Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the 5 minutes remaining to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, and then I will use my leader time to close up the debate on this amendment.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his question. We are in an interesting position here. The Republican majority will argue that the pending amendment violates our budgetary rules, and on the basis of that violation, they will vote against the amendment and vote against the motion to waive the point of order on the budgetary rules. Last night, we offered to change the amendment to accommodate the budgetary rules, and we were denied the opportunity to change that amendment. So here you have the Republican majority objecting to our amendment based upon budgetary rules, but unwilling to allow us to change the amendment so that it conforms to budgetary rules. So the question then becomes, What is the basis for the real opposition? The basis for the real opposition, one could only assume, is that they simply do not want to pass meaningful tobacco policy that takes aim at the array of serious policy concerns the Senator addressed in his earlier question.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is correct. My answer, stated, I think, prior to the time the Senator from Illinois came to the floor, was simply to say: We will have that opportunity on other bills. We will not be precluded from having an opportunity to offer a tobacco amendment that conforms to budgetary rules in some other context on some other piece of legislation in the not too distant future.

Mr. DASCHLE. The tobacco company's vote would be a ``no'' vote. That is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois is correct.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the next few minutes we will have an opportunity to revisit an issue that many of us hoped would not have been rejected last month. The amendment before us is the so-called McCain managers' amendment to the comprehensive tobacco bill reported by the Commerce Committee. The only significant change is the Lugar amendment to repeal the tobacco quota and price support programs is removed. There were many complaints about how loaded up the tobacco bill had become. The amendment we are discussing this morning has none of the extra provisions dealing with taxes and drug abuse. Each day that we wait, 3,000 kids start to smoke; 1,000 of them will die prematurely of tobacco-related illnesses. Tobacco companies are targeting 12-, 13- and 14-year-old children as replacement smokers to fill the shoes of the 2 million smokers who quit or die each year. We have all heard the facts. Tobacco-related disease kills 400,000 Americans each year. So today's tobacco amendment, the McCain managers' amendment, is simply designed to deter teen smoking without raising all of the other issues that surfaced during the debate. We had hoped very much that we could modify this amendment before its consideration today. Our Republican colleagues and the leader chose to oppose our unanimous consent request to change the amendment. We were going to modify the legislation to make it a straightforward authorization. I will tell my colleagues that the modified amendment will be offered at a later date on another bill. We will be content to have the vote on the point of order on this amendment and then we will, as I have noted before, revisit this question on several occasions. I am disappointed that our colleagues, for whatever reason, have chosen not to allow us to modify our amendment at this time. I hope no one will be misled. Their actions reflect their willingness to make difficult choices on tobacco legislation targeted at teenage smokers. That is what this amendment is all about. So we will have an opportunity to vote on it. We can vote procedurally and we can obfuscate the question, but we will come back, and we will come back again and again over the course of the coming months, to offer legislation that will not be subject to any points of order. So we may be delaying that vote, but we will eventually have that vote. I think it is critical that everyone recognize what a very important moment this is. The attorneys general are meeting as we speak. There is very likely to be an agreement dealing with past actions on the part of the tobacco industry. The question is, Can we deal with future ones, can we anticipate similar actions and establish public policy that will prevent the tobacco industry from targeting teenage smokers? That is, in essence, what we are attempting to do here with advertising restrictions, with research, with an array of disincentives to teenage smokers that otherwise will not be part of any agreement. It takes legislation. So, Mr. President, this will be our opportunity to do that. I know there are other Senators who wish to speak, and I will yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts says it very well. That is as succinct a description of the problem as I have heard. The attorneys general may help address past problems, the retrospective and very serious concerns that have been raised in court cases throughout the country. The problem, then, becomes, how do we avoid those problems in the future? And what every attorney general has said is the only way you can do that is to establish new public policy that strengthens regulatory controls on tobacco, ends advertisements that target kids, expands our research efforts, increases the price of tobacco to deter youth from falling prey to the smoking habit, holding tobacco companies accountable for accomplishing youth smoking reduction targets, that is, let's put into place strategies that reduce teen smoking. Permanently. This must happen prospectively. What the Senator from Massachusetts said is exactly right. It s a question of whether or not we can successfully put into place laws that preclude any further abuses by the tobacco industry. We must act now to stop the industry from any further use of covert strategies such as those that, thanks in large measure to the work of the attorneys general, are now common knowledge.

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on an emergency basis we give the President the opportunity to deal directly with the crisis that we are facing right now in farm after farm, in rural community after rural community. It only goes into effect in case of an economic crisis. It gives the President the discretion to control the extreme and persistent income losses by lifting the loan caps and extending their terms this year only. This authority expires this time next year. Regardless of how my colleagues feel on lifting the caps, this measure would probably do more than any other I can think of in providing immediate help--immediate relief--to farmers who are the victims of the ``Harvest of despair''. I know a lot of my colleagues have said, ``Look, we don't want to get back into that. We have had those battles.'' I understand that. But I also understand, Mr. President, that we have very few options. And almost categorically when we talk to farmer organizations, and farmers themselves, they say, ``We have to have some other option than to force our grain on the market when it is this low. Give us an opportunity for some breathing space. Give us some room.'' So that is what we are doing. Wheat loan rates would increase 64 cents a bushel--from $2.58 to $3.22. Corn loan rates would increase 36 cents a bushel--from $1.89 to $2.25. Soybean rates would increase 7 cents a bushel--from $5.26 to $5.33. Keep in mind that we are talking about the 85 percent average over the last 5 years. They have flexibility. They have a little more certainty about what they are going to get for their crop going into the market this fall. Mr. President, that is as good as we think we can do under these circumstances. Would I like to see a higher loan rate? Absolutely. Would I like to see even more substantive ways in which to ensure a better price? Absolutely. But after very careful consideration, we said, ``Look, let's do something that is reasonable. Let's do something that we believe the administration and most Members of Congress would recognize to be prudent and responsive to the problems we are facing in agriculture today.'' I know that we are scheduled to vote at 5:15. I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa wanted to address this matter as well prior to the vote. Just as soon as he appears in the Chamber, I will yield. I would like to yield the remainder of that time to the distinguished Senator from Iowa. Mr. President, the ``harvest of despair'' needs to be addressed. All we are asking is an opportunity to address it in a way that is very prudent budgetarily, that very carefully addresses the emergency nature of the situation farmers are facing today. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment until the time scheduled for its vote, which I believe is 5:15.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have discussed this matter procedurally with our distinguished managers on both sides of the aisle and appreciate very much their willingness to cooperate in terms of expediting the consideration of these critical amendments. The amendment that I have just submitted is one that Senator Harkin and I and others discussed on the floor this morning. The amendment builds upon what I hope will be a very significant vote at 5:15 this afternoon. As we note, the first amendment hopefully brings us together, Republicans and Democrats, in a way that allows us to say: Yes, we understand there is a problem; yes, we have to respond. Even though we may not yet have an agreement on how we might respond, there should be a response. That is, in essence, what we are saying with the passage of the resolution that we have just ordered a vote on. Now we go to the next phase: All right, if we recognize there is a problem, then what we do we do about it? As many of us noted this morning, we are offering a series of proposals that we hope will allow us to respond in a meaningful way to the situation that we find ourselves in in agriculture. A lot of people already today have put excellent reports found in various publications into the Record. The Chicago Tribune on June 21 of this year had a report that I don't think is yet in the Record. The article is headlined ``Harvest of despair.'' In the article, the very first statement says: Falling prices, poor growing conditions, and government deregulation are forcing thousands of family farmers to abandon their way of life, perhaps the worst blow to the rural Northern Plains since the bankruptcy crisis of the middle 1980's. Mr. President, I don't think there is an article that could say it more succinctly than that. It goes on to explain the circumstances. In 1996, for a bushel of wheat, farmers received $5.20 cents. In May of 1998, they received $3.07--a $2.13 reduction in price on a bushel of wheat in a 2-year period of time, a 40-percent-plus reduction in the availability of price for farmers. That is the problem. This precipitous drop in price is generating an extraordinary crisis financially for family farmers and ranchers all over America. It is not just wheat. I could give the same statistics for corn. We could talk about livestock. We could talk about virtually any commodity found in the northern Great Plains, or in the West today, and you would see a situation that could be entitled ``Harvest of Despair.'' So the question is, What do we do about it? I am one who believes in the marketplace. But I also know that the market has many ways that have been used, many tools that have been used, both public and private, in an effort to soften these economic upturns and downturns. We see it on Wall Street. We see it on Main Street primarily through the Tax Code. We have seen it in agriculture for decades. We are not suggesting in response to this crisis that we reopen the farm bill and, in so doing, reopen the debate about all of the infrastructure that is now in place dealing with the relationship that the people of the United States have with farmers. We are not going to do that. But what we are going to do is to suggest that there are some actions that can be taken that would have profound benefits to farmers and to ranchers to get through this crisis. And what we are suggesting is that in many of those cases we put a time limit on it. We don't say for all perpetuity now we are going to make these changes, because that would be doing the very thing I said we weren't going to do. So the amendment that I have laid down is a perfect illustration of just that. The amendment says that the Government will take the average price that we have seen for commodities over the last 5 years, drop the highs and lows, and put in place a marketing loan at 85 percent of that price that the farmers could avail themselves of, if they don't want to be forced to sell their grain tomorrow. Let's assume a farmer has a good crop. Let's assume that he is suffering, with this remarkable chart showing that prices have gone from $5.20 down to $3.07 in 2 years, and he doesn't want to settle for $3.07. What does he do? He goes to the Department of Agriculture and says, ``I heard about this marketing loan you all have. I would like to take out a loan.'' For now it is 9 months. We are going to give them a little more flexibility. We are going to say 15 months--1 year and 3 months--5 quarters--before he has to pay it back. He is going to say, ``I am going to take out that loan,'' betting their price is going to turn around. So he does. The price goes up, he pays the loan, the Government makes money, and the farmer stays in business. Mr. President, that is what we are doing. That is what we are suggesting here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chicago Tribune article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, Senator Harkin will have an amendment in just a moment. He is on his way over. I thought it might be appropriate to get the debate started and to have a discussion about the essence of the amendment. It will be simply a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that calls upon the Senate and the country to respond to the problem we find in agriculture today. Most of America prospers with an economy that is striking for its performance and success. On Wall Street, on Main Street, in the suburbs of America, and in virtually every segment of our country the economy is as strong as it could possibly be. Wall Street has exceeded their expectations manyfold. The number of housing starts is up. The number of new businesses created is way up. The number of people employed has been dramatically improved upon in the last 5 years. We now have over 14 million Americans who have new jobs. So while the overall economic picture is extremely bright and encouraging, with no end in sight, the Federal Reserve Board continues to argue that its circumstances are that they don't see any need to change; they won't increase the interest rates. While all that is happening, there is a segment of our economy that continues to get worse and worse and more and more bleak. While most of America prospers, our farmers and ranchers in rural communities are now in a crisis. While we recognize the geographic differences that exist, there are some areas where you might suggest that crisis is avoided. Some in agriculture today--rice farmers and cotton farmers--are generally happier than they have been on other occasions. But across the Great Plains, down into Texas, well into the Dakotas, across into Montana and the West, down into the Southeast, every time I go home, we see increasing evidence of serious economic alarm. This crisis rivals now the worst of the farm crisis in the 1980s in some parts of our country. Farm income is down dramatically in South Dakota and across the country. It has fallen in 32 States. It is down by 30 percent in more than one-fifth of the country today. The problem is low prices. In 1998, the average net farm income for Great Plains farmers is expected to be near the poverty line for a family of four. Let me make sure everybody understands that. A farmer in the Great Plains who is on the farm today working actively as a producer--the average farmer today--will actually see his or her income at the official poverty line for a family of four. Here we are experiencing one of the greatest booms in modern day on Wall Street in virtually every segment of the economy, and yet our farmers and ranchers are the ones experiencing an unbelievable economic and financial crisis that equals, if not exceeds, anything they have had in the past. Farm debt is now $172 billion. That, Mr. President, is the highest it has been in 13 years. We have to go all the way back to the time when farmers rolled their tractors into Washington to find a time when farm debt was as high as it is today at $172 billion. Overall farm income nationwide is down $5.2 billion since 1996. So we have seen a precipitous decline in farm income. We have seen an accompanying increase in debt rivaling anything we have seen in my lifetime, going all the way back to the farm crisis of 1985. And that is our current circumstance. Do you call that a crisis, when a family of four is trying to eke out a living on a farm, or a ranch, is at the poverty-line income, when debt has gone up by $172 billion, when we have seen the precipitous decline in farm income in just the last 2 years of $5.2 billion? Mr. President, that translates into losses that go beyond farms. In fact, we are told that we could see a loss of 100,000 jobs in rural America as a result of the problems in the agricultural sector--100,000 people. Why? Because farm income has plummeted, debt has gone up, and the economy continues to worsen. So there is no doubt that this isn't just a farm issue, it is a rural issue of enormous magnitude. The ripple effect is clearly now in evidence. Mr. President, I have the greatest admiration and affection and respect for the current Presiding Officer. He and I have worked together and come from the same part of the country. I appreciate his sense of humor. But in some ways you have to have a sense of humor to look at the Freedom to Farm Act today. Freedom to Farm, in my view, is what is responsible in large measure for what has happened. It has destroyed the safety net for our country's family farmers. Many of us predicted on the day that it passed that this would be what we would be facing. In fact, going back to a quote I made the day that the bill passed, I said at the time: ``I think the Senate has made a very tragic mistake. This fight is not over. We will come back.'' Well, we are back. I wish we didn't have to be. But we are back. We are back because we have no choice now. The crisis is upon us. Some of us could have predicted it. The fact is that it has happened. Without delving into all the reasons why it happened, at least right now, I don't think with the figures I have just stated for the Record that anyone can deny that it is happening. What else can you say about a family farm that is experiencing poverty-level income? What else can you say about an income overall in the economy, the farm economy, that has projected a $172 billion debt, the highest since 1985? What else can you say about just 2 years of lost income, now $5.2 billion? Mr. President, there is no question we are in a crisis. The question is now, what do we do? Frankly, after a great deal of debate internally, most of us have concluded that it isn't our purpose now to completely reopen the debate on the Freedom to Farm Act and revisit each and every one of the areas that we think need improvement. That is something we will have to save for another time. We are in a crisis. We are in an emergency. Because we are in an emergency, we don't have the luxury of saying let's just take our time, go back and review everything, and rewrite everything that we believe may be causing these problems. Rather, what we decided to do, Mr. President, is simply this: First, let's offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that recognizes the seriousness of the problem, and as clearly, and hopefully in a bipartisan manner, say: ``We want to respond. We hear you. We are empathetic. We agree the situation is very serious, and we are going to respond.'' That is the purpose of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Amendment No. 3127

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, many of our Republican colleagues have said that high prices and robust trade would keep the farm economy strong. I agree. I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with that. High prices and robust trade go hand in glove. The problem is, we don't have either. Prices across the board have plummeted to the lowest levels they have been in more than a decade. Livestock prices and grain prices are at such a point that no one can survive today. No one can survive on prices that farmers are receiving at the local elevator--no one. They are at the levels that farms received when the Presiding Officer and I were born. The same levels that farmers were getting when we were born are the prices farmers are getting today. Could we survive on that kind of an income as Senators, as members of the Senate staff? Could anyone on Main Street survive on prices they were getting in 1947, in my case? We know the answer to that. This last week, an amendment was offered which was introduced by the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts, and our very distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, exempting farm products from sanctions. We could have added a lot of things to that. But the Senator from Kansas said--and I had a discussion, and we agreed--that it was better to get something done than to use it as a vehicle for more proposals that we wish could get done. So on a bipartisan basis, I think unanimously--if not unanimously, almost so--the Senate went on record in favor of lifting the agricultural sanctions that have existed now for some time. The right thing to do--and I am very proud that on an overwhelming basis we sent as clear a message on trade with that vote as we could. Now I hope we will send just as clear a message on domestic solutions. If we can do it on trade, as the Senator from Kansas has noted, we ought to do it on price. And while there is no question that trade can have a positive effect on price, I think one would have to argue vociferously, and I don't think ever conclusively, that whatever changes we make on price related to trade will not be short term. It will be very, very difficult to see any short-term, immediate repercussions based on trade, although for long-term purposes it is exactly what we need to do. We need to find ways to market our products abroad. We need to find ways to be competitive and to see that those markets open up. For us to shoot ourselves in the foot at the very time when farmers need those markets is the absolute worst thing we can do. So, Mr. President, the trade piece is the right piece for the long term. The problem is, we have short-term needs that will never be addressed by trade. So here we are, back to correct the failed policies that have crippled rural America, back to recognize that we have to take some actions on this particular bill. The amendment that we now have before us recognizes the plight of the family farmer in America. It says that we are on your side, we understand your situation, and that we must act on a solution. That solution will be the subject of additional amendments that we will lay out over the course of the next period of time. It will remove the cap on marketing loans and extend the loan term. We require mandatory price reporting for livestock. We want to require labeling of imported meat. We want to target emergency assistance for victims of multiple-year disasters. The alternative is to do nothing. All Senators should ask, all Senators really need to ask is this: Would they accept a 30 percent cut in their income as thousands of farmers have? Do they want rural America to survive? Do they value the whole societal fabric that family farmers bring to rural America today? We have to recognize and respond to this crisis and help farmers in rural communities, help at least in part by restoring a small segment of the agricultural safety net, create a more open and fair marketplace where a safety net isn't even necessary, and give farmers an opportunity to share in America's prosperity. That is what we hope to do. We wish we could do it outside the context of an agriculture appropriations bill. That would be my choice. We have been unable, at least to date, to get markups and votes in the committee, taking legislation from the Agriculture Committee to the Senate floor. And so our choice is left to this, to offer amendments on the best second vehicle we could have. The agricultural appropriations bill is a bill that has to pass. We will work with the distinguished manager, and there is no better, I might add, than the manager of this particular bill. We will work with him to see that we have the opportunity to pass this legislation and do what we must to assure that farmers have the resources they need. I cannot think of a more important issue than this. I cannot think of a better time than this for us to respond. I hope that on a bipartisan basis we will see fit to pass this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, and as a cosponsor of the resolution, I send it to the desk at this time.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in light of the statements that have just been made and the time consumed by the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that each side have 10 minutes to debate the pending amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will have the opportunity to discuss, in greater detail, the remarks just made by the distinguished majority leader. Let me just say that our interest, too, is to have a bipartisan review of the actions taken with regard to the technology transfer in China. But I do hope that it will be bipartisan. The majority leader gave what I would view to be a pretty partisan report this morning with regard to the allegations pending on this particular matter, and I will have a very thorough response to the majority leader at some point today. I do believe that the issue warrants our review. As he said, this is a constitutional responsibility, but it also warrants objectivity and very thoughtful and careful consideration of the facts. Many of the reports the distinguished majority leader cited were allegations that have yet to be proven, allegations reported--he mentioned the New York Times on a number of occasions--allegations reported, citing unidentified sources, and what I would consider to be very questionable sources with regard to the information reported in some cases. So we are going to have to be very careful about the distinction between allegation and fact, the distinction between what has actually occurred and what is reported or what is alleged to have occurred. So I hope that we can do that, as he noted, in a bipartisan way, thoroughly and very carefully examining the facts and coming to some conclusion prior to the time we issue any reports.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I am not sure the request has been clarified--Senator Grassley, Senator Dodd, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Murray. That order would be appropriate.