April 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5569 

and crosses his fingers and hopes he 

will not get rained on too much, or 

that it will not be too dry, or that insects do not destroy the crop. They 

hope to harvest it, and when they harvest it, they hope the price will not be 

so low that they lose a ton of money. 

Those are the risks and uncertainties 

they face. 

Why did anywhere from 800 to 1,000 

people show up Friday in Bismark, ND, 

to meet Secretary Glickman and talk 

to him for 3 hours about what they 

think ought to be done? Because it is 

their livelihood, their future. This is 

not a case of it being inconvenient if 

things do not work out. This is a case 

of losing everything you have if you 

are on a family farm and things do not 

work out. 

The basic message Friday in North 

Dakota by all of those family farmers 

and others speaking to the Agriculture 

Secretary was a message that the current farm program is not enough and 

does not work very well. That does not 

mean that we need more in order to 

make it work better. The resources we 

now spend on the farm program in this 

country, better applied, could provide a 

better life for family farmers by providing a safety net to give family farmers a chance to make a decent living. 

We do not need to provide farm price 

support to the biggest corporate 

agrifactories in America for every 

bushel of grain they produce; yet, we 

do—a loan rate for everybody in the 

program for every bushel of wheat they 

produce, no matter how large they are. 

We have all seen reports that the 

Prince of Liechtenstein was getting 

benefits for farming in Texas, and a 

group of Texans who concocted a consortium or amalgamation partnership 

of sorts and they farm in Montana, section by section, by dropping seeds out 

of the helicopters. They are not farming the land; they are farming the farm 

program. We have seen those abuses. 

We ought to eliminate them. 

We ought to change the farm program so that we have a farm program 

that is actually able to spend less 

money but provide more help to family-sized farmers. I have submitted a 

proposal, and I have entered it into the 

RECORD, and I have written about it, 

and I will provide a piece I have written on the subject. 

This proposal is substantially different than the current farm program. 

It says let us retain a basic safety net 

of support prices, and do it in a way 

that provides the strongest support for 

the first increment of production, 

which has the ability to provide the 

most help for family-sized farms. 

Above that, you do not need price supports. If you want to farm the whole 

county, God bless you. But the Federal 

Government does not have to be your 

financial partner. You can assume 

those risks alone. 

Second, in addition to a better price 

support for production designed to help 

family farmers, let us get government 

off farmers’ backs and stop having government describe what they can plant, 

when they can plant, and where they 

can plant it. Let us get family farmers 

better prices for the output of their 

production, and let the rest of the people above that—if you want to plant 

above that—get their signals from the 

marketplace. More help, less government, at less cost. That is what I want 

to see from a farm program. 

If the purpose of the farm program is 

not to help family farmers, if that is 

not the first sentence or preamble of 

the farm program—we design a farm 

program because we want the farm program to try to provide a safety net 

under family farmers, because for social and economic reasons it is important for America to have a network of 

family farms, and family farmers do 

not have the financial strength to 

withstand price depressions that are 

international price swings; they do not 

have the financial strength to withstand crop failures and price depressions, so that is why we have a safety 

net. 

If that is not the first line of the 

farm bill, saying this farm bill is designed to provide a safety net for family-sized farms, then scrap the whole 

farm bill. We do not need a farm bill to 

help corporations plow. They will do 

fine. They are big enough, strong 

enough, and they can plow enough land 

to farm the whole country. That is 

fine. I do not happen to think that is 

good for the country, but if that is who 

is going to plow the ground in America, 

they do not need the farm program. 

If it is about helping farmers get a 

decent price support, make that the 

first line in the farm bill and make the 

bill comport to that. 

In the early 1860’s, President Abraham Lincoln created a U.S. Department of Agriculture. By the way, he 

had nine employees in the Department 

of Agriculture in the 1860’s. One and a 

third centuries later, we have a USDA, 

but it has 100,000 employees, that is 

adding the Forest Service to it. It is a 

behemoth organization. My central 

premise is that it is either going to 

help family farmers, or we do not need 

any of the USDA. 

The President has done the right 

thing in having regional farm forums. 

They are having a rural summit at 

Ames, IA, tomorrow to listen and hear 

what farmers are saying in this country and then write a new farm plan 

that does real good for family farmers. 

Let us not just do what we have done 

for the past couple of farm plans and 

say we will have the same farm plan 

but a little less. I do not support that. 

Let us change it in a way that says this 

farm program relates to the needs of 

family farmers, and do it in a way that 

costs less money to the Federal Government and also has less Government 

interference in the lives of our farmers. 

I am not going to be able to be in 

Ames, IA, tomorrow. The President invited me to go. He invited Congressman DURBIN to go. Since the House of 

Representatives is not in session, I expect that Congressman DURBIN will be 

there. I was not able to take advantage 

of the President’s invitation because it 

appears we are going to have votes in 

the Senate tomorrow. 

I was pleased to participate in the regional forums, and I am delighted to 

have been a small part in doing what I 

think we should do in this country—

having the President convene a rural 

summit and start thinking and talking 

about what works and what does not, 

what can work to breathe economic life 

into our rural counties and towns, 

what can give people in those areas an 

opportunity for the same kinds of jobs 

and hope and future that many others 

in our country now have. 

Mr. President, I want to say that I 

appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from Washington. I will be coming 

to the floor to speak on the subject 

that is on the floor—product liability—

at some point in the future. I am on 

the Senate Commerce Committee and 

am interested in the subject. I appreciate his allowing me to speak in morning business on another matter. 

With that, I yield the floor. 

f 

IMPLEMENTATION OF USDA DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 

IN CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was a 

strong supporter in the last Congress of 

the bill passed and signed into law by 

President Clinton regarding the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture and Federal crop insurance reform. I would like to again extend my 

congratulations to Senator LUGAR and 

Senator LEAHY for their outstanding 

efforts on the passage of this very important legislation. 

A driving force behind crop insurance 

reform was to make basic crop insurance obligatory in an effort to avoid ad 

hoc disaster bills in Congress. Under 

crop insurance reform, crops that are 

not eligible for insurance will qualify 

for disaster relief under the newly created Non-Insured Assistance Program 

[NAP]. We are not sure how the NAP 

Program will work and how effective it 

will be in helping farmers of noninsurable crops who have suffered a natural 

disaster. The NAP regulations are still 

being drafted by the Department of Agriculture. 

California agriculture has recently 

experienced devastating floods. California Food and Agriculture Secretary 

Henry J. Voss has estimated that damage resulting from the March winds, 

rains, and flooding in California is over 

$665 million. 

Commodities suffering severe losses 

statewide include almonds, $208 million; strawberries, $63 million; plums 

and prunes, $53 million; lettuce, $40 

million; and apricots, $20 million. 

One of the hardest hit counties is 

Monterey County, which has suffered 

over $240,000 million in damages. Over 

70,000 acres of agricultural land have 

been lost or damaged. I share Congressman SAM FARR’s grave concern about 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S5570 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE April 24, 1995 

how the Department of Agriculture 

will help these farmers get on their 

feet again. 

My purpose in raising this issue 

today is to ensure that implementation 

of crop insurance reform is successful, 

that it achieves the goal of helping 

farmers recover quickly, and that it 

avoid the need for another ad hoc disaster bill. 

The Department of Agriculture, in 

implementing the new Non-Insured Assistance Program and other disaster relief programs, should do so in a way 

that appropriately meets the needs of 

California agriculture. 

We have the situation in California, 

especially in the case of specialty crop 

growers, where farmers may not qualify for the Non-Insured Assistance Program, due to various criteria. Note 

that of the 250 crops grown in California only about 10 are covered by 

crop insurance. 

There are two specific issues which I 

hope, with your help, and with the ongoing efforts of Congressman FARR, we 

can urge the Department of Agriculture to resolve administratively. 

At this point, I would like to ask my 

colleagues Senator LUGAR and Senator 

LEAHY several questions regarding the 

implementation of the agriculture disaster assistance programs by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

Would the Senators agree with me 

that we must urge the Department of 

Agriculture to ensure that ‘‘area’’ is 

defined in a fair and equitable manner? 

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I agree that the Department of Agriculture must ensure 

that ‘‘area’’ is defined in a fair and equitable manner, consistent with the 

need for fiscal responsibility and program integrity. The issue should be resolved administratively so that the definition of ‘‘area’’ is sufficiently flexible 

and sensitive to the agronomic practices of the area that has suffered the 

disaster. 

Mr. LEAHY. I concur. 

Mrs. BOXER. Another issue of critical importance to farmers in California and their ability to recover from 

the disastrous floods they are experiencing is the issue of crop losses in 

cases where a grower plants and harvests multiple crops in 1 year. To qualify for the Non-Insured Assistance Program, a farmer must lose 50 percent of 

the crop in a crop year. Loss is counted 

differently depending on whether a 

farmer plants the same crop over and 

over again—as in the case of lettuce 

growers—or whether a farmer grows 

and harvests different crops in 1 year. 

In the case of a lettuce producer who 

raises multiple crops of lettuce in 1 

year, for example, the producer won’t 

be eligible for non-insured assistance 

based on losses for a single harvest 

even if he loses 100 percent of his crop. 

In comparison, a producer who raises 

wheat followed by soybeans—which 

commonly occurs in the south—would 

be eligible if the grower lost 50 percent 

of the wheat crop. The grower would 

again be eligible for his soybeans if he 

had significant losses. In contrast, the 

lettuce producer who suffered 100 percent loss of his crop would receive 

nothing. 

Would the Senators agree with me 

that we must urge the Department of 

Agriculture to ensure that the multiple 

planting issue is dealt with in an equitable manner? 

Mr. LUGAR. I agree that we must 

urge the Department of Agriculture to 

ensure that the ‘‘multiple planting 

issue’’ is dealt within an equitable 

manner, consistent with the need for 

fiscal responsibility and program integrity. 

Mr. LEAHY. I concur. 

Mrs. BOXER. I thank very much Senator LUGAR and Senator LEAHY for 

their support on this issue. I hope that 

our statements today will help guarantee that farmers are treated equitably. 

There is another issue I am very concerned about regarding the implementation of agriculture disaster assistance programs by the USDA in California. Many small- and medium-sized 

farmers may not qualify for low-interest loans because they may not be considered a family farm, given the working administrative definition regarding 

‘‘the substantial contribution of 

labor.’’ Many specialty crops, including 

strawberries, by there very nature require intensive labor. It is simply not 

fair to exclude them from disaster assistance. 

We seem to have a disaster assistance 

policy that is not equitable where 

small- and medium-sized farmers are 

concerned. I believe that just as the 

Federal Government steps in to help 

small- and medium-sized businesses 

with disaster relief low-interest loans 

to help business men and women rebuild, so too it should step in to help 

families who have staked out their 

business interests in agriculture. Why 

should a shop owner who sells fruits 

and vegetables be eligible for help from 

the Small Business Committee and not 

the farmer who planted and harvested 

those fruits and vegetables? 

I urge the Department of Agriculture 

to ensure that family farm is interpreted to take into account the cultural practices in the area where the 

damaged crop is being grown, as well as 

the common agricultural practices of 

the particular crop in question. I also 

urge the Department of Agriculture to 

be as flexible as possible with the 

working administrative definition regarding ‘‘the substantial contribution 

of labor’’ to ensure that growers of 

crops that by their very nature require 

intensive labor not be excluded them 

from disaster assistance. 

I would like to reiterate that the 

issues I have raised today can be resolved easily if the Department of Agriculture were to carefully consider 

and take into account the cultural 

practices in the area where the damaged crop is being grown, as well as the 

common agricultural practices of the 

particular crop in question. On the 

issue of the definition of ‘‘area’’ I 

would like to add the following: 

As I previously mentioned, we have 

the situation in California, especially 

in the case of specialty crop growers, 

where farmers may not qualify for the 

Non-Insured Assistance Program, due 

to various criteria. Note that of the 250 

crops grown in California only about 10 

are covered by crop insurance. 

To qualify for the Non-Insured Assistance Program, there has to have 

been a loss in 30 percent of an ‘‘area.’’

The term ‘‘area’’ was not defined in the 

legislation and the Department of Agriculture is currently looking into just 

how this will be implemented. There is 

talk of ‘‘area’’ being defined as a county, or as 250,000 acres or as 35,000 acres. 

We have crops in California where this 

definition would automatically exclude 

many of our farmers. For example, in 

the counties of Monterey and Santa 

Cruz, about 45 percent of the strawberry crop for the Nation is grown on a 

total of 10,000 acres. We must ensure 

that ‘‘area’’ is defined equitably in a 

way that does not exclude California 

farmers. 

On the multicrop issue I would like 

to add the following: 

To be fair to California farmers, the 

Department of Agriculture should consider each harvest as a separate crop 

for the purposes of eligibility for disaster assistance. It is my understanding that this was the policy until 

1994 and that the 1995 floods will be the 

first test case of the new policy. Although it may appear that all crops are 

treated equitably, this is not the case 

in reality, given the fact that most 

program crops are not planted over and 

over again; they are always 

intermixed; that is, soybeans after 

corn, and so forth. Again, I strongly 

urge the Department of Agriculture to 

take into account the common agricultural practices of farmers when looking 

at how crop loss is counted for eligibility to the Non-Insured Assistance 

Program. 

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I understand and applaud the Senator’s concern for her constituents. However, I 

must also urge the Department to be 

cautious in approaching the definition 

of ‘‘family farm.’’ In years past, the 

Farmers Home Administation made 

emergency loans to large farmers in 

California and other States that led to 

millions of dollars in individual indebtedness and enormous losses to taxpayers. On March 31, a hearing in the 

Agriculture Committee pointed up the 

substantial losses that we are still 

likely to incur on these loans and made 

it clear that the Department has continued to write off debt owed by million-dollar borrowers, despite statements of outrage at past lending practices. 

Given this unfortunate history, I believe the Department should move with 

extreme caution and should act to 

avoid a repetition of past abuses. The 

Farmers Home Administration—now a 

part of the Consolidated Farm Services 

Agency—was intended to serve family 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

April 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S5571 

farmers, and the agency’s experience in 

lending to farms of extremely large 

size is not a happy one. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO STATE SENATOR LES 

KLEVEN 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, last 

week South Dakota lost a great public 

servant, State Senator Les Kleven. Les 

lost a brave and courageous fight 

against cancer. His leadership and innovation will be greatly missed. 

A native of North Dakota, Les moved 

to Sturgis, SD, in 1962 to start KBHB 

radio station. Under his direction and 

leadership, KBHB grew to become one 

of the premier radio stations in western South Dakota. To this day, it remains an important source of news, information, and entertainment to thousands of listeners in western South Dakota and nearby States. Over the 

years, Les often had his station broadcast live the meetings I held in the 

Sturgis area on agricultural disasters, 

the farm bill, and other important 

issues. I always appreciated his valuable advice on issues important to the 

South Dakota broadcast and radio industry, as well as many other issues. 

Les was a past president of the South 

Dakota Broadcasters Association. His 

love for South Dakota and service to 

the State did not begin and end with 

radio. He served three terms in the 

South Dakota State House of Representatives in the 1970’s. In 1992, Les 

was elected to the South Dakota State 

Senate. Of course, much as he did on 

the air waves, he significantly affected 

South Dakota political currents. 

Throughout his career as a member of 

the South Dakota State Legislature, 

Les distinguished himself as a leader 

and fiscal conservative. His constituents and his colleagues knew him to be 

independent, straightforward, and fair. 

Indeed, his contributions to the State 

of South Dakota will long be remembered. 

Most important, Les was a family 

man. Though all who knew Les held 

him in high respect and admiration, 

none could be more proud of him than 

his mother Alice, his lovely wife, Marguerite, and his two children, Andy and 

Jazal. 

Les Kleven’s honesty and integrity 

will be greatly missed. His accomplishments as a radio innovator, a State 

legislator, and a proud father provide 

an inspiring example of the South Dakota spirit—a man who gave to his profession, his community, his State, and 

to his family. Les was a family man, a 

pillar of the community, and a good 

friend. 

We will all miss him. 

(At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the 

following statement was ordered to be 

printed in the R

f 

ECORD.) 

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 

∑ Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I 

rise today to commemorate the 80th 

anniversary of the Armenian genocide. 

The Armenian genocide marks an ignominious chapter in world history. It 

reminds us how low unchecked hatred 

can drag the human spirit, unleashing 

cruelty and brutality. As we memorialize the Armenians who died needlessly in the genocide, we must resolve 

never to forget how they suffered at 

the hands of the Ottoman Empire. 

Nor can we forget how the Armenian 

people continue suffering today as the 

country struggles to cope with the devastating impact of Azerbaijan’s blockade. The blockade has put a stranglehold on the Armenian people. Necessities—like food and heating oil—are in 

scarce supply. Such shortages endanger 

the lives of many in Armenia, especially during the harsh winter months. 

While humanitarian assistance provided by the United States can help alleviate the suffering, it cannot lift the 

blockade. Only the Government of 

Azerbaijan can do that. That is why we 

must continue to apply pressure. We 

should not provide United States foreign assistance to Azerbaijan as long as 

it maintains its blockade of Armenia. 

The blockade should be lifted without 

delay. 

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues 

will join me in commemorating this 

anniversary. It is important that we 

remember the atrocities of the past, 

and support efforts to allow the Armenian people an opportunity to live in 

peace in the future.

f 

∑ 

CONCLUSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning 

business is now closed. 

f 

COMMONSENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY AND LEGAL REFORM ACT 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will now 

proceed to the consideration of H.R. 

956, which the clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 956) to establish legal standards and procedures for product liability litigation, and for other purposes. 

The Senate proceeded to consider the 

bill. 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, as 

the Senate begins its debate of H.R. 956 

I wish, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, to discuss the provisions of S. 565—the Product Liability 

Fairness Act—as reported by our committee. S. 565 as reported will be offered as a substitute for H.R. 956, therefore I shall discuss the Senate bill as 

we begin this debate. Earlier this 

month, the Commerce Committee conducted extensive hearings over 2 days 

and then voted 13 to 6 to report the legislation with an amendment on April 6. 

S. 565 as reported is a fair and balanced 

bill. 

Mr. President, as we begin I cannot 

help but point out: Here we are again—

product liability reform being debated 

by the Senate of the United States. Do 

not get me wrong. As chairman of the 

Commerce Committee, I am proud to 

bring S. 565 to the floor. So why do I 

say, ‘‘Here we are again’’? It is not that 

I do not think this is an important 

issue. Far from it. This bill is vital. It 

is vital not just to America’s businesses but also to our Nation’s workers 

and consumers. It also is vital to the 

victims of injuries caused by products. 

THE HISTORY

It is just that we have come this far 

before. Indeed, since 1981, the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation has held 23 days of 

hearings on product liability reform. S. 

565 marks the seventh piece of product 

liability reform legislation reported by 

the Commerce Committee over that 15- 

year period. It is my fervent hope this 

time we can achieve meaningful results. 

Mr. President, I see no reason why we 

cannot. This year’s bill is balanced and 

reasoned. I consider it superior to legislation debated in the last Congress in 

that it does not include a provision to 

disallow punitive damage awards in 

lawsuits for certain manufacturers receiving pre-market certification from 

the Federal Aviation Administration. 

As my colleagues know, that section 

of last year’s bill made this Senator extremely uncomfortable, so uncomfortable as to put me in the equally uncomfortable position of voting against 

cloture on legislation addressing other 

legal reforms I have supported and 

voted for many times over the years. 

I personally have been involved in 

the product liability reform movement 

since the early 1980’s. I am proud of 

that. I was an original cosponsor of the 

Risk Retention Act that became law in 

1981 and provided for liability insurance pools—or risk retention groups—

for businesses. Throughout the 1980’s I 

cosponsored numerous uniform product 

liability bills with Senators Kasten, 

Danforth, and GORTON. The early bills 

were supported strongly by the business community but lacked bipartisan 

support in Congress. I chaired Small 

Business Committee field hearings in 

Sioux Falls and Rapid City, SD, on this 

issue in 1985. 

I commend the efforts to Senators 

GORTON and ROCKEFELLER with regard 

to S. 565. They are, indeed, tireless advocates for meaningful reform of 

America’s product liability system. 

They demonstrated serious leadership 

in the committee on this issue and the 

bill reflects their commitment. 

KEY PROVISIONS

I would now like to take a few minutes to briefly highlight some of the 

key provisions of S. 565 as reported. 

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

This legislation provides either party 

in a product liability suit may offer to 

participate in a voluntary, nonbinding 

state-approved alternative dispute resolution [ADR] procedure. If a defendant 

in a products suit is asked to participate in ADR and refuses and later a 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS