving around intellectual property firms. The
number of these clusters will be limited by the small number of firms
with intellectual property protection and by extremely high barriers to
market entry.
A handful of vertically integrated food chain clusters are already
poised to control food production from the gene to the supermarket
shelf. Professor Heffernan identifies three existing food cluster
chains: Cargill-Monsanto, ConAgra, and Novartis-ADM. He predicts that
another two or three will eventually develop. Smaller seed firms,
independent producers and other independent businesses will face a
dilemma. Either they join one of alliances to obtain inputs and sell
their production, or they go out of business.
The emergence of these titanic food conglomerates is not the
inevitable outcome of technological progress, but of conscious policy
choices. Our government-funded research programs, for example, have
chosen to fund expensive technologies that generate greater sales for
the largest agribusinesses and diminish the role of farmers in the
production of food.
Government support for private-sector monopoly over the ``terminator
gene'' is a good example of the bias inherent in these choices. The
terminator gene is a gene that can be inserted in plants to make their
seeds sterile. It forces farmers to buy new seeds every year instead of
reusing their own.
This is not a neutral technology. It raises the income of the seed
suppliers and intellectual property holders by forcing farmers to pay
more for seed. As Lee Swenson of the National Farmers Union recently
has testified, ``Biotechnology and the terminator gene have put the
farmer at the mercy of

[[Page S12463]]

the food cluster for seed to plant crop. If the firms in the processing
stage of the cluster require specific genetic material and the farmer
cannot get that seed, the farmer has no market access.'' Yet this
technology was developed with support from none other than the USDA.
While choosing to invest in technologies such as the terminator gene,
the government has generally failed to invest in technology that would
benefit the family farmer. Research dollars have not been directed
towards technologies that would reduce farmers' costs for capital or
inputs, for example, or help them produce higher value products. Dr.
Neil Harl of Iowa State University also calls for more government
support of cutting edge seed varieties that should be made available to
smaller seed companies, helping them compete against the emerging food
clusters.
Instead, Congress has chosen to cut funding for publicly available
research in biotechnology. One seed company CEO, when asked what
farmers could do to resist the growing vertical integration of
agriculture, said, ``Absolutely nothing, because these are property
rights owned by the companies, so the farmer is going to become more
and more at the mercy of the few who own intellectual properties.
Again, it goes back to the shortsightedness of funding basic research
in such a parsimonious fashion. Without government funding, companies
are going to fund research and control it.''
Economic concentration is not dictated by economic efficiencies any
more than it is by free markets and technological progress. In the late
1800s, John D. Rockefeller made the classic argument for the economic
efficiencies of monopoly power. He claimed that Standard Oil's monopoly
was good for the public because it created efficiencies that could be
passed along to the consumer in the form of lower oil prices. That
argument wasn't compelling then, and it's not compelling today.
First of all, efficiency is not what's driving the trend towards
concentration in agriculture. Research by Iowa State University
economist Mike Duffy shows no further economies of scale beyond 600
acres of row crops and about 150 sows. But the most rapidly growing
farming operations in Iowa are much larger than that, so economies of
scale cannot be driving their expansion.
One Iowa farmer writes, ``Today efficiency and cost of production
have nothing to do with determining which farmer will survive as a food
producer.'' The most important factor is probably the special
relationships the integrating firm has with other businesses. In
industries undergoing vertical integration, especially, farmers who
don't have special relationships with feed or slaughtering firms often
have to pay more for inputs and have more problems selling their
product. And smaller farmers are being forced to sign production
contracts with input suppliers to obtain new technologies they need to
stay competitive.
Another critical factor determining who survives in these non-
competitive markets is deep pockets and market share. Conglomerates
with multiple holdings can cross-subsidize one of their operations with
profits from another operation, making it harder for smaller, less
diversified firms to compete. They can also drive local non-diversified
firms out of business by excess production or processing of a
commodity, driving price down below the cost of production.
These cross-subsidies are increasingly taking place on a global
scale. A firm like Cargill, which has operations in 70 countries, can
absorb losses in one country so long as it can cross-subsidize with
revenues from another country. Because they control supplies in more
than one country, these multinationals can also drive prices down to
the detriment of farmers in both countries.

Even if concentration did produce economic efficiencies, such
efficiencies wouldn't concern us if they weren't passed on to the
consumer. But we've already seen that the agribusinesses' price
windfalls are not being passed on to the consumer. That's because they
are able to exploit their economic power to increase profit share at
the expense of farmers.
So it's simply not true that there are no viable alternatives to
continued economic concentration. Concentration is not dictated by free
markets, by technological progress, or by economic efficiency. It's
occurring because of government-created monopolies, biased choices in
technology policy, special relationships, and cross-subsidies. And it's
occurring because our choices in farm and trade and antitrust policies.
In the end, concentration is driven by policy choices that could be
made differently.
Consider all the policy choices that have brought American
agriculture to where it is today. When we paved the way for family
farming with the Homestead Act and the defeat of slavery, that was a
policy choice. When we enacted parity legislation in the 1940s, leading
to an increase in the number of farmers, expansion of soil and water
conservation practices, and a decline in farm debt, that also was a
policy choice.
When we cut loan rates in the 1950s and 1960s to lower farm prices,
that was a policy choice. When we interlinked domestic commodity
markets with lower world prices through trade agreements, that was a
policy choice. When we eliminated the safety net for farmers with the
Freedom to Farm Act, that was a policy choice.
When we invest public resources in technology that tilts the scales
against family farmers, that is a policy choice. When we fail to fund
enough economists at GIPSA or enough antitrust staff at Justice and the
FTC, that is a policy choice. And when we encourage global
concentration through our trade policies while allowing corporate
agribusiness to destroy competitive markets here at home, that too is a
policy choice.
Now the policy choices before us are clear. We can take legislative
action that will help preserve family-based agriculture. Or we can
continue on our present course, which is leading unmistakably in the
direction of contract farming, rural depopulation, and global
oligopoly.
In August, the Omaha World Herald carried a story about one
economist's projections for the future of American agriculture.
``Farmers who stubbornly insist on being their own boss will end up in
the economic scrap heap,'' he said. This economist described a trend
toward ``polarization of farms by size, with the number of large farms
growing at a rapid pace''; ``separation of land ownership from land
production, with more and more people owning land as an investment and
leasing property for production''; and contract farming, which will
change the role of farmers from that of an independent producer to
skilled tradesman.''
Can any Senator honestly tell me this is the vision he or she
supports? Do we really want a world of contract farming, in which farm
laborers are stuck with one-sided contracts and inadequate price
information and struggle to get out from under mountains of debt? Do we
really want a world in which our rural areas become depopulated because
family farmers have to leave the land? Do we really want a world in
which vertical integration and contract farming shift ever more
bargaining power to agribusinesses?
Do we really want a world in which management decisions are made by a
small group of corporate executives, removed from the land thanks to
new precision farming technologies? Do we really want a world in which
titanic food chains face little pressure to pass on price savings to
the consumer?
Do we have any say in this matter? I think we do. We don't have to
accept this vision of the future if we don't want to. We can propose a
different one, and we can fight for it. These are all policy choices.
These choices are made more difficult by the immense power of
corporate agribusiness--not only economic power, but political power as
well. As Lee Swenson of the NFU recently testified,

The remaining firms are increasing market share and
political power to the point of controlling the governments
that once regulated the firms. Some of the biggest
corporations have gotten tax breaks or other government
incentives. . . . Corporate interests have also called on the
government to weaken environmental standards and immigrant
labor protections in order to allow them to reduce
productions costs.

The bigger these agribusinesses get, the more influence they have
over our public policy choices. The bigger they

[[Page S12464]]

get, the more money they have to spend on political campaigns. The
bigger they get, the more lobbyists they can afford to amass on Capitol
Hill. The bigger they get, the more likely they are to be named special
U.S. trade representatives, like the CEO of Monsanto. The bigger they
get, the more likely public officials will be to confuse their
interests with the public interest, if they don't already do that. And
the bigger they get, the more weight they will pull in the media.
It's a vicious circle. These agribusiness conglomerates used their
political clout to shape public policies that helped them grow so big
in the first place. Now their overwhelming size makes it easier for
them to dictate policies that will help get even bigger.
This was just as much a problem at the turn of the century as it is
now. American democracy suffered greatly as a result of concentration
of economic power in the late 1800s. But the Populists and their
successors showed us that there is a different path, that there are
alternatives, and they proceeded to lay the groundwork for the
Progressive Era.
Even before the founding of the People's Party, populists and labor
and progressives began working to rein in the concentration of economic
power. With the help of some forward-looking Republicans, they fought
for and passed the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and the Packers and
Stockyards Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. They also reined
in the trusts through regulation of banks and railroads. And they
demanded more and better democracy through the direct election of
senators.

Judge Robert Bork notwithstanding, I don't believe the Sherman Act
was motivated by concerns over economic efficiency and consumer
welfare. In fact, during consideration of the Sherman Act, Congressman
Mason directly responded to the efficiency arguments raised by John D.
Rockefeller.

If the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent
a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to the people of
this country by the trusts which have destroyed legitimate
competition and driven honest men from legitimate business
enterprises.

As Richard Hofstadter has written, the Sherman Act was ``a ceremonial
concession to an overwhelming public demand for some kind of reassuring
action against the trusts.'' During debate on the Act, Senator John
Sherman himself railed against the ``kingly prerogative'' of men with
``concentrated powers.'' He vowed that ``We will not long endure a king
over production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessities of
life.''
But the antitrust laws, in the words of Supreme Court Justice William
O. Douglas, are now ``mere husks of what they were intended to be.'' In
the last 20 years, the courts have been unduly influenced by the anti-
antitrust views of Judge Bork and the Chicago School. Today
tremendously unfair market power routinely goes unpunished, especially
with regard to vertical integration.
Courts have limited the effectiveness of the antitrust laws by
narrowing their focus to questions of economic efficiency and consumer
welfare. The focus on consumer welfare is an obstacle to antitrust
enforcement in agriculture, even though farmers were an integral part
of the original antitrust movement. Conventional antitrust analysis
focuses on the ability of dominant firms to charge higher prices to
consumers; price declines are generally not regarded as a problem. But
farmers today are drawing attention to the ability of dominant firms to
abuse their market power to pay lower prices to producers, not
consumers.
The Justice Department's recent approval of the Cargill-Continental
merger raises troubling questions about the future of antitrust
enforcement in agriculture. If DOJ can't stop the merger of Cargill and
Continental, what merger will it ever stop? Will it ever be able to
take any action at all to arrest the trend towards concentration in
agriculture?
The Packers and Stockyards Act is a similar story. Enacted in 1921 to
combat the market abuse of the top five meat packers, it has extremely
broad and far-reaching language. Under the Packers and Stockyard Act,
it is unlawful for any packer to ``engage in or use any unfair,
unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device.'' It is
unlawful to ``make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage.''
However, some court decisions have limited its scope, and USDA is
unwilling to test its regulatory authority in court. Meanwhile,
concentration in the meat-packing industry today is higher than it was
when the FTC issued its original report leading to enactment of the
1921 Act.
Clearly, we cannot simply rely on the current antitrust statutes and
antitrust authorities to address the rapid consolidation of the
agricultural sector. We must change our antitrust laws. Whether or not
our antitrust agencies have authority that they are unwilling to
exercise, we need to force their hand. And we must develop a new farm
policy. Realistically, however, we know that doing these things may
take some time. We must act now.
There is something we can do in the short term. I am offering
legislation with Senator Dorgan that would impose a moratorium on
mergers and acquisitions among agribusinesses that must already submit
pre-merger filings under current law (annual net revenue or assets over
$100 million for one party and $10 million for the other). This
moratorium would remain in effect for 18 months, or until Congress
enacts legislation to address the problem of concentration in
agriculture, whichever comes first.
Over the longer term, however, we need to focus on equalizing the
bargaining power between farmers and the global agribusiness giants. A
growing disparity of economic power is shifting a larger share of farm
income to agribusiness. We need to reverse that trend and level the
playing field. Unless we ensure that farmers and ranchers receive a
fair share of the profit of the food system, little else we do to
maintain family-size farms is likely to succeed.
Of course, there's more than one way to attack the problem of unequal
bargaining power. The antitrust statutes helped equalize bargaining
power by increasing competition, thereby reducing the market power of
monopolies. The formation of agricultural cooperatives under the
Capper-Volstead Act helped equalize bargaining power from the opposite
direction--by increasing the market power of farmers. Under either
approach, farmers improve their bargaining position and are likely to
obtain a greater share of farm income.
Yet there are some inherent disparities in market power that can only
be remedied through farm policy. Because there are so many farmers, no
single farmer can influence price on his or her own. On their own,
farmers cannot limit production waiting for prices to rise or until
they can shift crops. Farmers are unable to reduce supply without
assistance from the government, which is where farm policy can play a
role.
Farm policy can also remedy inherent disparities in market power by
placing a floor on prices. Laws guaranteeing workers the right to
bargain collectively and a minimum wage are based on the same idea. The
minimum wage law recognizes that there is unequal bargaining power
between employers and workers, and that wage negotiation would often
lead to wages that are too low. The bargaining power between
agribusiness conglomerates and farmers is similarly unequal, and it is
resulting in farmer prices that are too low. Farmers today essentially
need the equivalent of a minimum wage.
Of course, bolstering the market power of family farmers is inimical
to the economic interests of corporate agribusiness, and it will be
fiercely resisted. But in the past we have managed to tame
concentrations of economic and political power, and I refuse to believe
we cannot do so again. For this reason, the examples of the Populist
movement and the Progressive Era are enormously instructive and
encouraging.
Finally, I want to mention the fiery closing speech at the People's
Party convention in 1892, which reads like it could have been written
yesterday. It was delivered by a remarkable Minnesotan--an implacable
foe of monopoly power named Ignatius Donnelly. Donnelly affirmed that
``the interests of rural and urban labor are the same,'' and he called
for a return to America's egalitarian founding principles. ``We seek to
restore the government of the

[[Page S12465]]

Republic to the hands of the `plain people' with whom it originated,''
he said.
We should do no less. If we want to sustain a vibrant rural economy
and a thriving democracy, we need urgent reform of our farm and
antitrust laws. We must act now. We can start by passing an 18-month
moratorium on the largest agribusiness mergers.
I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of our time for the
minority.
Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak as in morning business.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I do not
intend to object--that the time consumed by the Senator be charged
equally to all time under the order on the appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am not going to take much time. I
certainly hope the Senator from Minnesota did not cut his remarks short
because he certainly is articulating something in which we are all very
interested. I would do what I could to protect his rights to get a vote
if he needed a vote, the same as I ask my rights be protected to either
get a vote or to object to a unanimous consent request, which I have
been doing with regularity in the last few days.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

____________________