Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arkansas have 3 minutes and the Senator from Nebraska have 3 minutes to complete our side of the debate.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me thank the distinguished chairman for his kindness. He has agreed to allow us the use of 2 of his minutes. As I understand it, I have 4 minutes of leader time remaining.

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

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds of additional time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes of my leader time to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the amendment I offer this afternoon represents what I hope will be a consensus here about farm policy and the direction we take in agriculture for the next 7 years. We seek many of the same things, Republicans and Democrats. We want to ensure that we protect rural America to the extent we can. Democrats believe protecting rural America means ensuring it will provide a safety net for farmers in the difficult times, when prices are low, when crops are poor. We want to provide the maximum degree of flexibility, giving farmers a chance to plant what they want, to recognize the market changes, and to ensure they can respond to those changes as quickly and efficiently and successfully as possible. We want to simplify the complex programs that exist today, making them easier to administer, reducing the administrative intensity and the frustration levels of farmers themselves. Finally, we want to guarantee that farm programs do not end when this legislation expires. That is the purpose of the amendment I offer this afternoon. I do so with the recognition that we have many very diverse elements within our caucus and within the Senate. In spite of that diversity, we have Senators from the South and the West, the East and the North who have cosponsored this legislation with me this afternoon. I am very disappointed, frankly, that it has come to this, that we have not been able to work, as we have on so many occasions in the past, to come up with farm policy that is much more bipartisan than this has been so far. Unfortunately, as a result, we do not have a comprehensive bill before us today. We have a very narrow budget bill that fails to address many of the very legitimate concerns of rural America. While the underlying legislation provides for the freedom to farm approach, this amendment will address what we view to be many of the shortcomings, many of those areas that in our view fall short of what we need to do to address in a comprehensive way farm legislation for the next 7 years. The amendment does a number of things, Mr. President, that I believe are supported by a vast majority of our caucus and hopefully by a majority of the Senate. We provide, as I said, the maximum degree of flexibility. The whole farm base is provided with restrictions only on fruits, vegetables and potatoes. There is no acreage reduction whatsoever. We retain permanent law, reinstating the Agricultural Act of 1949 at the expiration of the so-called freedom to farm act. We establish permanent law for rice at the 1995 levels. We set out a 3-year farm program instead of a 7-year program, only because we really do not know what the circumstances are going to be in 3 years. We do not know what the market conditions are going to be. We do not know how far short this legislation will fall in a whole range of areas. Rather than simply commit to 7 years and hope for the best, this legislation says we should take a hard look at where we are in 3 years, make whatever adaptations we have to make, and make sure we have covered all of our bases so we are not left high and dry in 3 years without the protection that permanent law provides. We remove the caps on loan rates contained in the freedom to farm act. We remove the Findley and stocks-to-use triggers, and set loan rates for wheat, feedgrains, oilseeds and rice at 90 percent of the Olympic average. We limit county adjustments to 3 percent. There is an advance deficiency payment with no repayment necessary. That advance payment is 20 cents per bushel for corn, 43 cents for wheat, 4.9 cents per pound for cotton and 1.54 per hundredweight for rice. The remaining payment is tied to production and market conditions, the market conditions dictating the degree to which we have an additional payment. This is not a locked-in, 100 percent guarantee to those who own land, whether they farm or not. This is not one of those commitments to corporate agriculture that, indeed, they are entitled to under freedom to farm without any requirement that they farm at all, which is obviously the subject of the Dorgan amendment. We restore the farmer-owned reserve. We restore the Emergency Livestock Feed Program. We eliminate the Commodity Credit Corporation interest rate increase as Senator Harkin attempted to do. We eliminate the prohibition of Commodity Credit Corporation funds. We reduce the EQIP herd size eligibility to EPA point source numbers. We allow enrollment in the Water Conservation Program and create a Farmland Protection Act to protect against urban sprawl. We create a conservation escrow account. We include a sense of the Senate provision on methyl bromide, encouraging Federal coordination on this issue, something we have to do ultimately in California if we are going to deal with this issue effectively. We reauthorize the Integrated Farm Management Program. We provide tenant protection regarding the freedom-to-farm contracts. We provide assistance to protect the Everglades. Mr. President, in essence, this amendment is a comprehensive farm bill. This is what we should have done. This is legislation addressing virtually every concern that farmers and others throughout the country have raised--many of which go unaddressed in the so-called freedom-to- farm act. I have a large number of people who have asked to be heard on the bill and, to protect our time, I will reserve the balance of our time, yielding first 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Montana for his eloquence and the tremendous effort he has demonstrated in putting this comprehensive package together. His effort and his leadership are deeply appreciated. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Just stay here a couple hours.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, does the Senator object to Senator Wellstone discussing the amendment? It does not have to be----

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if the Senator would just yield for a moment, let me just say with regard to this agreement, while the agreement calls for 15 amendments, that does not preclude Senators from working out amendments that may be accepted by the managers. I hope that Senator Lugar, in his normal fashion, who is very accommodating and able to work with both sides of the aisle very well, can do that on a number of these issues. It was with that understanding that we have this agreement. There could be a number of these issues that will not require a debate or a vote. I hope throughout the day we could do that. But it is very important for Senators, at least on this side of the aisle, to come down to the floor in the early hours tomorrow morning so we can decide which ones can be accepted and which ones are going to need to be scheduled for votes. So there is no excuse if people have not come down by midmorning. I hope that everybody can be here. We will be here, ready to go. I hope that everyone understands we are working under some constraints here, so the sooner they get here the better. And the more we can accommodate our managers in coming up with ways with which to offer these amendments that will allow them to accept them, we ought to do so.

Mr. DASCHLE. That is a good idea.

Mr. DASCHLE. Was it the leader's intention to come in at 7:30 in the morning?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object on that, just for clarification, I think the leader and I would encourage, if there is not a Senator on one side, that we would just go ahead and--the idea would be to alternate. We will leave it to the managers to make that determination.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. While Senator Wyden greets his new colleagues, let me just say how much we appreciate his presence and how delighted we are he has now joined our ranks. My wife, Linda, and I want to congratulate his wife, Laurie Wyden, and his children, Lilly Wyden and Adam Wyden, as they celebrate their father's victory, as well. We are very enthusiastic about the opportunity to serve with Senator Wyden. We look forward to a long and productive career for him in the Senate. Let me thank him for all of his good service in the years he has already served in the House of Representatives, and let me again express our enthusiasm and our congratulations to him personally. Let me also congratulate the State of Oregon for the fine way with which it conducted the campaign. They may have set a new marker for the rest of us and yet another example of democracy at its finest. We will look with great interest as other States experiment with mail-in balloting. If it will produce the same result as the result in Oregon, let me say, I enthusiastically endorse it. [Applause, laughter.]

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I agree with much of what we just heard the majority leader say. He said we should have passed a farm bill a long time ago. I agree. He said we should strike while the iron is hot. I agree. He said that we need bipartisanship. I agree. He said the farmers are clamoring for us to get something done. I agree. The leader did not explain why it is that we have not been able to pass a piece of farm legislation in the Senate Agriculture Committee. He did not explain why we have not had this bill pending before us, as we have every 5 years for the last 60 years. He did not indicate, as I know he understands, that we have never sent a bill to President Clinton as a freestanding piece of farm legislation. Everyone knows the history here, and everyone knows that this legislation was incorporated--a better word is ``buried''--in the budget reconciliation bill. That is where the legislation was, and that is what the President vetoed. So we are here this afternoon with the prospect of voting on a farm bill that has not been subject to one amendment, has not been subject to one day of debate. We would be locking into law, if cloture is invoked, legislation that would eliminate permanent farm law for the first time in 60 years, that would do things about which most Senators today still are not completely appreciative. Why? Because we have not had a debate. I agree, as I said, with the leader that now is the time to get the job done. But if we are truly going to get the job done, why is it that we would take an all-or-nothing attitude? We had an opportunity to pass a compromise. I felt very encouraged in the last several days as we worked with the distinguished Chair. He is as forthcoming and as willing to work with us as any chairman. I applaud him for his efforts. We worked with the majority leader's staff, and with staff on our side, in the expectation that we could break this impasse. I think we were within reach, within grasp of achieving a meaningful compromise. Why, for some reason, there was a change of heart on the other side of the aisle, I do not know. All I know is that we missed that opportunity to bring a compromise to the floor, to have a good vote, to work through this piece of legislation with an expectation that we could finish by the end of the day tomorrow. I still would like to see us do that. Let us do, for Heaven's sake, what we have always done on a piece of legislation this controversial and this far-reaching. Let us consider important amendments, and let us deal with this debate in a way that will allow us to make the very best decisions. Let us not take the all- or-nothing attitude that is expressed by some on the other side. Let us not ignore the consequences of ending permanent law. All we are asking is an opportunity to offer amendments, not to be precluded from offering them. The majority has a lot of rights around here, but one right should not be to preclude the minority from making what they consider to be very important improvements in this legislation. We want the rights that we have fought for every day we have come to the Senate floor. I must say, Mr. President, that nothing is more important than that. Put aside for a moment the issue of farming and all of the serious policy implications of the current farm proposal; put those aside. Just remember how critical it is that Senators have the right to offer amendments and not be impeded by the parliamentary process that could be put in place under cloture. I do not want that to happen on this bill, or on any piece of legislation, for which there has been no debate or amendments. There may come a time when we are going to have to invoke cloture-- when I would support it. But not today, not under the circumstances, and not without having a good debate and, certainly, not with the expectation that this ultimately will go nowhere. A justified Presidential veto of this legislation would put us right back where we started. We do not want that; farmers do not want that. Let us work through this and get a compromise that will allow us a meaningful opportunity to come together, and I will predict passage by an overwhelming vote, certainly by the end of the day tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Let me commend the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, and in particular our minority ranking member, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] for the remarkable job he has done in bringing us to the point we achieved today. Were it not for his contribution and leadership and incredible determination over the last several months, we would simply not have achieved what we achieved this afternoon. Senator Hollings deserves commendation on both sides of the aisle. I publicly want to again thank him for the effort that he put forth, for the remarkable teamwork that he demonstrated in allowing us the opportunity to at long last achieve what we have all hoped we could achieve. So I commend Senator Hollings and others who were involved, certainly the Senator from South Dakota, and I am very pleased with the result this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Assuming we have an agreement to talk about, but I was told that we were close to an agreement. I felt it was important that we set a time, if it were possible to do that, and then immediately go back to the floor and continue our work.

Mr. DASCHLE. Hopefully.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to commend those who have been involved in these discussions. I think we have made a lot of progress in the last several hours. We just had a caucus. I think it is fair to say that much of what we reported to them was very well received. I think the question is whether or not, without having finalized the agreement and without knowing for sure just how it all affects current law, whether or not we are in a position yet tonight to come to closure. I think we are getting closer. I hope we can continue these negotiations, have an agreement that we could send out to everybody so in the next couple of days they could take a look at it, and then have a vote within a very limited timeframe on Tuesday. I would like to see if we can finish this on Tuesday and limit the votes and try to move this process along. So, I share the leader's desire to come to closure and his expressed hope that we could do it as early as next Tuesday.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased that after years of struggle, the Senate has before it, a telecommunications reform conference report that represents the dawning of a new telecommunications era in this country. I want to commend the Commerce Committee chairman, Senator Pressler, and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their hard work and efforts in bringing a measure before us today that will enhance true competition in telecommunications without shortchanging American consumes. This is complex and potentially far-reaching legislation, that will affect an economic sector that constitutes 20 percent of our economy, and whose services reach virtually every American. Mr. President, this bill is all about competition in telephone services, cable services, information and data services, and broadcasting services. By unleashing these competitive forces, innovation and progress will flourish in the rapidly expanding telecommunications field, and will greatly increase the opportunity for every citizen to affordably access the rapidly changing world of advanced telecommunications technology. While this legislation focuses on competition and deregulation, the conference report contains essential rural safeguards in the form of universal service provisions that will benefit our rural communities and greatly increase their ability to persevere in the 21st century. There is little doubt that our urban areas can and will sustain the enormous expansion of telecommunications services in the years ahead. We must make certain that our rural areas are not left behind as services expand and new products come on line. In the long run, universal service at high standards nationwide is in the best interests of the entire economy. I believe that telecommunications reform is essential in preserving the economic vitality of rural America and am optimistic that the affordable accessibility to these new telecommunications services will be the harbinger for a new renaissance among the main street economies in communities throughout rural America. Already, many in my home State of South Dakota are beginning to realize the importance and value of telecommunications services. Many small, rural medical clinics and hospitals are linking together with larger, more urban hospitals via telemedicine to provide their citizens with a higher quality of care. Children in schools that are hundreds of miles from the nearest population center can now have access to the world's greatest libraries at their fingertips. An increasing number of South Dakota agricultural producers are determining weather forecasts and market reports with a simple keystroke. And all across main street South Dakota, small businesses are reducing their overhead via networking services, reducing their paper work through electronic mail, and saving thousands of dollars a year in travel expenses through their use of teleconferencing. And all of this is just the beginning, As these technologies continue to develop, the playing field for economic development will begin to level. South Dakota is already enjoying the benefits of advanced telecommunications and they can only stand to benefit from further telecommunications reform. The bill before us also recognizes the important role that must be played by Public Utilities Commissions [PUC's] in rural States. PUC's are the best entities to judge whether a given market within their State can support competition. That's not a judgment we should make from Washington. Nor is it something we can or should leave to the unbridled, unsupervised judgment of the private sector. Those who have taken the risks and made the investments to extend cable or phone services to smaller rural communities should not be placed a risk of being overwhelmed by larger, better-financed companies. I want to note, Mr. President, that consideration of this conference report was delayed by the concerns raised by Senator Dole and others about the future use of broadcast spectrum. There is no question that the issues surrounding national spectrum management policy are complex, and worthy of full debate and thorough consideration in the Congress. I am pleased that the telecommunications conference report, which in my view is not a spectrum giveaway bill, will move to the President's desk for his signature. Mr. President, let me once again congratulate the distinguished chairman and ranking member for their efforts in producing this telecommunications reform conference report. Having been raised in a small community in rural South Dakota, I can truly remark with wonder and appreciation at the rapid pace in which our communities are being brought together through the use of telecommunications services. The changes that have occurred in our lives due to these services have been remarkable, and have benefited society greatly. I believe that the telecommunications reform conference report before us today strikes the balance needed between deregulation and consumer protection to allow these services to continue their remarkable advances in improving our society and preparing us for the challenges ahead.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say how gratified we are that the distinguished Chair of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has made such a remarkable effort to resolve the outstanding reservations that some may have with regard to the bill that she and Senator Kennedy have worked on now for some time. She has been persistent, and I believe that ultimately she will be successful. I am very hopeful that we can continue to work to pass this important health reform legislation in a timely way. I believe she has demonstrated remarkable patience in her effort. I feel confident that at some point in the future when we are able to bring this piece of legislation to the floor, it will not take long. I think there is broad recognition of the need to do much of what she has proposed in the legislation. I think it would be significant movement forward, and I think it could be one of the most consequential of our accomplishments in the 104th Congress. I commend her for her effort and look forward to working with her.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his strong statement just now. I wish to associate myself completely with his remarks. I think it is fair to say that we all agree we are in a mess, we are in a big mess, and there are a lot of reasons why we find ourselves in the situation we are in this afternoon. The last time we failed to produce a farm bill was the year I was born, 1947. Coincidentally, it was the last time Republicans controlled the Congress. We should have passed this legislation, as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas said, last year, but the bill did not even come to the floor. The bill was not even allowed up for debate. It was the first time in memory, and may be the first time ever--we are checking it now--that legislation this important passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee on a strict party-line vote. It was then, as everyone recalls, buried in the budget agreement, and it went absolutely nowhere. And now here we are in February of 1996 considering a farm bill for 1995. Even if we passed a piece of legislation as radical as this is, let there be no mistake, it will take months and months and months for the Department of Agriculture to get set up to administer it. So the situation is very unfortunate. Farmers are out there clamoring, as the distinguished Senator from Iowa said, for some answers. They need to know the 1996 winter wheat crop has been planted, southern crops are going to be planted this month, and farmers should not be put in the untenable position of making huge investments in their agricultural operations without knowing anything about what farm policy will be this year or the next. Last year, farmers were prevented from planting due to excessive rain. This year, they will be prevented from planting due to excessive politics. There is only one option for 1996--only one. I do not like it. Not many people here would consider it their first option. It certainly is not mine. But there is no other alternative right now but to extend for 1 year at least current legislation. We need to extend current law only because we have to provide farmers with that certainty. It is no secret that we have put a tremendous amount of effort and time into finding an alternative that we feel very excited about. It is no secret that there may not be a resolution between the Farm Security Act and the so-called freedom-to-farm bill. But there is a realization that we have to do something, and there is no possibility of doing anything with the mess we are in right now. We have to do what the Senator from Iowa has suggested, and that is give farmers the maximum degree of flexibility. We need to extend current law but ensure that those farmers who have to have additional flexibility are given every opportunity to do so. Plant whatever their management dictates, whatever their desires may be given current marketing conditions. There ought to be no constraints at all on their ability to make decisions for themselves. Farmers are familiar with the current legislation. Prices are relatively high. The administration infrastructure for the current farm bill is in place. Most importantly, Mr. President, we can do it today. What some of my Republican colleagues want to do at this late date is to pass the most radical farm bill in 60 years. They eliminate permanent law; they slash the conservation reserve, one of the most successful programs for conservation on the books this time or any time; they cut exports just when we need to expand the export markets abroad; we eliminate the farmer-owned reserve; we ignore completely the need for rural development, and we destroy research. And at the same time we do all of that, there are those on the other side who argue that we ought to be giving huge payments to farmers, whether or not they plant, regardless of whether they have good prices or not. I would like my Republican colleagues to explain to a small businessman or a working family why a farmer is entitled to a quarter of a million dollar payment while they idle their land and spend a year in Hawaii. If a farmer could idle his land, not do a thing on it for an entire year, go to Hawaii and spend that quarter of a million dollars, why cannot a small businessman or a working family or anybody else do that? How ironic that at this very time when we are trying to cut back and reduce the tremendous budgetary exposure we have in so many ways, we can find ways with which to give farmers huge payments whether they do anything to farm or not. Mr. President, the closer you look, the worse this gets. Even with the laudable improvements Senator Leahy has suggested that we make to the freedom to farm, this bill is a disaster. I was very pleased for the letter we received just this morning from a large number of very reputable organizations--including the National Audubon Society; Environmental Working Group; Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture; Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Rural Housing Coalition; National Family Farm Coalition--who are saying that even with the Leahy improvements, they are very strongly in opposition to passing this so-called freedom to farm. Most important, Mr. President, the President has indicated that he will veto this legislation if we were to see it pass and sent to him for signature. He is making the right decision. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary Glickman, laying out the President's grave concerns about this bill, be printed in the Record at this time.