Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I respect the Senator from Indiana, also.

Mr. FORD. I do not know that there are a great deal of additional thoughts that we need to discuss. I could go down--one of the things that I want people to understand is that we are not just doing away with the tobacco quota. Oh, we are paying them some money, but the average, I don't think, is going to be much over $20,000, divided by 3 years. And the taxes are paid. Anywhere from 15 to 20 percent of the value of Kentucky farmland is based on the tobacco quota. In rural Kentucky, banks will not lend to farmers unless they know the value of their tobacco quota. Real estate does not sell without disclosing the amount of tobacco quota on a farm. You can't sell a farm without disclosing that. That is an important feature. If you read the real estate section of the Kentucky newspapers, you will see the amount of tobacco quota advertised with the sale of the farmland. So if the program is done away with, then the value of the land is reduced anywhere from 15 to 20 percent, and that is up to $7 billion. So we are not only taking away the livelihood, we are also reducing the value of the product this farmer has worked all his life to hold. There is something here that I believe is fundamental--fairness. And under the Lugar bill, that is not fair. So this will have major, devastating consequences on the tax base in rural Kentucky--all because of the hostility of title XV toward the small tobacco farm. The Lugar alternative is really no alternative at all when you look at what happens to that tobacco farmer. It gives him a little money, and he is out. And we reduce the value of his land. He pays big sums of tax on it. If it is 20 percent, fine, but he has to figure some way. So, Mr. President, I do not know what the majority leader or the Democratic leader would like to do. I understand we have a joint meeting tonight, with both sides, beginning at 6:30. We are getting reasonably close to that. So in order to find out if it is all right with the Senator from Indiana, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we will discuss this amendment, I am sure, at great length. We have here a system for producers who are experiencing farm income loss which we feel is only fair and will help farmers all across the country. Members have heard two of our distinguished colleagues and the chairman of the Commerce Committee saying that they hope we can move forward with passage of this bill this week. I do, too. I also want to say I have a lot to say about this amendment I have just offered because it goes to the heart of this bill for me and for my constituents and it deals directly, it deals most directly, with how my constituents are treated. Very briefly, if the quota is removed, you make the tobacco companies another $1 billion a year. If you remove the tobacco quota, the value of the land in Kentucky to my farmers is reduced up to $7 billion. A farmer could go to bed tonight having a mortgage that was completely covered by the land he owned or had mortgaged, and we take the tobacco quota away from him and he wakes up the next morning and he doesn't have enough value for that land to cover his mortgage, and his mortgage is called. So I think it is important that we begin to look at the ramifications of losing the tobacco program as we know it. We have tried to put into this amendment the transition from where we are today as it relates to the tobacco program to what might come in the future if we reduce underage smoking. I am very much for the reduction of underage smoking. Let's put that up front. I have no problem with that. But in the fact of reducing teen smoking or underage smoking, it is pretty tough to put people out of business. So we will be discussing this amendment for some time. My colleague and friend from Virginia, Senator Robb--and there will be other Senators on our side--will be supporting this amendment, and I think there will be some Senators on the other side of the aisle who may want to speak, who will be supporting this amendment. What I do under this amendment is to strike title XV, and that is doing away with the tobacco program and using 69 percent of all the moneys in this bill for health programs, for research, and for child care. It is very, very important not only to the farmers of my State but those health groups. We have 24 health groups in this country that have endorsed the LEAF program. The smoke-free kids--there is a letter on your desk that shows that they support the LEAF Act. ENACT supports the LEAF Act. All farmer organizations, practically, that have some longevity to them support the LEAF Act. Let me summarize the main reasons why title XV must not remain in this bill. Now, title XV is designed, whether on purpose or not, to save tobacco companies $1 billion a year. So you get down and the vote ultimately will be: Are you going to vote for the farmers? Are you going to vote for the cigarette manufacturers? Are you going to take $1 billion off the backs of the tobacco farmers and give that saving to the cigarette manufacturers? Make no mistake, title XV forces Senators to choose between the tobacco companies and the tobacco farmers. Unless we want to save tobacco companies $1 billion per year at the expense of the tobacco farmer, the motion to strike must be supported. Now, title X, not title XV, is supported overwhelmingly by a majority of tobacco farm organizations. I have a list of all those and probably will insert those in the Record or read them later. Title XV is not supported by the public health community. The public health community supports the LEAF Act. They support retaining the program. They support keeping control over the growth of tobacco and the prices high. So, it is heartening that the health groups and the tobacco groups have gotten together and signed the core principles. Those core principles are to reduce underage smoking, to keep the tobacco program. All these principles are out there. If this motion passes, the public health programs and health research programs in this bill, if my amendment passes, we save 69 percent of all the moneys that would go into the health research and development. Title XV eats up 47 percent of the funds in the bill over the first 3 years. Title XV, known as the Lugar-McConnell amendment, already has an amendment at the desk, and that amendment says that all the money in this bill, up to 47 percent, will go to that program in the first 3 years. So 40 percent to the States, 47 percent to this program; that is 87 percent of all the money. Where are you going to get the marriage penalty? How are you going to do the drug amendment that Senator Coverdell put up? So, we will talk about how title X was developed. I think my colleague from Virginia wishes to make some remarks. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it has been a good debate, and I have enjoyed it. I am not learned in debate. Whatever skills I might have come from experience. I have been around here a little longer than the Senator from Indiana. This is my 24th year, and I believe this is maybe his 21st or 22nd. Of course, he was mayor of Indianapolis; I believe, one of the favorite mayors at that time. He said after I leave the Senate, the tobacco program is gone. Can you believe one Senator can be that strong? The first thing I learned when I came here was that every Senator is independent. Every Senator has one vote. He controls that out here and nobody controls him. I just can't believe it, but it is in the Record, and I might cut it out of the Record and frame that statement from a Member of the other side. I was sitting here thinking about the money and how much is available. If the Senator's amendment stays in, this amendment will have to go beyond the 16 percent. But, if you get 46 percent in the first year, that is where you need 60 percent of the first year's money. That is $8 billion that you will have to pay out the first year. That is 60 percent. I suggest it will be close to 60 percent in the second year and the third year. If the Senator wins, he might want to change the percentage on that amendment. The Senator says that public health groups say regulation of tobacco will be less efficient. I believe that is his statement. On the one hand, he says funding is not important; on the other hand, he says there is a ticking time bomb of explosion. I don't quite understand that money is not important. He says funding is not important but, on the other hand, there is a ticking time bomb. Senators should know that Senator Lugar is promoting his proposal because it would increase tobacco production. He said that--increase tobacco production, going to make it more efficient, all those good things. But he is promoting the increase in tobacco production. Ask the public health groups what they think about that. Ask a small farmer what he thinks about that: a production increase for big farmers, fine, while the small ones are out of business. I don't believe the Senator would like it if he was back in his home in Indiana, and he has value of land--they talk about the money up front and they can make an investment, but when you lose hundreds of dollars per acre in value of your farm, I am not sure how well you come out in this, and they put them out of business. At least 90 percent of my small farmers in Kentucky are gone, and that is a conservative estimate, not a liberal estimate, but a conservative estimate. We are getting to the point where it is very difficult for me to understand, and I think the Senator is having a hard time defending his position when he is wanting to increase the growth of tobacco, reduce the price and save the tobacco companies a billion dollars. I say to the Senator, that is true, and it may be even more than that, because four companies control 98 percent of the growth of tobacco. We have a hard time exporting tobacco because other countries are growing it, and companies have promoted some of that. So we limit it. Like everybody else, we limit it, and it is a pretty large limit on imports, to 150,000 metric tons or more. Somebody has to be thinking through all of this as much as we are, and those people who are thinking through this are the health groups that have been fighting so long as it relates to reducing the use of tobacco by underage children. Something quite remarkable, I say to the Senator from Indiana, occurred on March 16 of this year. Remember that date, March 16. On that day, March 16, 16 tobacco farming groups and 24 public health groups came together to agree on a common set of core principles. You talk about health groups now. Here are 16 tobacco farm groups and 24 public health groups that came together to agree on a common set of core principles to guide the debate--to guide the debate--on tobacco legislation. Both sides and all 40 groups agreed that ``a tobacco control program which limits supply and which sets a minimum purchase price is in the best interest of the public health community.'' That is a pretty strong statement by the health groups, and in conjunction with the tobacco interests. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in a letter dated May 13, ``those public health groups who signed the core principles remain committed to the principles outlined in them, including maintenance of a supply limiting tobacco program.'' What we are doing here is--I believe it is under title IV of the bill, and I am sure the Senator knows what title IV is, but that limits the amount of money that can be spent for agricultural purposes under this bill. The LEAF Act is under that limit. The Senator's amendment is about three times or four times over that limit. But we are within that limit. This is approved by the health groups. Instead of cutting them off at the knees in 36 months, we give them a little more time to phaseout. They can sell out, they can buy out. I have a list of all of the groups that signed the core principles, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, American College of Chest Physicians, Association of Schools of Public Health, the Oncology Nursing Society, Partnership for Prevention, National Hispanic Medical Association--I can go down all these groups that think keeping the program is the right thing to do and saving $18 billion. I might say to my colleagues, saving $18 billion for the use for research and health care and all these other things. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the public health groups that signed the core principles be printed in the Record.

Mr. FORD. The Senator's word is as good as gold. I have no problem with that. All I want to do is, after you get through, I imagine I will have something else to say, and then it will probably be dinnertime. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rob Mangas and Dave Regan be admitted to the floor during debate and vote of this amendment.

Mr. FORD. I will be glad to give the Senator an opportunity to speak as long as he doesn't make a motion. When we get to a vote on this, I would like to have some agreement, if we could, as it relates to a vote.

Mr. FORD. I hope.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Just to be sure that the two leaders understand what we want then.

Mr. FORD. I wish I could be a little fly on the wall and listen to it, but I won't be able to do that.

Mr. FORD. I say to my friend that we can do it a little bit later. I thought when we first talked, there would be a hiatus until whatever time the conference was over. Apparently, now the conference will not occur.

Mr. FORD. I thought at the time you and I could have an agreement, as the two managers here, to make a decision on when we would have that vote, or some time prior that we have a chance to say a few words.

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a question so we might understand tomorrow?

Mr. FORD. I ask the Senator this. We have morning business from 9:30 to 10:30. I didn't hear the Senator. Are we out at 10:30 in recess?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Bumpers) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank my friend. I will not mistreat him until I tell him I am going to. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. He is alive. Mr. McCain. In that the bill is alive, than I did some sense of exhilaration. So I also am very aware of how difficult this agriculture--tobacco farmer issue is to the Senator from Kentucky. He and I have worked together for many, many years on many, many issues. I know the Senator from Kentucky and I have such a relationship that he will not be mistreated, given the consideration which he deserves on this issue.

Mr. FORD. I will be more than happy to do that. As the majority leader set out the sequence of getting this bill out of here, that we would have to pull a bill from the calendar in order to have a tax bill to put this one on to get it back to the House, there are a lot of slips between the lip and the cup before this bill will leave the Chamber as it relates to the farmer question. I thank the Chair. Mr. McCain. As I mentioned yesterday, after we passed the drug bill and had an agreement to move forward with tax cuts, I felt a lot more like Bob Hope felt----

Mr. FORD. I thank my friend. When you go to the marriage penalty amendment, or at least the minority has an opportunity to visit with it, and then you indicate that you want to go maybe to the substitute-- you have at least one, possibly two--would it take a unanimous consent agreement to set aside the pending amendments, then, in order to go to the substitutes?

Mr. FORD. And I prefer it not to be under cloture, when my time is limited. Mr. McCain. I understand. I think it is important the Senator's concerns be satisfied. I think the Senator from Massachusetts and I, along with the leaders, should sit down with him and try to address this very important concern that he has.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FORD

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

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is necessarily absent.