Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to discuss the recent farmer assistance package outlined in the President's budget proposal. It is often the case that these proposals are complicated and difficult to explain. But this proposal can actually be explained with one word. That word is ``awful.'' The administration's proposal is simply an awful idea. I am not one to usually criticize anybody who brings ideas to the table that in any way will assist American farmers, but in this instance I believe I must call it what it really is--an awful proposal. In fact, I am embarrassed by the administration's proposals. I can think of all the Democratic Senators who have been on this floor over the last year--the last 12 months--who have chastised Republicans for not doing enough to help farmers, and doing it in the right way, being embarrassed by the paltry sum of money the President has included and, more importantly, the complicated formula by which they arrive at this assistance. Just recently, we had the Vice President in Iowa stumping for political support in the famous Iowa caucuses. He told my fellow farmers he supports a ``sound, sensible farm policy.'' Those are his words. If this is what the administration means by ``sensible,'' they should have saved the effort put into this meaningless gesture and left it to individuals who actually know what is going on in rural Iowa and rural America. While our Nation has enjoyed one of the longest periods of economic growth in our history, the agricultural industry has not fared as well in recent years. Just last year, prices of all kinds of livestock and grain commodities were at their lowest levels since the 1970s, and the outlook for next year is mixed at best. According to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute located at Iowa State University, prices for corn are expected to hover around $2 a bushel this year and soybean prices will average near $4.50 a bushel. Prices have improved somewhat from last year but not significantly, and obviously it is still, at these prices, a losing proposition; in other words, a nonprofitable situation for farmers. Last year, we in the Congress provided $8.7 billion in economic relief and disaster payments, simply keeping our promise we made to the farmers of America under the 1996 farm program of having an adequate safety net for farmers. We were just keeping our promise with that $8.7 billion. That was divided into three or four different parts. The largest part was the Market Loss Assistance Program payments, and these alone were $5.5 billion. The administration's proposal is for $600 million compared to that $5.5 billion. It obviously believes that payments to farmers under the supplemental income assistance program will satisfy rural America's needs in this year of continuing low prices. The proposal definitely shows me and should show every farmer that the administration does not really care what happens to the family farmer. I could speak for hours about its shortcomings, but let me try to boil it down to three major points. Democratic Senators, speaking on the floor of this body last week, condemned this same proposal. I say this so people won't consider this a partisan shot. I associate myself with the remarks of some of those Senators who considered this to be a paltry and complicated approach to helping farmers and the Congress keep its promise to the American farmers made under the 1996 bill, that we would maintain a safety net for our farmers. On the administration's approach, first, it attempts to establish a countercyclical program. The proposal seemingly is based on a system that pays out when the per acre national gross revenue for a crop falls below a set percentage of the 5-year average of the crop's per acre national gross revenue. The significant shortcoming of the administration proposal is that a program based on national revenue will not capture all regional disasters. As an example from my own State of Iowa, everybody remembers the 500- year flood of 1993. It was a disastrous year for the vast majority of my State. Experts described this 500-year flood as something that is never going to occur again. But production throughout the rest of the Nation during the time that it was ruined in Iowa was strong enough that, under the President's proposal, no payment would have been made to Iowans in need of assistance. Iowans would have been left with absolutely no assistance in the midst of one of the worst natural disasters in decades. I also draw awareness to the administration's belief that this grand plan assists small- and medium-sized producers. It does harm to these classes of farmers who, particularly, the other side of the aisle thinks we ought to have so much concern for--and we ought to have. The fact that their administration doesn't give concern to the small- or medium-sized farmer in their plan ought to be an embarrassment to my Democrat colleagues. Well, if the payment was actually triggered and the farmer wasn't drawing more than a $30,000 Agricultural Market Transition payment, the individual would be subject to the $30,000 combined payment cap. This means that the sum of regular AMTA payments plus the payments under the supplemental income assistance program could not exceed $30,000. In my opinion, this program actually hurts the small farmer and mortally wounds the medium-sized farmer. If we want to guarantee the failure of the medium-sized farmer in the Nation, the farmer who is big enough that he doesn't have time to have nonfarm income but not big enough to weather all the natural disasters that one can have or 3 years of low prices, the President's program is the best way to accomplish the failure of the medium-sized farmer in our Nation. It is simple math that brings me to this point. A farmer with a corn base of 600 acres would receive an AMTA payment of approximately $19,800 this year. But if the market crashed and he qualified for the maximum amount of assistance under the administration's proposal, he would only receive an additional $10,200. Regardless of how much money a farmer has lost, the most he could hope to receive is $10,200. In comparison, the same farmer would have received $19,000 in economic assistance last year due to the Market Loss Assistance payment Congress voted late last year. The administration's approach is $9,600 less for that farmer than he could have received under Congress' approach last year. If we were to revisit historic lows this summer, which could trigger the SIAP-type payment that the President is proposing, the small- and medium-sized producers could not receive more than that $30,000 cap. Due to this cap, the administration's approach ultimately limits potential assistance to small- and medium-sized producers. Some people might think I am comparing apples and oranges when I talk about the two packages, but in the end, the important factor is how much aid are we willing to provide to the farmer. The administration has said that assistance wouldn't be paid to the largest producers. But at the end of the day, it is not just the larger growers who will be left out in the cold, it is going to be pretty darn cold for everyone in the middle and chilly for the smaller producers as well. This proposal reminds me of what a number of Iowa pork producers called the ``4-H'' payments. Remember SHOP 1 and SHOP 2 payments to the pork producers last year? Those payments didn't amount to much either. The administration billed that as a significant measure to help pork producers facing abysmal prices, a 60-year low in hog prices last year. Yet today the number of pork producers has dropped by 3,000, since we experienced these historic lows. Ultimately, the largest producers will still have $40,000 due to the AMTA cap, and the smaller guys will have a $30,000 cap, a $10,000 bonus to the larger farmer the President says he does not want to help, compared to what the small- and medium-sized farmer gets. Does it really matter what the assistance is called? Was that the administration's goal, of hurting the smaller and medium-sized farmers? My final point is this: Who is the administration really then trying to help? It is true that farmers with 450 acres or less in corn base could possibly double their AMTA payment. That is the same approach Congress used last year under the administration's proposal. In fact, this is probably a great deal for all those producers with 100 acres or less. But the fact is that a person who is farming 450 acres or less is probably, to make ends meet, also engaged in some occupation other than farming. I am not saying that most farmers don't have jobs off the farm. In today's economy, more and more farmers are taking jobs off the farm just to help pay the bills. But as I see it, the medium-sized producer, the producers with 500 to 1,000 acres, are almost entirely dependent upon the profitability of their crops. If they don't receive much-needed assistance, they are probably going to have a hard time staying on the farm, and the administration's proposal does almost nothing to help these individuals. Now, as I indicated earlier, this is by no means a complete list of all the problems with the administration's approach, but these are a few of the issues that I expect Congress will have to consider. The fact is that if the administration really wants to help farmers, it will immediately announce it will block any efforts to waive the Clean Air Act's oxygenated requirements by the Environmental Protection Agency. If the President would do just this, ethanol can replace MTBE, which is poisoning the ground water now, and it would increase farm income by $1 billion per year--it would do it from the marketplace, not from the Federal Treasury--and create 13,000 new jobs in America in the process. The Senate may not be able to unilaterally agree upon exactly what should be done to assist family farmers this year, but I think we can probably agree that the administration's proposal is off base and, most frankly, out of touch with real America. It does not accomplish the goals that they want to accomplish of saving the small and medium-sized farmers and not helping the well-off farmer. So I look forward to working with my constituents, various agricultural groups, commodity groups, and my colleagues in Congress to give family farmers the economic security that they deserve. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking about two very important issues, one of which will come before the Senate later on this year, and that is the trade agreement with China which has just been negotiated. We call that permanent normal trading relations. The other subject is the WTO, which is an ongoing situation on which we probably will not take any action--at least negative action--this year, but it is something we always have to consider because every day and every hour there are certain decisions and discussions going on at the World Trade Organization that affect the U.S. economy. On China and the permanent trade relations vote we are going to have, it is very important that we do this right and do it soon but not do it before we have all the information we need. It is also important to get China into the World Trade Organization. We do not vote on China going into the World Trade Organization as a Senate, but it seems to me it is very necessary that we establish China with permanent normal trading relations with the United States in order to set the stage for China to be in the WTO. This is the first time China has agreed to submit itself to international trade disciplines. That, in and of itself, is a very historic and important development. Clearly, China acts in its own national interest and, of course, the United States should act in its own national interest. That is why I say it is most important to our national interest to agree to rules by which we can conduct more open commerce with China. Common sense dictates that it is a win-win situation for the United States since we have few restrictions on imports of China's products into the United States. Basically, it is a no-brainer, as far as I am concerned, to accept their lowering barriers to our exports to that 1-billion-people Nation. As far as the issue of human rights and national security--and they always come up when we discuss this issue with China--I believe the United States is big enough, the United States is strong enough, we are sophisticated enough, and we are smart enough to serve more than one vital national interest at the same time. In other words, we can be concerned about human rights, we obviously have to be concerned about our national security because no other nation will be, but we can also be concerned about our commerce with other countries, particularly the biggest country in the world, a country that has reduced, through this agreement, barriers for our goods to go to their country; in other words, setting the stage for a more level playing field because we already let a lot of Chinese goods into this country. There are very few restrictions. We can take our commerce into mind, we can take human rights and national security into mind, and we do not have to compromise. We can and must have a national security policy that protects our vital security interests. When there is a breakdown that threatens our security, we must and will fix it. We can and must speak out for the oppressed who cannot speak for themselves, and we can and must advance our interests in open markets and trade liberalization. We can and must do all these things at the same time. We can do this because trade, in and of itself, has so many different dimensions. Through trade, we export more than goods. We export more than manufactured products and services. When we have people-to-people relations that come about through commerce, we export part of our values, part of what makes America great: our American values. We also export, it seems, part of our society. That is why we must engage China commercially. While I would like to see the Senate vote to approve permanent trading relations for China as soon as possible, the timing of this vote is not entirely in the Senate's hands. First, China has to complete its remaining bilateral negotiations, especially with the European Union. The European Union may conclude a bilateral deal with China later this month. But some tough issues still remain between those two giants. So it is not clear when these bilateral talks will end. If China finishes its negotiations with the European Union, China still has to conclude negotiations with 10 other trading partners, as well as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Second, we have to complete work on the protocols that provide the underpinnings for the United States-China agreement that was signed last November and which is the basis for permanent normal trading relations between the United States and China. Several challenging protocol issues remain to be resolved. In my view, we can only have the permanent normal trading relations vote after all these steps in the process are completed. Senators, including this Senator, of course, will want to carefully review--in fact we have the responsibility to make sure we carefully review--the results of the protocol working party, which may be held in March, and carefully look at all the details before we schedule the permanent normal trading relations vote. As far as the Senate action on normal trading relations is concerned, I expect that every aspect of the agreement be transparent. That means everything besides the protocols--meaning the written protocols, including side letters, oral or even wink-of-the-eye understandings-- must be put on the table before the Senate so that each of the 100 Senators are aware of them. That is what I mean when I say transparency. As Senators, we cannot make the same mistake we made with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, of being oblivious to the side letter, the agreement contents of which have been unfair to our wheat farmers ever since. Senators never knew about that until about 5 or 6 years after the Canadian Free Trade Agreement was voted on by the Senate. That is why, when it comes to normal trading relations with China--and it is very important we approve that agreement--everything has to be on the table. On the issue of the World Trade Organization, the most shocking thing that happened in Seattle--apart from the riots and the mindless destruction--was that there was no consensus to move forward. No agenda was agreed to. This lack of consensus is especially shocking when you consider how much trade has helped bring unprecedented prosperity not only to the United States but around the world. In 1947, when this all started with the first round of multilateral trade negotiations--that was called the Geneva Round--the total world value of trade was only $50 billion. Today, it is $7 trillion. It is hard to think of a moment in history when such prosperity has been generated in such a short period of time. But despite this huge increase in our collective wealth, the world's trade ministers in Seattle could not reach agreement over how to keep this great economic engine going and create even more prosperity that will naturally result not just to the United States but to everybody in the world through freer trade. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how much greater our national wealth is because of freer trade. Common sense dictates that we should continue down this path. The mandated negotiations on agriculture and services, the so-called building agenda, are now underway in Geneva. We may even have a special agricultural negotiation process to continue the agricultural portions of the talks. But I do not think we will see any quick agreement on the items that were left on the table in Seattle or even on the question of whether to restart the negotiations on drafting a ministerial declaration. Instead, I think we will see, in Geneva, a period of quiet consultation and consensus building. Considering the disaster that took place in Seattle, maybe it is easy to conclude that we do need a period of quiet consultation, and particularly consensus building, because nothing happens in the WTO except by consensus. So if everybody worries about America's interests being compromised at the WTO, just remember, it is done by consensus. If the United States does not agree to it, it will not get done. Seattle, of course, was a huge shock to the World Trade Organization and the process. We must try to restore mutual confidence among all the parties. The negotiators will need some time, perhaps even a few months, to refine their positions after the start of consultations. In summary, I see the next few weeks and months in Geneva as a period where we try to restore faith in the World Trade Organization and in each other and try to rebuild the groundwork for the process of establishing a consensus on trade. Progress may be incremental, but I believe we can achieve it. When it comes right down to it, rebuilding this confidence is not just a job for the WTO or just for our negotiators; it is a challenge we will have to address in the Senate, particularly in the Finance Committee and in my trade subcommittee. How can we get there? I believe there is one way. We must make a moral case for free trade. We must do a better job of making the case that free trade has helped us keep the peace, that free trade has brought freedom and prosperity to millions, that it has helped families and nations attain new levels of economic progress. I believe it is up to Congress to help make the moral case for free trade. The future of our international trading system may depend upon how well we do it. I intend to address this topic of the moral case for free trade many times this year. It may be one of the most important things we do this year in the Senate. Mr. President, I notice there are no other Members who have come to speak, so I ask unanimous consent to continue on my time in morning business to address another issue. I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes at the most.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of an extraordinary and courageous young lady. Emily Ann Jordt, daughter of Bill and Deb Jordt of Hinton, Iowa, passed away on March 15, 1999, after fighting cancer for three years. My heart is heavy for the Jordt family. No one would disagree that cancer is a devastating illness. However, when cancer touches the life of a child, it seems an especially harsh reality. I know from personal experience the difficulties that follow a cancer diagnosis. My wife, Barbara, is a breast cancer survivor and we believe early detection saved her life. I have long supported biomedical research, and Emily's story reminds all of us the importance of remaining vigilant in providing funding for cancer research. To quote Emily, ``We can do this together.'' It is my hope that by sharing Emily's story with my colleagues in the Senate, Emily's memory may be truly honored. Emily's Story--A Life of Strength and Courage Emily was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma, an aggressive childhood cancer, in 1996 when she was only nine years old. While this cancer is usually found in muscle tissue in an extremity, Emily's was in her jaw and neck. Emily was frightened. Her grandfather had died of lung cancer. Emily came to understand that there were many kinds of cancers, and that not everyone dies of this disease. Emily joined her family and doctors in what was to become a three-year fight for her life. Emily had surgery to remove a tumor below her lower right jaw. Her best chance for remission was simultaneous radiation and chemotherapy treatment. Even though interruptions in the harsh protocol were needed for her body to recover, radiation was completed, and chemotherapy resumed. After radiation Emily had difficulty with muscles of her tongue and throat. A feeding tube was surgically implanted and she used a suction machine to clear her throat and airways. She bravely adjusted to this life-style. Emily dearly loved school. She maintained an A-B average throughout her illness. She played trumpet in the school band. When a facial nerve was impaired because of surgery, she switched to percussion and continued on. She served as a customer representative of the Westerner Bank in her school. She was an ardent fundraiser for school projects. Her classmates regarded her as a peacemaker. Emily played soccer in a YMCA league throughout her treatment. She loved the sport. She was back on the soccer field and played most of a full game only 11 days after having major surgery to remove the tumor a second time. Emily planned and presented a writer's workshop entitled ``Getting through the Tough Stuff'' where she encouraged young people her age to use writing as a vehicle to deal with the difficult challenges of life and be sensitive and caring to others. Picture a nine-year-old presenting her concerns about and suggestions for pediatric care to the Board of Directors of the hospital where she spent a great deal of time. Emily did it. She believed that one person can make a difference. And Emily did make a difference. Emily was active in 4-H, serving as vice-president of her club. She chose many categories in which to participate, everything from showing her 4-month old filly to playing the piano in Share the Fun. She presented a written and visual display of items used throughout her surgeries and treatment. For this she was awarded an Outstanding Junior Achievement Ribbon. Emily took an active part in Relay for Life in her county. She served as Junior Chairperson, giving a speech the night of the event. She enlisted the help of her classmates and teachers to help publicize events. As only a child can, Emily leaned on her faith to see her through. Church was important to Emily. She took communion instruction, participated in youth group activities, sang and provided special music for worship. She willingly served church dinners. She helped to organize a basketball team and enlisted a neighbor to be their coach. This team won the Good Sportsmanship trophy. Emily maintained a positive and determined attitude. When traditional treatments became ineffective, she willingly tried non-traditional methods. She clung to the hope that she would again be as normal as the other kids. While the disease took her life on March 15, 1999, it could not crush her spirit. It was that very same spirit that caused her to fight to the very end. Emily fought this illness for three long years, showing that with strength, determination, and courage, life is to be lived. Emily strongly believed the scripture verses that say, ``Let the children come to me for such is the kingdom of God,'' and ``A Child Shall Lead.'' Let us capture the essence of Emily's spirit, follow her lead, and make a difference.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have an opportunity to avoid one vote by sending to the desk a modified amendment. It is amendment No. 2762. So I send it to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified and that the modified amendment be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. If necessary, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Does the other side of the aisle have speakers?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time do we have on the amendments?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I still want the time to come out of his side.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. We think we can.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent the next series of votes be limited to 10 minutes in length.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield my time to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2658

Mr. GRASSLEY. Of course, I will yield. I know what you are going to say--that everything I have said is not true. I have seen it happen before.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If the Senator from Georgia will yield. I can assure him that during the conference with the House on S. 625, I will in good faith address the Judicial Conference's recommendation for the additional judgeships. The hearing in November was indeed useful in helping us assess the merits of authorizing these additional judgeships. Subsequent to that hearing, my staff and I have engaged in discussions with the Administrative Office to clarify some remaining questions and concerns. I can report that most of my requests have been satisfactorily addressed. However, I am still awaiting some additional information, and so I am reluctant to add these positions to S. 625 at this time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator for his statement and for his efforts in moving this issue forward.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate has taken an important step toward real bankruptcy reform on a bipartisan basis. None of this would have been possible without the hard work and cooperation of the ranking member on the subcommittee, Senator Torricelli. We introduced the bill together. We have a good bill that will restore personal responsibility and crack down on abuses of debt collectors and provide key information to credit card customers about the problems of minimum payment. I believe we go into conference in a strong position. I think our bill in the Senate is better than the House companion. We will have a spirited conference, I believe, but this year will be easier than last year since the bills are much closer. In any event, the Senate has done a good job. I thank Senators Hatch, Sessions, Reid, Torricelli, Biden, and Leahy for the strong support they showed for reform. I also thank Rene Augustine and Makan Delrahim of Senator Hatch's staff; Jennifer Leach and Eric Shuffler of Senator Torricelli's staff; Jim Greene of Senator Biden's staff; Eddie Ayoob of Senator Reid's staff; and Kolan Davis and John McMickle of my own staff for their hard work on this bill. I also thank Ed Haden and Sean Costello of Senator Sessions' staff. Of course, this bill would not be here if not for Senator Reid working with us on the floor and Senators Hatch and Leahy helping steer this very difficult bill through the Senate as they helped get it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Of course, in this regard, I also thank the people who supported our legislation. Most important, if anybody had asked me when we adjourned last year if we could have passed the bill this early this year, if at all, I would have been very pessimistic about it. But because of the cooperation we have had on the other side of the aisle, it was possible. Once again, in a very generic sense, I thank all who made this a bipartisan effort and made it possible to accomplish this goal. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I hope my friend, Senator Hatch, will debate the fine points of the law with the Senator from New York because I am not a lawyer. I have strong feelings on the issue of abortion which do not have to be expressed today. My friend, the Senator from New York, has opposite views on that issue and he has not expressed them and does not have to express them as far as this amendment is concerned. I oppose this amendment simply because it is not needed. First, I will comment on the possibility of the Vice President of the United States having to vote today to break a tie. I predict that if the Vice President is in town and this vote is that close, the Vice President will be here and will have an opportunity to cast that vote. If the Vice President is in town to break a tie, there is going to be at least one person who supports that amendment who is going to vote against it just so we can have a tie vote, just so the President can cast his vote because the Vice President running for President of the United States is not going to break into his schedule with the tight vote he had in New Hampshire last night and avoid campaigning in the other States and waste his time here if he does not actually have to cast that vote. We are in for not only political moments on this issue, but we are in for some very constitutional moments on this issue as well. I like the theater that is going on this morning. We have seen it at least once before, and we may see it several times between now and November. I do not blame the people on the other side for creating this theater because I think the Vice President is going to need it between now and the November election if he intends to be elected President of the United States.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I just don't know.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the leader, I would like to give today's schedule. Today the Senate will resume consideration of the bankruptcy reform bill. Senator Schumer will be recognized to debate his amendments regarding safe harbor and clinic violence. There are several other amendments remaining, and those amendments will be debated throughout this morning's session. All votes, including final passage, will be stacked and are expected to begin at approximately 12 o'clock noon. After disposition of the bankruptcy bill, the Senate is expected to begin consideration of the nomination of Alan Greenspan to continue as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The leader thanks all Senators for their attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February 2, 2000, in open session, to receive testimony on the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo.