Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. May we have order?

Mr. FORD. I am trying to find out an answer here. I understand the marriage penalty. I am opposed to it, and I am trying to find an answer to it and the unfairness of it. In 1986, we repealed the two-earner deduction, but increased the standard deduction for married couples, and reduced the number of tax brackets from 15 to 2. The combination of these changes reduced the marriage penalty considerably. Now it appears the EITC gets involved here, and I understand the distinguished senior Senator from Texas is eliminating that, or is he keeping that in?

Mr. FORD. They can't.

Mr. FORD. I say to my friend, I take this as if they were doing it to me as an individual and saying that you are going to be penalized--I am going to be penalized if your program doesn't work. And some companies, a brand only has about 1 percent of youth. They don't like it, and they don't use it. But if you reduce it down, if it is 1 percent, which one brand is, then you have to reduce that to six-tenths of 1 percent. That becomes very difficult when it is all adults. I agree with what you are trying to do. I hope somehow or another we can make it fair rather than unfair.

Mr. FORD. I don't believe it is unlawful to smoke. It is unlawful to purchase.

Mr. FORD. But the point here, then, is that I am putting out all this information, and it doesn't work; then you get fined. I am a little bit concerned about that. I understand where the Senator is coming from. But I think we need to cover one more base, that if the tobacco industry is going to be responsible for the percentage reduction, and, if it isn't, then they pay, they ought to be able to be charged with advertising, or something, rather than letting HHS do it. And if it doesn't work, they get penalized. As we say down home, ``Something about that ain't right,'' and I hope the Senator, with all his knowledge of this area, would look somehow to be sure that, if you are going to be charged with a penalty here, somehow you ought to have some input on how it is completed. You might be able to clear me up on that.

Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. FORD. The marriage bonus still stays there at $32 billion? The bonus is $32 billion? Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. Now.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I correct the Senator?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I agree with that, and I will try to help. My pleadings have fallen on hard times.

Mr. FORD. We did until we got problems on this side.

Mr. FORD. I appreciate it. I want you to know--I want everybody to know--we are trying to operate in an efficient manner, and other things are jeopardizing the ability to do it in an efficient manner. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend from South Carolina. I am not a lawyer, and I don't understand all the work that lawyers do. When I was growing up, my dad said a little knowledge of the law is dangerous. Get yourself a good lawyer and stay with him or her. That is what I have tried to do. I have been in the insurance business, and I understand that very well. How many times has an independent agent down in some small community--and I have done it on many occasions--been asked to make bids on a piece of property or on a fleet of trucks or liability, or whatever it might be, and the staff in that little agency work for hours, day and night, putting together a comprehensive bid. Lo and behold, we lose. That is part of the game. Then we get another bid. It may be on a county or on a city, and we work for days and into the nights putting together a comprehensive bid. And we lose. But lo and behold, one time we submit a comprehensive bid and what happens? We win. It makes us feel good. But then somebody comes along and says, ``Ford, you've made too much money.'' Well, I have lost 100 times and finally win one and they say, ``Ford, you've made too much money, you just can't do that.'' So they limit the amount of money I can make as an insurance agent. It is the same thing that happened yesterday. Ninety-eight percent of the farmers who have tobacco quotas voted to keep the farm program. But in here, on the Senate floor yesterday afternoon, they said that 98 percent didn't know what they were talking about--``We're going to wipe out the quotas because we know more than you do.'' That is why they don't like politicians in Washington. They don't want to do what their constituents want them to do. Here we are saying after 98 percent of the people voted one way, ``You don't know what you want, and we're going to take care of you.'' It is the same way with the attorneys general. Over 40 of them took on the tobacco industry. It was a pretty awesome cause, and they have won. They worked out a deal. Now we say, ``After you have done all that, you can't charge that much.'' You sign a contingency fee. What is a contract for? Are we the ``big brothers'' that vitiate contracts? I don't think so. You talk about protecting little fellows. As I understand the tobacco deal, it came from a little fellow whose secretary lost her mother, and he figured out that the States could sue. A little fellow made it, and he came along and others joined with him. We are now saying to these 40-some-odd attorneys general, ``You don't know what you're doing, you paid too much.'' We weren't even in on it. We didn't even help. But now in the end, we say, ``No, you can't have that, that's too much.'' They took the chance. How much did it cost? How much did they pay? Everything they have paid comes out of this hourly cap. I am sure that some lawyers do better than others. Lord, when I was in the insurance business, I would have loved to have had a boat. I had a johnboat I fished in, and I was proud of it. I had a decent automobile--I didn't have a jet to fly around in --but I was proud of it. I made it by being competitive. I went to the people who had an opportunity to give me a chance, and I asked them, ``Can I bid?'' We worked it that way.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, are we swapping sides now?

Mr. FORD. About 4 minutes.

Mr. FORD. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. FORD. I ask for 1 more minute. Now we are saying you can't just do it. If there ever was an intrusion in private practice, private business--I am surprised at the Republican side. Ninety-eight percent of the farmers say we want it one way, and they say, ``You can't have it because you don't know what you're talking about.'' Lawyers go out and win a case, and they say, ``You've got too much by winning, we're going to take it away from you.'' I don't understand what this body is trying to do. I don't want you to take anything out of my pocket, but that is the name of the game, as I see it, and when you win, you win; when you lose, you lose. When you lose, you pay it all. When you win, you get to pay off what it cost you. You don't put all that in your pocket. So I go back to the insurance business. We spent hours and hours trying to be competitive and win one. But we did not win them all. We lost a lot of them. But when we did win one, I would not want somebody coming along saying, ``You have made too much.'' It is like gambling. You have to pay--they had an amendment around here saying, ``If you win, you have to pay tax on it; but if you lose, you can't deduct it.'' Oh, we are doing pretty good around here, Mr. President. I hope that someday we can come down and have a little common sense and we can try to work this to the advantage of everybody in this country under the basis that we are competitive. It is a free system. And if you come out ahead, Lord, let's don't say, ``You made too much.'' Let us praise them for being good. The prize is being good. You made it work. So we are saying, ``If you are good, you are going to be handicapped.'' That sounds like a horse race to me. I come from Kentucky. We race thoroughbreds. If you have one that is way out front, you better put 126 pounds on him. If you have one that is light, you put 112 or 114. So that is what we are trying to do here. If you are a thoroughbred doing a good job, we are trying to handicap you from running a race. Well, Mr. President, I hope this amendment is not approved. I hope my friend from South Carolina wins on this one. Then we can get on to other things and help the farmers that have a tobacco quota. Let them win a little something in the days to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD. I apologize to the chairman. Could we have order? The Senate is not in order.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I am glad it is audible.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we are going into probably what can be called a frustrating period. It is difficult for me to in 30 minutes say what is in my heart and on my mind as it relates to the tobacco legislation.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair for his courtesies. He is a gentleman and a scholar. Mr. President, today the Senate begins what I hope is a productive debate on S. 1415, the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act. We have come a long way in this debate. But in the 15 weeks left in this session we also have a long way to go. Nothing surprises me anymore concerning tobacco legislation. Yesterday afternoon they asked me if I was surprised. I said no. I was angry. So, therefore, I wasn't surprised. Last year, I would not have believed the tobacco manufacturers, attorneys general, and public health groups would have agreed on a comprehensive settlement. But on June 20, 1997, a national settlement was announced. I would not have believed that the Senate Commerce Committee could have reported a bill of this magnitude, and to do so in only one day of markup. But on April 1st, under the leadership of the Senator from Arizona, the Commerce Committee did just that by a vote of 19 to 1. Last Thursday, the Finance Committee modified the bill again in only one day. But part of the explanation for the success of the chairman of the Commerce Committee was his ability to get Senators to wait to debate many issues. A lot of them were left to the Senate floor. This bill raises hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates of the Commerce Committee product range from $516 billion to almost $1 trillion. This is a tremendous amount of money by any standard. The Finance Committee increased the taxes raised by this bill even further. But not surprisingly, there is no shortage of ideas around here on what to do with the money. Some want to use it to offset tax cuts. Some want to expand existing spending programs. Some want to fund new spending programs. The one thing nearly all of these ideas have in common is that they have nothing to do with youth smoking. We have taken our eye off the problem of youth smoking. It is how can we raise more money and spend it on other programs. Somehow, almost miraculously, the two committee chairmen were able to get members of their committee to defer the debate on how to spend all of this money. But that debate cannot be deferred any longer, Mr. President--not if the Senate is actually going to pass a bill. With the confusion that was expressed here yesterday, there are some who are beginning to wonder if a bill can be passed. How all of this money is used goes to the very heart of the bill, and until we answer these fundamental questions, it is impossible to say with any certainty what kind of bill we have. Mr. President, there is an equally important issue that goes to the heart of the bill as well. It will define what this legislation is really all about. There is no more important issue to me personally than how we treat tobacco farmers and rural and tobacco-growing communities under this bill. In many ways, tobacco farmers and tobacco-growing communities are the innocent victims in this whole debate. They have not been sued. They have not been accused of withholding documents or information. They have not been accused of manipulating the tobacco grown on their farms. Mr. President, tobacco farmers and tobacco-growing communities are scared about what is going on in Washington, DC. They are bewildered at the almost daily barrage of hostile comments coming from various sources in this city. Most tobacco farmers are engaged in the same livelihood as their fathers, their grandfathers, and in some cases their great grandfathers on the same farm and on the same ground. Just like most Americans, tobacco farmers also don't want to see young people smoke. The poll in my State was something over 90 percent that opposed youth smoking. But they are having a hard time figuring out what some of the difficulties in Congress have to do with youth smoking. To most tobacco farmers much of the discussion in Congress sounds like an attempt to punish an industry with the youth smoking issue finishing a distant second. Tobacco farmers are being lumped in with tobacco manufacturers. A recent Congressional Quarterly article about the plight of tobacco farmers quoted one farmer from King, NC, about the tobacco debate in Congress. He said, and I quote: They are making us feel like drug dealers. That just burns me up. They put us in the tobacco industry when all we are doing is growing a legal crop. Tobacco farmers have been on a roller coaster ride for several years. But that ride has been almost out of control for the last year. Among the greatest disappointments was the June 20th settlement agreement itself. That agreement, which threatens to throw the lives of tobacco farmers into turmoil, did not provide one thin dime for tobacco farmers. Zero. Zip. The tobacco companies, attorneys general, and public health groups who were huddled in hotel rooms putting the deal together did not even invite tobacco farmers to the table. They would not let them in the door. It is tough to find words to express how insulting I found this. The June 20th tobacco settlement included money for event sponsors who would lose tobacco sponsorship under the settlement. The settlement had money for teams or entries in such events. They had money for NASCAR races. They had money for rodeos. Somehow, they found $750 million for these people. But there was nothing for tobacco farmers. Mr. President, tobacco farmers in my state were at first shocked by news of the settlement. Then they became angry. I encouraged them not to get mad, but to get to work. I urged them to come up with a plan for themselves, to help tobacco farmers and tobacco growing communities deal with the settlement. And Mr. President, tobacco farmers did go to work. I pledged to them last summer that I would do everything in my power to represent their interests, and to see to it that a proposal drafted by tobacco farmers would be included in any legislation considered by Congress. I'm here today to keep my word. Mr. President, there are 124,000 tobacco farm families producing the crop across 20 states in this country. That represents 6 percent of the farms in the United States. Most of these farms are in the southeast. On average, these tobacco farms are 126 acres--about one-third the size of the average U.S. farm. So we're talking about small, family farm operations. In Kentucky, tobacco is produced in 119 of 120 counties. Two-thirds of the farmers in my state produce tobacco. They average about 4 acres of tobacco. It is less than 3 percent of their cropland, yet it brings about 25 percent of their farm income. Most tobacco farmers in my state have family incomes of less than $35,000--including non-farm income. Make no mistake, we're talking about middle to low-income families. The tobacco settlement will have a significant negative impact on the family farms in my state, and this impact must be considered in any tobacco legislation. Tobacco farmers started meeting last summer to deal with the impact of the settlement. They came up with three general principles for tobacco settlement legislation: (1) the legislation must preserve the federal tobacco program; (2) fair compensation should be provided to tobacco farmers should their ability to produce the crop be diminished; and (3) the impact on tobacco farming communities should be taken into account. Mr. President, farms in my State and other States are valued with the quota. If the quota under the so-called Lugar-McConnell bill is implemented, from $2 billion to $4 billion in reduction of farmland value will occur in the fourth year because we lose the quota. What does that do? It has a rippling effect on local taxes, the tax base, the income for the cities and the counties, our school systems, to say nothing of the business community of these small communities. After countless meetings among tobacco farming groups from states like Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia, an outline of a tobacco farmer proposal came together. We worked hard to iron out details and put ``meat on the bones.'' I daresay, Mr. President, there are not many Senators who have sat on the porch of many grocery stores and talked to farmers. There are not many Senators in this body who have sat in the kitchen and had a cup of coffee with farm families, talking about what is about to happen to them and their future. I think I understand and feel what they say because I grew up on a farm and I raised tobacco until I was drafted into World War II. Finally, last October, I introduced the Long-term Economic Assistance for Farmers Act, or one we refer to as the LEAF Act. It was cosponsored by 9 tobacco state Senators. But our work didn't stop there. We continued to work through the winter and spring to improve the proposal. Finally, after nine months of work, a consensus proposal was developed to assist tobacco farmers and their communities. We have provided direct payments to farmers in the event their ability to produce declines. This is the very heart of the LEAF Act. It is designed to make farmers whole as the value of their assets decline. We also made changes to make tobacco companies pay for any possible administrative provisions associated with the tobacco program. Mr. President, I have been working for 16 years to eliminate any opportunity for critics to claim that there is a tobacco ``subsidy.'' In 1982, we started requiring tobacco farmers to pay for the tobacco loan program. I worked closely with Senator Helms to achieve these changes. Senators Thurmond, Hollings, and Warner were all in the Senate at that time, and will remember these changes. In 1986, we required tobacco companies to share in these costs. The tobacco loan program has operated at no net cost to taxpayers since that time. Still, there were criticisms. Salaries at USDA, crop insurance, and extension services all are partially attributable to tobacco. Mr. President, under the LEAF Act, all of these costs--and any other conceivable USDA cost associated with tobacco--will now be paid by tobacco companies. There will no longer be any basis, directly or indirectly, to allege that there is a tobacco subsidy. All possible taxpayer costs have been eliminated under the LEAF Act. And you know something, Mr. President. Our tobacco farmers make an extra payment, a deficit reduction payment that is taken out of their check before they get it from the warehouse and it goes to the general fund. Last year, it was almost $32 million. And not another farmer in this country--maybe the peanuts--makes a payment out of their check called a budget reduction payment. It was over $32 million last year. Mr. President, we have wanted to look beyond the tobacco farmer and the tobacco program. The LEAF Act attempts to take a broader view and deal with the entire impact on tobacco communities and the next generation. Why is it so important? We had to have some financial underwriting of the 13 colonies--and that was tobacco through Virginia. They underwrote the debt of the colonies. It has been around a long time. ``Mr. Jones came in to buy his spring planting and paid for it with some of the finest tobacco I have seen''--a quote from history. That was before we became colonies. The pages of Virginia history are splattered with tobacco juice. Just think about it. And they want to do away with it overnight. It cannot be done. We've included economic development assistance. We've included grants for higher education for the children of tobacco farm families. And we have included assistance for displaced workers who have jobs in warehousing, processing, and manufacturing tobacco. We understand things are changing for tobacco and we want to prepare these communities. Mr. President, I'm grateful to Senator McCain for his leadership in including the LEAF Act as Title Ten of S.1415. It's an essential part of the overall picture. It must be included in any tobacco settlement legislation. The LEAF Act has broad support among tobacco farming groups. It's supported by the public health community. President Clinton, who visited Kentucky in April, announced that the LEAF Act satisfies his fifth principle for tobacco legislation of providing assistance to tobacco farmers and tobacco growing communities. But let me provide fair warning, Mr. President. I will keep my pledge to my tobacco farmers. I will do everything in my power to oppose attempts to undermine the LEAF Act, or attack the federal tobacco program, or threaten the ability of tobacco farmers in my state to deal with the impact of the national tobacco settlement. How many farmers out there have 98 percent of their product controlled by four companies? There is no leverage. The tobacco farmers have no leverage if we don't have a tobacco program. We have four companies that handle 98 percent of all the product, so if we don't have that, we are at their mercy. I don't know how many farmers around here have heard of ``farm buy.'' They just go directly to the farm and buy it from big farmers, and the small farmer is gone, has no leverage whatsoever. And, as we see, people attack the farm program. A proposal has been made which is nothing short of a thinly veiled bribe to offer larger tobacco farmers a promised lump-sum payment in exchange for eliminating the tobacco program. We found out yesterday it is not a lump sum payment, it is 3 years. And if you look at the bill that was introduced, that is before the Senate, 50 percent of all the money goes to the States and 40 percent of that money will be taken up by the McConnell-Lugar bill. That leaves 10 percent for everybody else. But in the bill it says only 16 percent of the money can go to the farmer. Where are we on this--40 percent we would have to take in order to pay for it, yet the bill says only 16 percent? We are going to try to correct that if we can, because it is talking out of both sides of the mouth, and you can't do that around here--only for awhile. This is a classic example of Washington telling people, ``We are smarter than you.'' But it simply won't work. Tobacco farmers want to keep a supply management program. For 3 years, every 3 years, farmers vote on whether to keep the tobacco program. Earlier this year, farmers of flue-cured and burley tobacco, the two largest types of tobacco, voted overwhelmingly to keep the program. In a referendum conducted by USDA for both types of tobacco, almost 98 percent of tobacco farmers voted to keep the program. But now some in Congress want to tell farmers that, ``We are smarter than you.'' That is what is wrong with this place. That is why people don't like us. There are 98 percent of a group saying, ``This is what we would like to have and what we would like to keep.'' And what do we say up here? ``You don't know what you are talking about. This is what is good for you. This is what is good for you. So you don't know what you are talking about, and we are going to take care of it for you.'' So, 98 percent of those down there who voted, it doesn't make any difference what you do. This is typical Washington, DC, arrogance. I have already discussed how my small, average tobacco farmer--there are 124,000 of those, but there are only 4 large manufacturers, controlling over 98 percent of the cigarette market. This disparity in bargaining power could not be greater. Unless tobacco farmers have some mechanism to bargain together jointly, they are helpless; they are helpless in dealing with the large tobacco manufacturers. The tobacco program provides that mechanism, and it must not be tampered with as a part of this legislation. The focus of the bill should be, must be, youth smoking. I voted for smoke-free schools. I have voted, tried every way I can, to stop youth smoking. So I have no apologies to make, because I want to stop it. Over 90 percent of the people polled in my State want to stop it. But the focus of this bill must be on youth smoking, which is to focus on what will work to reduce youth smoking. Youth smoking rates peaked in the 1970s. Starting in about 1979, youth smoking rates began to decline and continued to decline through the 1980s. Then, about 1991 or 1992, they started to climb again. No one knows exactly why. And guess what; youth alcohol use started to go up at the same time, binge drinking started to go up, marijuana use started to go back up. In fact, youth usage of marijuana has been increasing faster than cigarette smoking during the 1990s. So far, Congress has failed to look broadly at all these trends. Surely this is more than a coincidence. When we look at the causes of youth smoking increases, we should also look at drinking and illegal drug use. The American people seem to have a better sense of that than Congress. They seem to realize that teenage behavioral changes are more complex than just tobacco, and the youth tobacco rates have been influenced by more than just slick advertising by the tobacco industry. In fact, one recent poll verified these opinions. A Tarrance Group/KRC research poll conducted earlier this month asked people why they thought youth smoking rates had been going up. Mr. President, 58 percent said the influence of peers and friends was the main reason; 18 percent said the parents' example was the main reason; 12 percent said Hollywood, television, and popular culture were the main reasons; and only 6 percent said the tobacco industry and advertising were the main reasons--only 6 percent. So we have a lot more to learn about this issue, and I think, really, how little we do know should have an influence on how broad we make this legislation. I have serious concerns about the size of the legislation. These concerns existed even before the Finance Committee took its action to increase the size of the bill. First, the bill as reported by the Commerce Committee appears to contain language never considered by the committee on April 1. I am specifically referring to the annual payments made by the industry. In the McCain committee amendment adopted by the committee, the annual payment starting in the sixth year was set at $21 billion, plus an adjustment up for inflation and down for volume. However, in the reported bill, the sixth-year payment is the ``adjusted applicable base amount,'' which it defined as the amount of the preceding year, which appears to be $23.6 billion. I do not know where the language came from. I do not recall it ever being approved by the committee. However, it appears they add $2.6 billion per year for 20 years to the cost of the bill. In other words, it appears that $52 billion has been added to the cost of the bill. I hope we can clear up some of these things. Mr. President, OMB proceeded to take a number of misleading steps to achieve competing objectives. They totally omitted the bill's revenue impact on prices in several respects. They ignored any costs from future legislation and attorneys' fees. They ignored additional regulatory costs of complying with the bill. They ignored price increases resulting from higher sales taxes, State excise taxes, wholesale and retail margin increases, manufacturers' future price increases, and they ignored the new licensing fee in title XI. But perhaps the most offensive manipulation by OMB involved their conflicting projected volume declines. OMB projected youth smoking would decline by 60 percent when calculating the look-back penalties, but they projected youth smoking to decline by only 29 percent when calculating the price-per-pack increase. As we say down in Kentucky, there is something about that that ain't right. But you need a small consumption decline to make the price-per- pack increase smaller. OMB just had it both ways. They changed the projections to say the bill costs $516 billion and raises the price by $1.10. Mr. President, I have Wall Street Journal analyses, I have all these things I could read here this morning. I don't know how much time I have left. It is probably getting close to the time.

Mr. FORD. Good. I thank the Chair. Let me also outline several other concerns I have with S. 1415 which I hope can be corrected or improved during the debate. First, we have continuing concerns about the potential for a black market. We say we can stop that, but Mexico sells cigarettes that I smoke for 90 cents to $1 a pack at retail. Indian reservations are selling cigarettes at a retail of around $1.20. If these new estimates are correct, we are creating a disparity in price of up to $4 a pack. This is well above the level experts say will cause black market activity. In fact, we already have a considerable amount of smuggling in this country because of the large State excise tax increases in recent years. A disparity in price of only 50 to 60 cents per pack has already proven to be enough to create black market incentives, and they are going on right now within our own country. Canada fussed at us, you know, when they raised their prices. Now we have two borders. We raised prices that come from Canada and from Mexico, the Caribbean and wherever. These fellows do pretty good out there. They are called cartels. We have had a hard time stopping drugs from coming in. What are we going to do when cigarettes are added to that? When you go down to the skid, ``You want some cheap cigarettes or I have another menu on the other side over here starting with marijuana.'' It is interesting how we are going to provide for that and are playing into the hands of those people. The international provisions of title XI sets dangerous precedents, Mr. President. If it were any other product, this would not even be tolerated. I hope title XI can be eliminated or substantially improved. I have concerns that the bill gives the FDA excessive authority to do what I suspect they wanted to do for the last several years--ban the product. It is my hope that we can place reasonable limits on the unbridled authority. Several serious constitutional concerns have been identified, particularly since the tobacco manufacturers are unlikely to sign on to this legislation. Late last month, four State attorneys general sent a letter to Senator Hatch outlining these concerns. Constitutional concerns throw into jeopardy the advertising and marketing restrictions, the upfront payment, the look-back provisions, the document disclosure section, and the so-called corporate culture language. These are legitimate concerns. Each one will have a suit filed. It will be completed. They will file another suit. It will be completed, and we will be in court under these provisions for a long, long time. I hope these concerns can be addressed as well. Mr. President, a recent Wall Street Journal poll showed that Americans have serious doubt about the motives behind this debate. By a nearly 2-to-1 margin, a majority of the people thought the current debate was more about raising taxes to pay for new programs than it was about reducing youth smoking. We have a chance to change some views with the way this debate on the bill is conducted and the final product. I have two overriding tests for the final product produced on this floor: No. 1, does the bill adequately compensate and protect farmers and farming communities? And No. 2, is the bill more about reducing youth smoking or punishing an industry? I look forward to the debate and the opportunity to find the answers to many of these problems. I say to the Chair and to my colleagues in the Senate that I am going to do whatever I can to be sure that the farming community is protected in this bill. With the procedure that occurred late yesterday, to undo all of the work for 10 long months that many of us have put into this legislation, to undo it in a motion is a serious thing. I think it rubbed some of us a little bit the wrong way, as we say. There will be some scorched-Earth approach as we develop this. If we can work out something, I would love to do it. But I will not work out anything that does not compensate and take care of the farmers who I am here to represent, and I intend to represent them as long as I can stand and as long as people will listen to me. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``nay.''