[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24656-24667]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume consideration of 
Calendar No. 237, S. 1731, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1731) to strengthen agricultural producers, to 
     enhance resource conservation and rural development, to 
     provide for farm credit, agricultural research, nutrition, 
     and related programs, to ensure consumers abundant food and 
     fiber, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are going to be in a posture very 
quickly

[[Page 24657]]

where we will be able to start doing things other than just talking 
about the farm bill. Amendments will be offered and, hopefully, we will 
complete this most important legislation very quickly.
  What I wanted to come to the floor today to talk about is what has 
appeared in newspapers all over America today, including a Washington 
Post editorial. Syndicated columns all over America are running 
articles today talking about something going on in Washington that is 
simply invalid. But I think, as far as I am concerned, kind of the 
culmination, or the synthesis of all these articles and columns and 
editorials in America today appeared in the New York Times this 
morning. That editorial has a headline: ``Tom Daschle Isn't the 
Problem.''
  I will make no editorial comment about this editorial. I will read 
it:

       The closing days of this year's Congressional session have 
     brought forth a wild Republican campaign to demonize Senator 
     Tom Daschle. It almost seems as if the G.O.P. is holding a 
     contest to see who can most often use the word 
     ``obstructionist'' to describe him. The attacks--including 
     ads in Mr. Daschle's home state of South Dakota featuring 
     side-by-side photographs of him and Saddam Hussein--are a 
     sure sign of the Senate majority leader's effectiveness in 
     blocking President Bush's hard-right agenda. Today Mr. Bush 
     meets with Mr. Daschle at the White House, where they can 
     move beyond vilification to legislation.
       The word ``obstructionist,'' voiced over the weekend by 
     Vice President Dick Cheney, has an unreal ring. Perhaps Mr. 
     Cheney was in a remote, secure location when, after Sept. 11 
     and with Mr. Daschle's help, Congress passed a use-of-force 
     resolution, a $40 billion emergency spending bill, an airline 
     bailout, a counterterrorism bill and an airport security 
     bill. The Senate has also passed 13 appropriations bills and 
     its own version of education reform and a patients' bill of 
     rights. The two things that Mr. Cheney cited that the Senate 
     had ``obstructed'' were legislation to drill for energy in 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and a ``stimulus'' bill 
     to give out huge tax breaks to corporations and rich people.
       Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush have called for bipartisan 
     cooperation in Congress. Yet when asked, the vice president 
     declined to disavow the attack ads running in South Dakota 
     that accused Mr. Daschle of helping the Iraqi dictator by 
     blocking the destruction of the Alaska reserve.
       The suspicion is growing in some quarters in Washington 
     that Mr. Bush may not really want economic stimulus 
     legislation. How else to explain that the White House is 
     sticking with a bill, passed by the House, that many 
     Republicans say privately they would just as soon abandon? 
     The effect of spending less than $100 billion to jolt a $10 
     trillion economy is likely to be small, and the unnecessary 
     tax breaks aimed at corporations and the wealthy would make 
     the nation's upcoming deficits even worse. But there are some 
     good ideas in some versions of the stimulus bill that should 
     be passed, irrespective of their large-scale economic impact. 
     These pieces would provide unemployment and health benefits 
     to laid off workers who desperately need help after Sept. 11.
       If Mr. Bush continues to be inflexible on the economic 
     package, Mr. Daschle should switch tactics and attach the 
     health and jobless benefits to some other bill before 
     Congress adjourns near Christmas. It would be a travesty to 
     ignore the real needs of the most vulnerable Americans at a 
     time like this one. You might even say it was obstructionist.

  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the distinguished 
Senator.
  Mr. REID. I say to the distinguished ranking member of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, we would like to set a time for moving to the 
legislation. The leader, because some items were not ready, asked that 
it be debate only. I will wait until the Republican side checks, but I 
will propound a unanimous consent request that the debate only stop at 
11 a.m. or 11:15 a.m. I wanted to alert my colleague, and I will check 
with his side to see if that is OK.
  Mr. LUGAR. Let me respond to the distinguished leader. That will be 
fine as far as I am concerned. My understanding was we were going to 
commence the debate after the third rollcall vote. I point out the 
drafting of a new bill is not completed even as we speak. Legislative 
counsel is still working on it somewhere.
  Whenever it does emerge, that is what we ought to do so we can 
finally offer amendments and get on with it. I am merely going to speak 
to the bill, given the instructions that we were going to have general 
debate on the agriculture bill until 11. Once the Senator propounds the 
request, I certainly will be agreeable.
  Mr. REID. I will propound that as soon as we check with the 
Republican Cloakroom.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I want to make general comments about the 
farm bill. I appreciate the distinguished chairman of our committee, 
Senator Harkin, and others are even at this moment involved in drafting 
a new bill. At some point, my understanding is they will come forward 
with a substitute for the entire bill which is now before us. I am not 
supercritical of this procedure, although it does raise some questions 
on our side. We have not seen the new text and will not see the new 
text for some time, apparently. It is still in the hands of legislative 
counsel, I am advised, working its way through.
  I make this point because this has characterized the procedure, 
unfortunately, in the committee and on the floor. Members may or may 
not wish to know what is in the farm bill. I think it is important. 
Very clearly, there are many Members who want to debate and pass the 
farm bill and fairly rapidly. They are joined by those outside this 
Chamber.
  I cite, for example, the December 8, 2001, issue of Congressional 
Quarterly, in which the headline is ``Fear of Budget Constraints and 
2002 Galvanizes Farm Bill Supporters.''
  The article goes on to say:

       The specter of a tight Federal budget next year with less 
     money for farm subsidies has agricultural lobbyists and their 
     allies in Congress pushing for final action on a farm bill 
     before lawmakers leave this month.
       Lobbyists fear that if Congress waits until 2002 when the 
     current authorization bill expires, then the $73.5 billion in 
     new spending for agricultural programs over the next 10 years 
     that was set aside by this year's budget resolution might 
     vanish. ``We have never before had this hammer over our 
     heads, like the loss of this money,'' said Mary Kay Thatcher, 
     lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. However, 
     with little time left lawmakers say finishing a bill could be 
     difficult.

  Indeed, it could, and the bill is not even available as of this 
moment. It was announced yesterday with a great deal of certainty that 
after three rollcall votes this morning, we would be on the farm bill, 
we would be offering amendments presumably to the text that came out of 
the Senate Agriculture Committee. As of this moment, we are not 
offering amendments because we are awaiting a new bill.
  While we await the new bill, other things also are occurring outside. 
I note that CBO announced that the Federal deficit for October and 
November of this fiscal year, for 2 months--the fiscal year we are now 
in--unfortunately, amounted to $63 billion. That is $28 billion more in 
deficit than last year. It is the first time the Government has run a 
deficit this size since 1997, which was the last time the Federal 
Government ran a deficit for the entire fiscal year.
  This simply underlines the fact that CBO is not alone in pointing out 
we are in a deficit year. We did not expect to be in such a predicament 
at the beginning of the year. Indeed, when the President of the United 
States gave his State of the Union Address to a joint session of the 
Congress, he talked about $3 trillion of surpluses over a 10-year 
period, and the allocation to solve Social Security and Medicare reform 
problems, and for a very generous education bill that he and many 
Members of this body were proposing.
  In fact, CBO earlier in the year prophesied a potential surplus of 
over $300 billion, scaled down to something less than $200 billion by 
summertime, $50 billion as we proceeded in the post-September 11 
period, and now it is apparent we are headed for a deficit.
  That does not change the context of this debate one whit. Proponents 
of the

[[Page 24658]]

bill, fastening on to a budget resolution adopted early this year, said 
we have pinned down $172 billion over 10 years, $73.5 billion over 
baseline, over the normal expenditures that have been occurring year by 
year in the agriculture bills. It is there.
  I and others have pointed out it really is not there. Members may 
delude themselves that somehow, because this is December 11, we are 
unable to foresee the future and understand that life has changed; that 
we are in a deficit because of recession, because of war expenditures, 
because of all sorts of emergencies that still lie ahead of us as we 
try to meet these emergencies with our President.
  Yet even in the face of this, as the Congressional Quarterly article 
points out, agricultural lobbyists, perhaps aided and abetted by even 
Senators on occasion, believe we need to have the debate and complete 
the debate to pin this money down, money which, in my judgment, is no 
longer there. There is an Alice-in-Wonderland quality about the debate.
  I say simply that at some point, even though $63 billion of deficit 
has occurred in 2 months, another 2 months will pass and CBO will have 
another prophecy that will be even more bleak, in my judgment. At that 
point, however, in the event the Senate has acted, the Senate and House 
have conferred, and the President has signed a bill, whether we have 
the money or not, it will add to the deficit. That must be the 
calculation of those who are looking at this presently.
  The administration has not really weighed in on the budget side thus 
far, and proponents of the bill will point that out, that essentially 
there have been plans offered, that the administration apparently 
supports, that seem equally as expensive as the chairman's bill.
  At some point, however, all of us have to make judgments as to what 
is fiscally sound, where priorities ought to lie in this situation. 
Eventually, as we get into the bill, I want to ask Senators, as they 
are thinking about their preparation and how they size this up--I 
appreciate that many Senators will approach this bill on principle 
alone. Some would say--not many--some would say very frequently 
agriculture bills are very parochial bills. We each look after our own 
States, and that is what we ought to do.
  If this is the case, I think it is important, as Gannett News Service 
pointed out in an article by Carl Weiser on December 6, 2001, that 
under the current legislation--which the new farm bill, of course, 
would revise--

       Six States--Iowa, Illinois, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and 
     Minnesota--collected almost half the payments in 1999.

  It was not dissimilar in 2000, for that matter, according to GAO.
  Farm bills, as they are now written, are subsidies, essentially, for 
the row crops--corn, wheat, cotton, rice, now with very generous loan 
rates for soybeans--and are concentrated on States that have that type 
of agriculture. By and large, the payments do not become very generous 
for those who are involved in livestock or in vegetables, in timber, 
and other situations.
  I point out Senators may want to take a look at their chart which can 
be found on the Environmental Working Group Web site. For example, the 
State of California, with 74,126 farms, is second only to Missouri and 
Iowa on this chart, but in California, only 9 percent of all the 74,000 
farm families receive Government subsidies. As a matter of fact, only 7 
percent of farmers in Massachusetts, 9 percent in Nevada, 7 percent in 
New Jersey, and in the State of Washington only 20 percent of the 
29,000 farmers in that State receive anything in these programs.
  For example, if one were to take a look at the State of Iowa, 75 
percent of farmers receive subsidies; in the State of Kansas, 65 
percent; in my home State of Indiana, 52 percent. We are sort of fair 
to middling; half of us farmers receive subsidies, the other half do 
not.
  As I pointed out earlier in the debate, roughly 40 percent of farmers 
benefit from these programs, while 60 percent do not. If you happen to 
represent a State in which, as in California's case, 91 percent do not 
participate, it is hard for me to understand how you would be 
enthusiastic about these formulas because essentially this is an income 
transfer from some persons in the United States--taxpayers--to a very 
few taxpayers who are the beneficiaries. In this case it is quite a 
large transfer. We are talking about $172 billion over 10 years of 
time. Not only are most of the payments concentrated, almost half of 
them in six States, but in those States the concentration is rather 
profound.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator from Indiana yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. LUGAR. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period 
under which the farm bill is being considered for debate purposes only 
end at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished leader and I appreciate his 
courtesy in allowing me to complete these remarks.
  Madam President, I pointed out the concentration of these payments in 
six States. But within those States, the concentration is fairly 
substantial. For instance, in the State of the distinguished leader, 10 
percent of the farmers who receive payments receive 55 percent of the 
money--just 10 percent. In my State of Indiana, the concentration is 
even greater. The top 10 percent receive 62 percent of the money. Not 
only is there concentration in a few States, but within States that are 
major beneficiaries, a concentration exists with a very few farms.
  This is not the first time that proposition has been brought to the 
attention of the Senate and, indeed, as we began debate in the Senate 
Agriculture Committee this year, the distinguished chairman, Senator 
Harkin, frequently talked about this problem of concentration. In fact, 
it bobbed up in all sorts of ways: Concentration of meat packers, 
concentration of supermarket chains, concentrations of authority all 
the way through the food chain, and, of course, very startlingly with 
regard to producers themselves.
  But as the debate proceeded, somehow or other along the way the whole 
idea of concentration, when it came to payments to a very few farmers 
in a very few States, was lost by the wayside. This is why it came as a 
pleasant surprise to me to read an article by Peter Harriman in the 
Sioux Falls Argus Leader. This is on December 7:

       U.S. Sens. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., 
     will introduce a farm bill amendment next week--

  That is the week we are now in--

     that would drop commodity subsidies from a maximum $460,000 
     per individual per year now to about $275,000.
       The amendment also would require commodity-payment 
     recipients to be actively involved in farming.

  A quote from Senator Johnson:

       You can't use these corporate entities to expand the amount 
     of benefits you get. . . .

  One of the points that Senator Johnson goes on to make is:

       One of the deficiencies of the Senate farm bill is that it 
     really didn't do much to target payments to typical farmers 
     and ranchers. We thought the Senate bill could be 
     strengthened by better redirection of resources to typical 
     farmers. . . .''
       Dorgan added, ``It has been increasingly frustrating over 
     the years to see large corporate ag factories get very large 
     checks, and there is not enough money left to provide a 
     decent safety net for family farmers.''
       Johnson said: ``If people want to farm the whole township 
     they can. There is nothing in this amendment to keep people 
     from farming.
       But we are not asking taxpayers to subsidize a small 
     handful of operations that are getting over $500,000.''

  I look forward to that amendment and the debate on that because it 
certainly has occupied a lot of time already of many of us in the 
committee who felt that, in fact, these payments really required some 
scrutiny. I ask some consideration in due course, Madam President, when 
I offer an amendment to the commodity title which, in fact, does 
provide a very substantial limit. My legislation provides 6 percent of 
the total farm bill, so it is

[[Page 24659]]

not discriminatory but equal in all States--equal, really, to all types 
of farming. But it does finally limit these payments to $40,000. That 
seems to me to offer equity to every farmer in every State, every 
county, every crop. And it meets the needs of those who truly are small 
and struggling and have a very difficult time, given the concentration 
in agriculture that has been pointed out by so many.
  So we will have an opportunity in due course to think through 
concentration and limitations and equity, a chance to move this from 
half of the money going to six States to an even distribution wherever 
there is farming of any sort in every State.
  Madam President, I ask active consideration of Senators as they take 
a look at their own States, at their own farmers, at what farming 
occurs in their States, to support that general proposition as opposed 
to the one that lies before us in the bill that came out of the 
Agriculture Committee which, in fairness, essentially bumps along with 
the same type of distribution system that we have had for many years 
and which I and others have criticized in the course of this debate.
  Finally, let me point out that we still have the problem of money. I 
believe at least we have a problem of money. Others on the Senate floor 
may disagree and may believe that we already are running into Federal 
deficits that are fairly large and that these payments to farmers are 
merely part of that proposition.
  Some suggested yesterday that maybe even a stimulus package of sorts 
for rural America would stimulate the situation. If that is the 
proposition, it is very difficult to make it, given the figures I have 
just recited; namely, that all of the stimulus or half of it would be 
narrowed to six States. Even within those States, well over half of 10 
percent of farmers is a relatively few thousand people. That is not 
very much of a general stimulus. In fact, it is a very pointed and very 
focused situation.
  I can well understand why those who are beneficiaries of the past 
bill, or of the bill that Senator Harkin has introduced, would be 
obsessed that we are taking a look either at the fact that we have a 
Federal deficit or that these are rather concentrated payments. There 
has been a general myth that has surrounded farm bills--that they are 
meant to save every family farmer; that somehow they make a difference 
in the lives of every family farmer.
  I am here to tell you that, in fact, each bill and the bill that 
Senator Harkin has proposed even concentrates this further with higher 
subsidies, higher target prices, and higher loans. The money goes to 
those who are the most efficient. One can ask: What is wrong with that? 
The most efficient are not always the largest but frequently they are 
because of the scale of size and unit costs involved. And the ability 
to produce, quite apart from the market, has led to their 
concentration. And it has continued each year. It will march ahead now. 
That is why I will oppose the bill that lies before us. We need to 
amend it constructively so that, in fact, we can proceed to good 
agricultural legislation.
  I thank the Chair for this opportunity. I thank the distinguished 
majority leader for allowing me to complete my remarks under the 
unanimous consent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator 
from Indiana for the manner in which he has made his points this 
morning. While we may have some disagreement, I do not know of a 
Senator who has greater respect and whose views are more widely 
appreciated than the Senator from Indiana. I appreciate the opportunity 
to hear many of his comments this morning.


                           Amendment No. 2471

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Iowa, I 
have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for Mr. 
     Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 2471.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
submitted and Proposed.'')
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use some leader time to make 
comments as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Economic Stimulus

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the Chamber for a few 
minutes to call to the attention of my colleagues an article that 
appeared in the Wall Street Journal this morning. The article is 
headlined ``House GOP Ponders Scale-Backed Version Of Stimulus 
Package.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       House GOP Ponders Scaled-Back Version of Stimulus Package

                          (By Shailagh Murray)

       Washington.--House GOP leaders may take a new, scaled-back 
     economic stimulus package to the House floor if talks fail to 
     produce a House-Senate compromise.
       Republican leaders said they would offer the bill as a 
     last-ditch effort to revive the stimulus package, which is on 
     life support due to protracted partisan squabbling. Officials 
     hope to act on the matter before Congress adjourns for the 
     holidays.
       House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R., Texas), one of two 
     GOP House leaders appointed to negotiate a final package, 
     said the version would include many of the most politically 
     popular provisions on the table, some scaled back from levels 
     that have been unacceptable to Senate Democrats. They include 
     a depreciation bonus for new capital investments; higher 
     expensing limits for small businesses; an extension of the 
     net operating loss carry-back period to five years, from two; 
     accelerated reductions in individual income-tax rates; $300 
     rebate checks for low-income workers; and extensions of tax 
     breaks due to expire Dec. 31.
       The package also would feature at least $20 billion to 
     extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks and to help jobless 
     workers buy health coverage. House Ways and Means Chairman 
     Bill Thomas (R., Calif.) offered the beefed-up benefits 
     package last week in an effort to win Democratic votes on 
     trade negotiating authority.
       Mr. Armey said he would like to include corporate 
     alternative-minimum tax repeal and capital-gains tax 
     reductions, but acknowledged it could be an uphill battle 
     because of strong Democratic resistance.
       The move would allow House Republicans to say that they 
     made a good-faith effort to produce a stimulus package, 
     should the talks fail. It also is intended back Democratic 
     Senate leaders into a political corner, by forcing the 
     stimulus bill's final fate into the hands of Senate Majority 
     Leader Tom Daschle.
       ``If Daschle wants to stop this process, he needs to 
     reconcile that with the American people,'' Mr. Armey said. 
     Mr. Daschle has countered that he is eager to complete the 
     stimulus bill negotiations, especially to deliver the worker 
     benefits.
       Stimulus-bill talks broke down during the weekend, when 
     Democrats and Republicans accused each other of walking out 
     on negotiations scheduled for Friday and Saturday. Mr. Armey 
     said he hoped talks would begin again today, although no 
     formal meetings were scheduled as of Monday evening. But Mr. 
     Armey said House leaders, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, 
     were ``exploring other options'' in the event that stalemate 
     can't be broken. Senate Republicans say they also are seeking 
     alternative ways of getting the stimulus package on track.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the article provides new information 
about the current views of at least House leadership regarding the 
stimulus package that I find to be very encouraging. I will not read 
all of the article, but I will simply cite one paragraph. It says:

       House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R., Texas), one of two 
     GOP House leaders appointed to negotiate a final package, 
     said the version would include many of the most politically 
     popular provisions on the table, some scaled back from levels 
     that have been unacceptable to Senate Democrats. They include 
     a depreciation bonus for new capital investments; higher 
     expensing limits for small businesses; and extension of the 
     net operating loss carry-back period to five years, from two; 
     accelerated reductions in individual income-tax rates; $300 
     rebate checks for low-income workers; and extensions of tax 
     breaks due to expire Dec. 31.

[[Page 24660]]

       The package also would feature at least $20 billion to 
     extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks and to help jobless 
     workers buy health coverage.

  My response to this article is two words: I accept. I accept.
  I think this would go a long way in dealing with many of the concerns 
that Senate Democrats have expressed--concerns we have now had for some 
time.
  There is one major caveat. The only major change we would have to 
have is that we would trade the accelerated rate cut proposal currently 
listed as part of the Republican package for the Domenici payroll tax 
holiday. In other words, we would propose a Republican tax proposal--
one that is cosponsored by a lot of our Democratic colleagues--we would 
substitute the Republican payroll tax holiday for the rate cut 
acceleration, and, by and large, you have all the components of a deal. 
We don't need to go into more rooms in the back of the Capitol. We 
don't have to negotiate with a great deal of give and take here and 
procedural concerns about how we are going to address these issues. 
That would be it.
  Let us take what the Republicans have said as their new proposal and 
let us substitute a Republican payroll tax holiday proposal for the 
rate cut acceleration, and you have a deal.
  We want to clarify what it is we are talking about with regard to the 
unemployment compensation and health benefits. I think it is very 
important that the worker assistance package include extended 
unemployment benefits for all workers, especially the part-time workers 
and recent hires who would have to be part of the unemployment 
compensation package, a tax credit for employers and insurers to cover 
75 percent of COBRA health care costs for laid off workers, an option 
for States to extend Medicaid coverage for those ineligible for COBRA, 
and a bipartisan National Governors Association proposal for State 
fiscal relief.
  I assume when we talk about health care, that would be part of the 
health care proposal we would have on the table. The tax rebates that 
are listed would certainly be a part of it, tax incentives for business 
to create and invest in new jobs; we are willing to accept a 30-percent 
depreciation bonus.
  These are clarifications, of course, of the proposals that the House 
Republicans say they would be prepared to put into an economic stimulus 
package.
  There you have it.
  Clarify what we are talking about with regard to unemployment 
compensation and medical benefits; let us make sure that part-time 
workers and recent hires are included; clarify health coverage so we 
are sure we are talking about the same thing here; and deal with the 
rebate checks; tax incentives for business for up to 30 percent of 
depreciation bonuses. All of that could be part of a plan that we could 
agree to today. All we have to do is substitute a Republican payroll 
tax holiday for the Republican accelerated rate cut idea and we have a 
deal. I hope my colleagues share the same enthusiasm.
  I have one more caveat. Of course, this is an issue that I have 
already vetted with Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller, our 
negotiators. I vetted it with our leadership this morning.
  I am very confident that two-thirds of our caucus, at least--if not 
the whole caucus--will support something such as this. But I would want 
to present it to my caucus--and we will have a caucus meeting this 
afternoon at 12:30, as we do on Tuesdays. I would recommend it, as I 
know my negotiators would as well.
  So, Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, our leadership, examined 
this and share our view that we have the makings here of an agreement. 
I hope we will not waste any time. I hope we can move forward with a 
proposal of this kind.
  We could complete this stimulus package this week. It is my hope that 
we can do so, putting aside all of the procedural hurdles and all of 
the many differences and many of the accusations that have been made 
over the last several weeks.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the majority leader will yield to me.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from North Dakota, 
and then of course I will yield to the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. DORGAN. First of all, I compliment the majority leader for this 
proposal. I think there is a real urgency for us to do something to 
provide some lift or some stimulus to this country's economy. We are 
both at war and in a recession. I think we owe it to the American 
people to take a no-regrets policy here, to take steps in the right 
direction to try to deal with this weakened economy.
  If I might just say, virtually every economist in this country 
believes that what you should do to provide a stimulant to this economy 
is to propose policies that are both temporary and immediate. And that 
which the majority leader has objected to, with respect to the 
acceleration of the rate cuts for the top two rates in the income tax 
code, does not give temporary and immediate help. They in fact cause 
longer term fiscal policy problems.
  But I ask the majority leader, isn't it the case that all of the 
proposals you have reacted to, with respect to the announcement by the 
House and also the proposal offered by Senator Domenici, meet the test 
of being both temporary and immediate? Isn't it the case that that 
would represent the character of all of those elements of the plan you 
have just described that you would accept?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right. That is, of course, one 
of the really appealing features of this plan. We said at the beginning 
we would want this to be immediate, we would want it to be stimulative, 
and we would want it to be cost conscious. This meets all of those 
criteria. This is immediate, it is stimulative, and the Domenici 
proposal is less in cost than the accelerated rate cuts.
  So we are in a very strong position to meet the criteria, to find the 
common ground that both sides have said they are looking for. That is 
why I wanted to come to the floor. I read about this proposal this 
morning with great enthusiasm because I do believe it represents 
movement here. I hope with that one change, and with the clarifications 
I have suggested are important to our caucus, we can reach an 
agreement.
  I appreciate the Senator's views on this as well.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would yield for one additional comment.
  I hope, very much, this is a breakthrough. The majority leader has 
said we will accept, he will accept, our caucus will largely accept the 
proposals on the Republican side coming from the House, take one of the 
significant proposals from the Republican side in the Senate, package 
those together with a couple of small modifications, and try to embrace 
them as we deal with this country's economy. I hope this is a huge 
breakthrough.
  If I might just say to the majority leader, I know there has been 
criticism in recent days about roadblocks here or there. It is 
sometimes very difficult to see who is manning the barricades in the 
Congress. But I must say, from personal knowledge, it has not been the 
majority leader who has ever wanted to block the stimulus package.
  It is the case, is it not, I ask the majority leader, that you are 
the one who brought a stimulus package to the floor of the Senate for 
debate before it was so rudely interrupted by a point of order? Is that 
not the case?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. And I, again, like the Senator 
from North Dakota, do not want to go back to the old wars and battles 
if we are going to try to create a new environment here. But the 
Senator is right. We have made a lot of efforts on the floor, off the 
floor, in the effort to try to get a meeting. Procedurally, we had a 
number of obstacles that had to be overcome. We have done that. I have 
done everything I know how to do to bring this effort forward. And now, 
perhaps, with some movement on the other side, we are in a position to 
take full advantage of what could be some really new common ground.
  Before I yield to the Senator from California, I will to yield to the 
Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the majority leader. I appreciate his comments on

[[Page 24661]]

the stimulus package. I want to go back, however, to the action taken 
just before that. As I understood, the leader offered an amendment that 
was identified by number. I just want to trace the parliamentary 
situation.
  Was this amendment offered to the bill S. 1731? Does it stand as an 
amendment to that bill? The reason I ask--and let me clarify further--
is that some thought was expressed, I believe, here on the floor, that 
this would be original text supplanting S. 1731. And, respectfully, my 
view would be--although the Parliamentarian might confirm this--that if 
the majority leader were to supplant all of this and make his amendment 
original text, you would need to ask unanimous consent to do that as 
opposed to the offering of simply an amendment in the straightforward 
way he did so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been offered as a 
substitute. No further agreements are in place with respect to the 
amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. It was offered as a substitute but does not supplant the 
original text of the original bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair and the leader for that clarification.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to Senator Daschle, I thank you for 
coming to the floor today and making a proposal that I do see as a 
breakthrough to, let's just say, some of the antagonism that has been 
on this floor and all over the news media.
  I want to say to my friend, and then just very quickly ask him a 
question, that I believe personally a test of leadership is, when you 
are in a fire, how you behave. I think a leader who behaves in a 
positive way, such as you have this morning, after what I consider to 
be an onslaught of harsh words, says a lot about you as a human being 
and as a leader leading this country.
  You are, in fact, the highest elected Democratic leader in the 
country today. This has made you a target. All I can say is, the way 
you stand up to this is coming to the floor and saying: Let's work 
together.
  I see a little light at the end of the tunnel from the Republicans on 
the other side. They have dropped their alternative minimum tax 
retroactive rebate to the largest corporations. I know that pleases my 
friend because here is a time of recession, and the House bill gave 
$1.4 billion to a company, IBM, for example--that is just one example--
that has earned $5, $6 billion. They have huge cash reserves. They are 
not going to spend that money to stimulate the economy. But people in 
the middle class are going to spend money.
  Then my friend sees that Senator Domenici has made a proposal that 
is, in fact, progressive that will help get this economy going. And he 
does not seem to care that it is coming from a Republican. He is 
grabbing on to that.
  So I first thank the majority leader. I just want to end with a 
question about your main difference with the new Republican proposal, 
and that is the acceleration of the rates. I would like to ask my 
leader why he believes this isn't good for the economy at this time to 
accelerate the rates of about 20 percent of the people, leaving 80 
percent without any acceleration. If he could make that argument.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will answer the Senator from California after 
acknowledging her kind words. And I appreciate very much--as she always 
provides--the gracious support she has provided me.
  Let me just say that our concern for the accelerated rate cut 
reduction at this point is based on three concerns.
  First, it is not in keeping with the principles we laid out. We said 
it ought to be stimulative. We said it ought to be temporary. It is 
neither of these. So for those reasons, we are opposed to the 
accelerated rate reduction.
  Second, we said it ought to be cost conscious. Of course, this is a 
very expensive proposal, at least $52 billion, and as much as about 
$125 billion depending on what kind of acceleration we are talking 
about. So there is a very significant cost associated with it. When we 
recognize that this money is coming from borrowed funds, the Social 
Security trust fund, that will be troubling.
  Third, of course, is who benefits. What we want to do is put it into 
the hands of those who will benefit and who is most likely to spend the 
money so that there is something of consumptive value and whatever it 
is we are doing in an economic stimulus will be most appreciated.
  This does not have much consumptive value. This does not have much 
value in terms of both economic as well as fairness factors and 
considerations. From that perspective as well, we have a lot of 
concerns.
  I have to leave the floor at this time, but I do appreciate the 
comments and the question of the Senator from California. I hope this 
will open up a new opportunity for us to work together to find some 
resolution, sometime hopefully in the next day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me speak a little bit about what has just occurred. 
We have had the Democratic leader, the majority leader of the Senate, 
offer a breakthrough on an economic stimulus plan by saying to our 
friends in the Republican Party: Save one item, we will be with you. We 
can craft a plan that will work, and substituting for that one item a 
payroll tax holiday for 1 month that was suggested by the ranking 
member on the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici.
  All we need now to get it done is for the President to weigh in. He 
is very popular in his efforts in the tough period we are going 
through. I have supported him essentially down the line on his war on 
terrorism. But when it comes to here at home, we need the same kind of 
focus, the same kind of commitment, the same kind of attention, the 
same kind of steely resolve that he has shown in carrying out this war 
on terror. We need that same thing here at home.
  After a weekend of being vilified by the Republican side all over the 
press, including the Vice President of the United States, who you would 
think would have better things to do than to attack the Democratic 
leader, he has come to this floor, turned the other cheek, as he always 
does, and said: I am ready to work. I see a light at the end of this 
tunnel.
  I am very excited about this prospect. As a former stockbroker many, 
many years ago, I spent a lot of time looking at the economy. This 
economy is very confusing in the sense it is sending confusing signals. 
Will this be a long-term recession? Will we come out of it? How does 
the war on terror play in one way or the other?
  These are difficult times, but we do know we need a response, a 
response that will give an immediate impetus to consumer spending in 
this country, a kind of response that will not have a long-term 
negative impact on our budget.
  Senator Daschle's patience, his leadership, his willingness to take a 
punch or two and still come back and be positive, these are all 
qualities we need in leaders. I am very happy. I know we have a lot of 
work to do on the farm bill. I will not go on much longer, except to 
say this is certainly the start of a new day for the economic stimulus 
package. I hope the President will weigh in. I hope Senator Daschle and 
the President will talk today, very soon, and that the President will 
bring his energy and focus to this issue. I believe it could be 
resolved in 24 hours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 24662]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was hopeful there would be some talk on 
the farm bill. I am sure that will take place, with amendments being 
offered. I am confident that will take place.
  I am gratified the leader came to the floor and put an end to this 
constant talk about his not wanting a stimulus package. He has wanted a 
stimulus package. And if the Chair would recall, the only reason there 
is a stimulus package still before the Senate is, we did not raise a 
point of order on the one that would have been granted on the House 
bill. That is still here in the Senate. If the leader had wanted to get 
rid of the stimulus, he could have raised a point of order, or any one 
of us could have, and that would be gone.
  We had offered a number of unanimous consent requests when we were on 
the railroad retirement bill that if we could get off that during the 
postcloture proceedings, we would go back to the stimulus. They refused 
to do that. The minority would not allow us.
  What the leader has said today is, he accepts what the Republicans 
have offered. Of course, it is in the press, not from an authenticated 
source. He has said, we accept what they offer with the one exception: 
rather than have the accelerated tax cuts, what we would do is accept 
what Senator Domenici has talked about for several weeks, agreed to by 
Senator Lott and a number of Democrats; namely, that there would be a 
1-month's moratorium on withholding taxes, which is what most people 
pay. Most people in America do not pay more in income taxes than they 
do withholding taxes. Withholding taxes is the burden on the American 
people. What Senator Domenici has said should happen is there would be 
a 1-month moratorium on paying withholding taxes, not only by the 
employee but the employer. This money would go immediately back into 
the economy.
  It is a good idea. We accept that.
  It seems to me we have a deal. We could have that deal by 3 this 
afternoon. It is very simple. It would be stimulative. It would meet 
all the requirements that everyone has talked about, including the 
President.
  I hope then we can get past this name calling. As has been indicated 
a number of times today, it really is name calling--obstructionist. It 
is all directed toward the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle.
  I don't think it is just by chance that this happened, that we have 
all the congressional leaders, we have the Vice President, and we have 
everyone directing the attention to Senator Daschle. I think it is 
probably as a result of the fact that the White House has done some 
polling, which indicates that all over America Senator Daschle is 
someone people trust. I go home to Nevada and people don't know Senator 
Daschle because he is from South Dakota, but they like Senator Daschle. 
On television and in his appearances on C-SPAN, to America he is 
somebody who comes across as trying to work things out. He is not 
shrill. He is reasonable. He comes across on television that way 
because that is how he is. He is the most patient person with whom I 
have ever worked. He is someone who never raises his voice. He has time 
for everybody. I have seen him--when I want to go home late at night, 
sometimes there are Members of the Senate who still want to see him. He 
is patient and he says: Come on over; I am happy to talk to you.
  So what the American people see is what we see every day. I think the 
reason there has been this directed--I repeat--and concerted effort to 
get Daschle is because they realize he is an effective spokesperson for 
the Democratic Party. I think it would be a real stretch to say that he 
comes from some wild-eyed liberal State--the State of South Dakota. 
Some people are trying to correlate Senator Daschle with Saddam 
Hussein. That is what those ads, as we speak, are doing that are 
running in South Dakota.
  I am tremendously disappointed in the Vice President. I served in the 
House of Representatives with him. I like Dick Cheney. But on national 
television when he was asked if he supported those television ads, he 
did not respond that he did not support them. He gave every impression 
those ads were OK--that Daschle and Saddam Hussein should be pictured 
together. That is not good.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the assistant leader that his comments are right 
on target. I find it so strange that at this time they are attacking 
the Democratic leader, who is not only the leader of the Democrats in 
the Senate but of everyone. He is, in fact, the majority leader. He 
leads the Senate. So at a time when we have tried to come together, we 
have been supportive of this administration in the war against 
terrorism. And it seems that if you disagree with one another on 
anything, you are a target for attack. The irony of that is, what we 
are truly fighting for in this war against terror is our right to have 
our democracy, our freedom, our differences, whether it is political 
differences, religious differences, diversity, or to fight for the 
rights of women. After all, we know that in Afghanistan, or in the 
Taliban, I would never be allowed to show my face--not that it would be 
so terrible for everybody, but it would not be very nice for me. I have 
tried on a burqa and it is a frightening thing.
  When a Democrat in the Senate or in the House, steps out and says we 
think the President is doing a terrific job, but we have an opinion 
that it isn't smart to give retroactive tax cuts to the wealthiest 
corporations in America because, A, it won't stimulate the economy, B, 
it is unfair, and, C, it is going to hurt Social Security, somehow we 
are related to Saddam Hussein. Or if we don't want to drill in the 
Alaska wildlife refuge because we think it is pristine and a gift from 
God, we are criticized as playing into the hands of the terrorists. 
This is not right.
  I think our leader has shown the grace today that leaders should show 
more of, which is to come to this Chamber without rancor and say--not 
even address all of that and just say: I see a little light here; let's 
get to work.
  But does my friend not see the irony here of our being engaged in a 
war against people who don't want diversity of thought; yet when we 
step out here, we are criticized if we don't go down the line 100 
percent?
  Mr. REID. Well, the Democratic Party and Democratic Senators are 
about as diverse as a group of people could be. We have people who 
represent different constituencies and different States, of course, but 
we are a group of Senators with wide-ranging views. Senator Daschle 
works with each one of us. As I look around in this Chamber, there is a 
Senator from North Dakota, and Senators from New York, California, 
Nevada, and Georgia. We all have different views and experiences in 
life. We try to be together as much as we can.
  Senator Daschle recognizes that we can't be together all the time, 
but he does a good job of holding us together, being our leader. I 
think it speaks volumes for what he has done when he comes to the floor 
today, and he has an article from the Wall Street Journal that lists in 
detail what the minority wants in a stimulus package. He says: I 
accept. The only thing I don't want is the retroactive tax cuts. We 
will take another Republican proposal and insert that instead--one 
supported by the former chairman of the Budget Committee and the former 
majority leader, Senator Domenici and Senator Lott. I think it is a 
pretty good deal. I think it speaks that we want to get a stimulus 
package. It is here.
  As I said earlier today, we can have it by 3 o'clock this afternoon. 
However long it takes the staff to write it up, we can do it and walk 
away from it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield, with the prefatory statement: The 
Senators from the State of New York, more than any other Senators in 
the past 6 months, can talk about how the majority leader has led this 
Nation in a bipartisan effort to help the State most afflicted by the 
terrorist acts. So I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from Nevada. In terms of what I would

[[Page 24663]]

like to ask him, he is certainly right. New York, without the majority 
leader, would be virtually nowhere. He has stood firm for us and he has 
tried in every way to help New York, whether it be on the DOD 
authorization bill, in terms of the financing we need, along with the 
Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus, and the majority whip. He has 
helped us look for tax cuts that keep businesses in New York. In fact, 
it has been this Senate, under his leadership, that has sort of had its 
finger in the dike. Have we gotten everything we wanted? No. Have we 
done very well because of Tom Daschle? You bet.
  I would like to ask a question, and the Senator mentioned it as I 
rose. If this man were so obstructionist, why would he be proposing a 
comprehensive package that has a large number of the proposals that the 
folks from the other side came up with? The Domenici proposal is a tax 
cut. It is a tax cut that goes to business, it is a tax cut that 
creates jobs, and it seems to fit a lot of the guidelines for which 
many colleagues on the other side are asking. The majority leader of 
this side takes a giant step across the aisle and says, OK, we are 
going to take a lot of the things you have proposed, even though we 
might prefer actually to get the economy going in other ways, but this 
is a decent way to do it, so we are going to reach out to you. I think 
it is a brilliant step. I think it is a step that could break the 
logjam because, as my colleagues well know, we have had loggerheads 
here. The other side of the aisle has said the way to stimulate the 
economy is tax cuts. What on this side we have said primarily is that 
it has to be aimed at average folks, not the wealthiest who got their 
goodies back in the tax bill.
  Well, the Domenici proposal, which Senator Daschle has embraced, does 
both. It is a tax cut on perhaps the most onerous tax--necessary but 
onerous because it funds Social Security--the payroll tax. Talk to 
small business as well as average workers and yet it is aimed at 
average folks. At least half of it is.
  So doesn't it seem befuddling that the one person who seems to have 
put together a compromise, who has not said do it my way and that is 
the bipartisan way, which we seem to hear from a few colleagues on the 
other side--I don't hear Senator Daschle saying his way is bipartisan 
and the other way is not. But the one person who has put together a 
real proposal that has a chance of breaking the logjam, that does 
incorporate many ideas that came from the other side of the aisle seems 
to be our majority leader. Quite the contrary to what some of the 
editorials are saying, he is not being an obstructionist. He is being 
the most constructive Member of the entire Chamber. I have not heard a 
proposal that has more promise than the one he elucidated on the floor 
an hour ago.
  I ask my good friend from Nevada, is this somebody who takes the 
proposal of the good Senator from New Mexico and makes it the linchpin, 
the centerpiece of what he could support, someone who could fairly be 
called obstructionist, or someone who seems genuinely trying to get 
money into the hands of the people even as we go into a recession, so 
we can get out of that recession and so people can start spending a 
little more and getting the economy going? Is my thinking on this out 
of touch? It seems to me so logical that I almost do not want to bring 
it up.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from New York has answered his own question. Of 
course, it is clear Senator Daschle is not being an obstructionist, but 
it shows the kind of person he is, the peacemaker he is. He stood here 
half an hour ago and said: Let's not pass blame. Let's not talk about 
what went on in the past. Let's just talk about what is going on today, 
and I accept your proposal with the one caveat: Rather than 
accelerating tax cuts, let's go for the Domenici and Lott proposal and 
take that. There are some Democrats who accept that also, which is 
good. It seems to be bipartisan.
  I repeat, it speaks well of our leader when, in responding to a 
question from one of us earlier today, he said: Enough said of what 
went on in the past. What I want to do is move forward. I think that is 
what this does.
  As the Senator from New York has said, it breaks a logjam, and I hope 
our friends on the other side of the aisle will also not look backward. 
I think they should follow the advice, the suggestion of our friend 
from South Dakota, the majority leader, and say: Let's look forward; I 
accept your deal.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, after what I just said, this is in no way to 
direct blame toward anyone, but we are going to go into party 
conferences at 12:30 p.m. Because there was not anything going on, we 
talked a lot today on this side. I hope, though, we will move to the 
amendment process as soon as we can. At 11 o'clock, we were ready for 
amendments. We acknowledge we should have been ready to go a little 
earlier than that, but we were not. We did not hold things up that much 
because there were votes scheduled all morning and we were able to get 
that. We had only one recorded vote.
  In short, I hope people will not say they have not had enough time to 
work on this bill. I hope colleagues will offer their amendments, if 
there are amendments to be offered. We want to finish this bill today. 
We want to get this bill to conference. It is an extremely important 
bill.
  There are some who do not like the bill the way it is written. That 
is the way any legislation is. I am not as experienced in the Senate as 
my friend from Indiana, but I have been in Congress quite awhile. I 
have never had legislation that I introduced turn out the way I 
introduced it. I am sure that is what will happen with this 
legislation.
  I hope we can move forward, get this legislation done, have a good 
debate, and go home for Christmas. We are beating around the bush here, 
I say to everyone within the sound of my voice. Christmas Eve is 2 
weeks from yesterday. We are fast approaching Christmas. Two weeks from 
today is Christmas. We have to finish our work. People want to go home 
to get ready for Christmas. I do not know the experience of others, but 
it is a little hard to go Christmas shopping when you are here until 
after midnight on Friday night, when we have other things to do, and 
with travel that is necessary. I live almost 3,000 miles from here. I 
want to go home for Christmas.
  I hope we can move forward with these amendments as quickly as 
possible and move on this legislation. I hope people do not complain 
that they have not had time to offer amendments. We have time now. 
After the conference, we will go to 6 o'clock tonight, 12 o'clock 
tonight. We want to finish this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I share the eagerness of the distinguished 
leader in wanting to complete the bill. For the moment, I am awaiting 
the presence of the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, who 
has one amendment on dairy. I anticipate his arrival imminently.
  After he offers that amendment and in the event it is still in order, 
I will offer an amendment that will amend the commodity nutrition 
sections of the bill. To advance the process, I will discuss that 
amendment pending the arrival of the distinguished Senator from Idaho. 
If he does not arrive, I will offer the amendment and let it be the 
pending amendment.
  As many of us have pointed out, current farm programs, including the 
program we adopted in 1996 and supplemental farm assistance programs we 
have adopted at least the last 3 years during the summertime, have 
encouraged overproduction of a small number of selected program crops; 
namely, wheat, corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans.
  The effect of our farm bills, intended or unintended, has been to 
encourage

[[Page 24664]]

those who are in the five row crops I have enumerated to plant more. 
This should not have come as a total surprise because we have set 
incentives in our bill which make it profitable to do that.
  As I pointed out from my own experience in Indiana, if you send a 
bushel of corn to the elevator, you are guaranteed to get $1.89 because 
the last farm bill has a loan deficiency payment program that 
guarantees that. That has no relationship necessarily to the cost of 
production of an additional unit. So many farmers in Indiana, myself 
included, produce knowing that our cost for the marginal bushel is 
going to be less than what was meant to be the floor. The $1.89 was not 
to be touched.
  Of course, as more and more of us produce more and more corn, the 
surpluses grow, the price predictably falls, and given the size of the 
surplus, it stays low. Then people come to the Senate Chamber and point 
out, correctly, that prices are very low and, as a result, we ought to 
do something about that. And farm bills are passed to do something 
about that.
  The dilemma with the pending bill that came out of the Agriculture 
Committee is that, in my judgment, the incentives to produce even more 
have been increased substantially. Therefore, it is a large step in the 
wrong direction.
  If we adopt the bill out of the Agriculture Committee, we will, in 
fact, have low prices. They are almost guaranteed.
  Senators will say: But whether the low prices happen or not, that is 
the market. What we are talking about in this bill are payments for a 
bushel that have no relationship to the market because we are going to 
guarantee a payment that is well above the market, almost in 
perpetuity, whether it is a 5-year bill or a 10-year bill. That will 
provide new income to farmers, quite apart from what supply and demand 
either in this country or the world might suggest. I think that is the 
wrong course.
  As a result, I simply want to point out that caught in this cycle of 
low commodity prices that reinforce themselves, I tried to think 
through a different way of approaching this; namely, one that in effect 
accepts that we have markets that work and people ought to produce for 
the market price. In the event the market price is not adequate, they 
ought to produce something else. They ought to have a mix in terms of 
their farm situations, as most farmers do, or become much more 
efficient so the costs become lower than the market price and they make 
a profit doing that.
  I do not make that shift abruptly. There are a couple of years of 
phaseout. But the heart of the matter, in light of the amendment I am 
going to introduce, says instead of just the five row crops that are 
the focus of farm legislation and that lead to six States receiving 
close to 50 percent of all the payments, every person who is involved 
in farming, whether that person produces livestock or row crops or 
fruits and vegetables--whatever is produced on that farm, every dollar 
of that farm income counts. It is a level lie. We don't pick and chose, 
as historically we did from the New Deal days onward, for crops that 
became the so-called program crops, the focus of farm programs.
  In the event we were to adopt my amendment, all States are equal. All 
farmers are equal. It doesn't make a difference what they produce and 
they have the freedom to produce whatever will make a profit. They look 
to the market for whatever that may be.
  After they find that market, under my proposal, they add up--and 
their tax return will show--all the money that has come from all 
agricultural sources on their farm. They receive, up to a certain 
limit, a 6-percent credit or voucher from the Federal Government of the 
total value of what they produced. If their total production is 
$100,000 on the farm--say $40,000 from corn, $40,000 from soybeans, 
$20,000 from hogs--$100,000 of revenue, then they get a voucher for 
$6,000 with which to purchase a crop insurance--or really a whole farm 
insurance, more accurately, because now we are doing not only crops but 
livestock or anything else--whole farm insurance that guarantees that 
they will receive 80 percent of the average 5-year value that they 
produce.
  In essence, it is a safety net. It doesn't guarantee 100 percent of 
their average year by year, but says in no case can they dip below 80 
percent regardless of weather disaster or export/import disasters or 
all the things that can befall agriculture in America. In other words, 
we leave behind target prices, loan rates, prices that have no 
relationship to the market. People produce for markets. They get credit 
for everything they produce, unlike the current system. And they have 
sufficient money to buy insurance that makes them whole--at least 80 
percent, a 20-percent reduction being the worst that can happen in any 
farm year with that kind of coverage.
  I think this makes sense as a long-term farm policy for our country. 
It ends the cycle of overproduction, of stimulation from our farm 
bills. One could say this has not been all bad. In fact, if you own 
land then, in fact, it has been very good. Some agricultural economists 
do not prophesy a bubble in farmland, but many point out that the 
values of real estate, agricultural real estate, have leapt far beyond 
the income potential--largely stimulated, again, by Government payments 
and the certainty of these payments.
  Unfortunately, 42 percent of farmers who are involved in this program 
rent land. They are out of luck because, essentially, our programs 
build value into the value of the land--into the heightening of the 
rent.
  Mr. President, I am advised, happily, that the distinguished Senator 
from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, is available. As I indicated as I began this 
discussion of my potential amendment, I am very pleased that he has an 
actual amendment that he is prepared to introduce and discuss for the 
benefit of all of us at this time. So, therefore, I am prepared to 
yield to the distinguished Senator from Idaho for the purpose of his 
offering an amendment and his discussion of that important amendment.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I will 
call it up for its consideration.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I understand there now is a copy of the 
amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 2472

  Mr. CRAPO. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], for himself, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
     Voinovich, proposes an amendment numbered 2472.

  Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To replace the provision relating to the national dairy 
    program with the provision from the bill passed by the House of 
                            Representatives)

       Strike section 132 and insert the following:

     SEC. 132. STUDY OF NATIONAL DAIRY POLICY.

       (a) Study Required.--Not later than April 30, 2002, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to Congress a 
     comprehensive economic evaluation of the potential direct and 
     indirect effects of the various elements of the national 
     dairy policy, including an examination of the effect of the 
     national dairy policy on--
       (1) farm price stability, farm profitability and viability, 
     and local rural economies in the United States;
       (2) child, senior, and low-income nutrition programs, 
     including impacts on schools and institutions participating 
     in the programs, on program recipients, and other factors; 
     and
       (3) the wholesale and retail cost of fluid milk, dairy 
     farms, and milk utilization.
       (b) National Dairy Policy Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``national dairy policy'' means the dairy policy of the 
     United

[[Page 24665]]

     States as evidenced by the following policies and programs:
       (1) Federal Milk Marketing Orders.
       (2) Interstate dairy compacts (including proposed compacts 
     described in H.R. 1827 and S. 1157, as introduced in the 
     107th Congress).
       (3) Over-order premiums and State pricing programs.
       (4) Direct payments to milk producers.
       (5) Federal milk price support program.
       (6) Export programs regarding milk and dairy products, such 
     as the Dairy Export Incentive Program.

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment will strike section 132 from 
the farm bill and replace it with a study of the impact of our Federal 
dairy policy on producers and consumers. I am proud to be joined by 
Senators Bingaman, Domenici, Brownback, Craig, and Voinovich. There 
will probably be others before we are finished with the debate.
  There has been a lot of national attention provided to the issue of 
national dairy policy. As the provisions in the farm bill in the Senate 
dealing with dairy were first proposed, there was a very strong outcry 
across the country, which I supported. It is my understanding the 
proposals have been modified somewhat. What we first started out with 
was a proposal that would have increased the costs to our consumers, 
increased the costs--reduced the price to our farmers or our producers 
and created a national subsidy program for milk in the middle.
  This would have resulted in our school lunch program, for example, 
paying millions more dollars nationwide, our Food Stamp Program paying 
millions of more dollars nationwide, and a reduction of the consumption 
of milk because of the increased price of milk that this new national 
dairy program would have required.
  It has been modified somewhat but still achieves the same types of 
negative results in the managers' amendment that has been proposed as a 
substitute for the bill that is now on the floor. It is an ill-
conceived attempt to create a national dairy program that is unfair, is 
unwanted, and untested.
  This proposal is opposed by milk producer organizations that 
represent over 90 percent of the milk produced in this country. It is 
opposed by groups with an interest in our milk policy. And, it is 
opposed by taxpayer organizations.
  The proposal we have before us today is the third iteration we have 
seen since it was first sprung upon us before the committee mark-up. 
While this version is a vast improvement over the milk tax created in 
S. 1628 and in the filed bill, it is still bad dairy policy and still 
harmful to the majority of dairy producers.
  This proposal takes a relatively healthy domestic industry and forces 
$2 billion in government spending that will reduce overall farm income. 
That's right. This will reduce income.
  The proposal creates artificial incentive to increase production. The 
law of supply and demand dictates the surplus milk will reduce the 
price paid to dairy farmers. For example: payments to milk producers 
could amount to more than $500 million per year, or the equivalent of a 
U.S. average price incentive of nearly 3 percent. Such a production 
incentive could lead to an increase in milk production of nearly 1 
billion pounds of milk and a market price decline of 20 cents per 
hundredweight.
  If you have a dairy farm larger than the cap, which is most of the 
West and major producers in every State, you lose money.
  The price of milk goes down, and that subsidy, which this proposal in 
the farm bill now intends to make up the difference to farmers, only 
goes so far. So those who do not benefit from the new subsidy are going 
to lose income.
  The special treatment in this bill for the Northeast is also going to 
have an additional effect on milk across the country. This proposal 
contains specific and special provisions for the Northeastern States.
  The 12 Northeastern States identified in this proposal, which account 
for 18 percent of milk production, will receive 25 percent of the 
proposed benefits. So, the percentage increase in production in the 12 
states is likely to be greater than the rest of the Nation. The market 
prices in the rest of the Nation would reflect a disproportionate 
reduction due to the higher payments paid to northeast producers.
  In effect, a taxpayer subsidy to the Northeast is going to result in 
an increase in the production of milk to the detriment of dairy farmers 
around the rest of the country.
  What's more, this $2 billion government outlay is just for the 
payments. It does not take into account the cost to the government when 
it has to purchase surplus milk products. Nonfat dry milk is currently 
being bought under the price support program, which helps to support 
class IV milk prices--butter and nonfat dry milk. USDA purchased over 
20 million pounds of nonfat dry milk last week, bringing USDA 
uncommitted inventories to 655 million pounds, nearly a year's worth of 
U.S. production and far more than USDA can distribute over the next 
several years. The increased supply and decreased prices will lead to 
more government purchases and more cost to the taxpayer.
  I also ask my colleagues what they expect to happen when the $2 
billion is expended. We will have pushed market prices down and 
producers will actually need these payments in the future. We will have 
made our producers dependent on Federal payments, leading to more 
payments in the future.
  We will have created a dependency, making our producers dependent on 
Federal payments, leading to more payments in the future and increased 
debates in these Halls of Congress about whether we can continue a 
subsidy program which we didn't need to establish in the first place.
  What is the goal of this proposal? Supposedly it is to prevent the 
demise of small dairy farms.
  Is there anyone who thinks producers will not make investments to 
produce the maximum amount they can get subsidized to produce? What 
will this do to the small dairy producers who can't afford to make 
those investments?
  The subsidy programs in this bill--which I understand is to encourage 
production of up to 400 cows per farm--will end up in a Federal subsidy 
program stimulating the overproduction of milk in those areas and 
stimulating the increased size of dairy farms.
  I urge my colleagues to vote with me to strike this provision. This 
is bad policy for the farms, it will be bad for the dairy industry, and 
it is bad policy for the country. Congress should favor policies that 
encourage growth and innovation in the industry, and not endorse plans 
that replace market paychecks with government subsidies. The study 
called for in my amendment will help us determine what those good 
policies should be.
  As I indicated, by striking section 182 of the farm bill, we are 
proposing to replace it with a study. There has been a tremendous 
amount of debate over the past few years--in fact, over a number the 
past years--about what the proper milk policy in this country should be 
and what the impact on producers, processors, and those who consume the 
milk will be from different farm policies.
  Although I am confident that the proposal to create a new Federal 
subsidy program and then impose floor prices in some parts of the 
country is not the right kind of farm policy, I also believe a study by 
Congress is necessary to help us get the actual data before us to make 
these critical decisions.
  Let me explain for just a moment who in this country opposes this 
program. Again, as I indicated previously, dairy producers across this 
country representing over 90 percent of the dairy production oppose 
this new dairy proposal. Let me go through a little more specifically 
who opposes this proposal.
  It is opposed by the National Milk Producers Federation, American 
Farm Bureau Federation, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, 
Alliance of Western Milk Producers, Southeast Dairy Farmers 
Association, Western United Dairymen, Milk Producers Council of 
California, and the Dairy Producers of New Mexico, Idaho, Oregon, 
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Montana. It is opposed by the retailer 
processors and consumer food groups, including the

[[Page 24666]]

American Frozen Food Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Chocolate 
Manufacturers Association, Council for Citizens Against Governmental 
Waste, Food Marketing Institute, Grocery Manufacturers of America, 
Independent Bakers Association, International Dairy Foods Association, 
National Confectioners Association, National Council of Chain 
Restaurants, National Food Processors Association, National Grocers 
Association, National Restaurant Association, and the National 
Taxpayers Union.
  I went through that list to show the broad array of different kinds 
of groups that oppose this new proposal for a national dairy policy.
  If you listened carefully, you will notice that there are groups in 
there whose dedicated purpose is to protect the American taxpayers, 
such as the National Taxpayers Union or Citizens Against Governmental 
Waste. There are groups in there that utilize milk and the milk 
processing industry, such as the chocolate manufacturers or grocery 
stores or retailers and restaurant associations. There are groups in 
there that produce the milk and many milk organizations that were 
identified. Whether one is on the production side or whether one is on 
the consumer side or the marketing side, it is recognized very broadly 
across this Nation that this new proposal to create a Federal subsidy 
program for dairy is not a wise direction for our dairy policy.
  For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this 
amendment to strike this provision from the farm bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
distinguished Senator. I believe he has concisely pointed out the 
dilemma of subsidies in the dairy areas where a great deal of the 
problem has been created in the past.
  The committee has wrestled over the course of time with dairy policy 
and has found vast regional and sectional differences, most recently 
exacerbated by the New England Dairy Compact and the debate that has 
surrounded that particular situation.
  As a matter of fact, the Chair will recall when we last had an 
agriculture debate where there were a number of Members vitally 
interested in the dairy issue, although that was not ultimately a part 
of the supplement payments virtually made by that legislation last 
August.
  But a great number of Members pointed out inequities they believed 
were created by Federal policy and created by the New England Dairy 
Compact. Even though the last farm bill indicated it should come to an 
end after a couple of years, it did not come to an end because of 
negotiations that surrounded appropriations bills at the end of the 
session.
  Advocates for the New England Dairy Compact managed each year to do 
so by bumping it ahead another year beyond the termination of the farm 
bill that called for it.
  The last farm bill also called for very substantial changes in dairy 
subsidies. Those likewise have been bumped ahead by other negotiations 
that do not deal directly with farm legislation most frequently but 
were tradeoffs by Senators whose votes were required at the end of the 
session on appropriations bills.
  The compounding of these problems over the years leads us to this 
point and the need for some rationalization, some study of how there 
might be some degree of equity for dairy producers throughout the 
country, regardless of where they live and their income, both with 
regard to production and pricing as opposed to artificial constraints 
or boosts that the Federal Government gives.
  Certainly, it is a way of bringing things back to where we thought we 
were in passing the 1996 act given the same troubles the Senator from 
Idaho has pointed out today. They were exacerbated then.
  In addition to this, I presume, in an attempt not to hit the New 
England Dairy Compact issue head on, the Agriculture Committee, by 
passing a very generous dairy bill, indicated to many Senators that the 
additional subsidies and payments to dairymen would be fairly universal 
around the country.
  At least one of the first attempts to do this in the farm bill--and 
the distinguished Presiding Officer listened to the debate, as well as 
the distinguished Democratic manager present, the Senator from 
Georgia--was to up the ante very substantially; one thought being that 
those who utilized dairy products might put money into a trust fund for 
the benefit of producers but at the expense of consumers.
  It was estimated that this particular scheme might result in a 
payment of 26 cents per gallon more by all the consumers of milk 
regardless of income level, regardless of the WIC program, or the 
school lunch program.
  Understandably, as word of this particular redistribution of the 
wealth got out, cries of outrage occurred. As a matter of fact, the 
dairy sections were not very compatible. Having warred with each other 
for all of these years, the thought that somehow the New England 
compact would be universalized with equity, even if paid for by 
others--namely, the consumers, ultimately, and 26 cents a gallon--did 
not set well. So as a result, it was apparent that the farm bill was 
being rewritten by committee staff.
  Most Senators were never the wiser as to what changes the staff made 
in that particular area, but they were substantial, in part because the 
initial scoring by the Congressional Budget Office, and others, of the 
overall product of our Agriculture Committee sent it well beyond the 
limits that were still very generous in the budget situation. So it 
would have been subject to a point of order, and a lot of amending and 
rewriting went on.
  That, of course, was not the end of it. I have no idea how many times 
the dairy section has been subsequently rewritten. I am advised that 
even this morning before we started this debate, once again, the dairy 
section was being rewritten. The reason for the delay of our debate 
this morning was, in fact, legislative counsel was working with the 
distinguished Democratic staff members on still another dairy amendment 
to the farm bill to supplant whatever was there, which bore no 
relationship to what we finally debated in committee.
  I think the Senator's amendment is very constructive because neither 
he nor I have the slightest idea what is now in the farm bill that is 
before us, and particularly with regard to the dairy situation. We have 
scrambled, I admit to you, Mr. President, in terms of the amendment 
that I was about to offer and will offer subsequently to this dairy 
amendment, to find where, in relationship to the new bill that Senator 
Daschle has offered this morning, our amendment fits.
  That is going to be a problem for everybody thinking about amendments 
today. I think we have rearranged the papers, but there are substantial 
numbers of new pages. I would estimate, just quickly, there are over 
100 pages of new language, some of it pertaining to dairy--a lot of it, 
as a matter of fact, because that has been the major area of contention 
and scoring.
  Fortunately, the Senator from Idaho, noting this situation, simply 
says, we just strike the dairy section, whatever its writing or 
reiteration. Whether it is the fourth or fifth or sixth try at this, we 
strike it, and we have a study of the situation, which is going to be 
much more healthy for every American consumer.
  Any consumer of milk, listening to this debate, will be relieved that 
the cost of milk is not going to go up 26 cents a gallon or 5 cents or 
10 cents a gallon or what have you. As a matter of fact, there will be 
a pretty economical milk situation without extraordinary subsidies 
piled on and redistributed in this way.
  The Senator from Idaho has done a favor for every American consumer 
of milk, a humanitarian service for those who are poor, those who are 
being assisted in the Women, Infants and Children Program and the 
school lunch program. He certainly has assisted all of us as Senators 
to come out of the trenches of this sectional warfare over dairy, which 
has pitted Senators not

[[Page 24667]]

only on the Agriculture Committee but on the floor in pitched battles 
for some time.
  I can remember vividly 2 years ago this December when it was very 
difficult to close down the session of the Congress because the 
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, felt that somehow, 
despite his very best efforts, behind the scenes, somebody, trying to 
wind up the appropriations process, was, once again, renewing the New 
England Dairy Compact, which was supposed to be over at that point. The 
Senator's suspicions were correct. Amazingly, as we left town, the 
dairy compact was still alive. And Senator Kohl vowed that he would 
stop this sort of thing. He has tried valiantly to do so on behalf of 
Wisconsin dairymen and people from the Midwest but without visible 
success.
  I would say to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, if 
he had read the first dairy section coming out of the Agriculture 
Committee, he would have been even further outraged by the process. He 
may have read that and may have contributed, for all I know, to other 
iterations subsequently. But my hope is we will adopt the amendment 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Idaho. It is a clean-cut way 
of getting us back to some reality in the dairy area. Clearly, it will 
be useful for the Congress at this point--without the encumbrance of 
all of the layers of dairy programs that we have produced, plus some 
that we have not ever debated but have been produced somewhere else--to 
sort of clear the deck. The Senator's amendment does that magnificently 
and cleanly.
  So I am hopeful that as we approach the time for final consideration 
of this amendment and a rollcall vote on the amendment, Senators will 
be found to have voted in the affirmative for it. I certainly will be. 
I commend the Senator for crafting this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________