Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to support my amendment specifying that Election Reform Incentive Grant Program funds may go to States wishing to establish toll-free telephone hotlines to be used by voters reporting possible voting fraud and voting rights abuses. The election of 2000 reminded us that elections can be close and that public confidence in the outcome of elections depends on the accuracy, fairness, and legality of election procedures. Obtaining accurate results requires ensuring that fraudulent votes not dilute the votes cast by eligible voters and that all eligible citizens have poll access. Officials from a State's or locality's relevant investigating and enforcing agencies may not have the resources to oversee every polling location. Citizens who witness voting fraud or voting rights abuses may not know where to report a possible violation of law. A toll-free hotline would give citizens a means to help prevent voting fraud and voting rights abuses and would give States the information they need to prosecute violations and implement procedures to prevent further violations. The Indiana Bipartisan Task Force on Election Integrity recently issued a report developed through months of research and with the input of election officials, voter advocates, and citizens of the State. While the State of Indiana already has implemented many measures that will enhance the integrity of elections, the Task Force recommended additional reforms for that purpose, including the development of a toll-free telephone hotline to be used by voters who believe they have witnessed a voting irregularity or voting rights abuse. I believe that other States may wish to establish such hotlines, and I believe the hotlines could be an important tool in improving election accuracy, fairness, and legality. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum with time to be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McConnell amendment. For a very small reduction in the planned increases to price support and loan guarantee rates, two meaningful improvements to the Food Stamp Program become possible. A savings, of about $500 million over 10 years, is created by reducing rates less than a cent per bushel or pound across all crops. The application of this savings to the Food Stamp Program fulfills a bipartisan goal to further expand the standard deduction provision in the current Senate farm bill. In determining the amount of family income available for food purchases, all applicant households get the same standard deduction for basic living expenses. As my colleague, Senator McConnell points out, the amount, $134 per month, doesn't vary by family size and hasn't changed in value for a number of years. Since the size of the standard deduction affects eligibility and benefit decisions, current policy has resulted in an erosion of benefits. There is both widespread and bipartisan support for making improvements in this policy area. The administration's new budget, the Senate Agriculture Committee bill, the House nutrition title, my own farm bill proposal, as well as legislation introduced last year by Senators Kennedy, Specter, Leahy, Jeffords, Graham, Clinton, Daschle, Chafee, and Corzine all propose to tie the standard deduction to a percentage of the Federal poverty line. Under the Senate farm bill, the standard deduction only reaches 9 percent of the poverty line, even when fully phased in. The Bush, Lugar and Kennedy-Specter proposals, in contrast, take the standard deduction to 10 percent of the poverty line over 10 years. The result is a small benefit increase. A food stamp family of four would get an additional $6 per month compared to the current Senate bill. The second food stamp improvement the McConnell amendment makes is to modestly expand benefit access among low-income disabled persons. Specifically, the amendment would raise the asset ceiling for low- income families with a disabled member from $2,000 to $3,000. Three thousand dollars is the asset limit for families with an elderly member. Since both the elderly and disabled face limited opportunities to replace assets, it is reasonable to have the same ceiling apply. This provision reduces the need for low-income disabled persons to spend down savings before becoming eligible for food stamp benefits. Voting for this amendment is a small gesture that makes a positive difference for many and takes a modest step toward repairing the impact of substantial budget cuts sustained by the Food Stamp Program in the mid-1990s. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have need to interrupt the distinguished Senator. We are under this limit in this final 10 minutes to offer amendments. If I may have his forbearance, I would like to offer an amendment at this point.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator McConnell, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. LUGAR. The purpose of this amendment is to repeal the Hass Avocado Promotion Research and Information Act of 2000. I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be set aside so I may offer another amendment on behalf of Senator Phil Gramm of Texas.

Mr. LUGAR. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senator Domenici proposes a different formula for dairy payments. I will discuss the issue for a few minutes before laying the amendment aside for further debate. Some in the Senate have decided to provide $2 billion in payments to dairy farmers over the next 5 years. However, there is considerable disparity in the way these payments will be distributed under the Daschle substitute. The Daschle substitute establishes different payment rates, different target prices, and different payments for a handful of States. The Daschle substitute would provide 25 percent of the producer payments to producers in States that account for only 18 percent of our Nation's milk. There is no sound policy reason for this disparity. Senator Domenici has asked that we look specifically at New Mexico. Under the current proposal, New Mexico would average about 6 cents per hundredweight on milk, while producers in Maine would average almost 90 cents. A 1,000-cow herd in New Mexico would receive from zero, in a low market scenario, to $22,000. If this same farm were located in New York, for example, these numbers could be far higher. Dairy farmers work in a national market. Dairy farmers not only sell products nationally, but they buy supplies and services nationally. Dairy farmers from all over the country go to an auction in Indiana to buy heifers for their herds. Under the pending bill, a farmer from Pennsylvania will be able to pay more for heifers than a farmer from Indiana because of the Federal Government has given the Pennsylvania farmer a financial advantage in this transaction. Senator Domenici proposes that we distribute this $2 billion in an equitable manner under a program that is national in scope. Under his amendment, every dairy producer, regardless of where they milk, is treated the same. Under his proposal, producers in 36 States will receive more than what they would receive under the Daschle substitute. The amendment is relatively simple. It would provide producers with one annual payment over the next 5 years. Defining a target price and payment rate would also be difficult under the Daschle procedures. Prices are announced for different classes for different regions using different tests. To simplify payments, the Domenici amendment proposes to level out the payment with one rate, paid annually on all of a producer's milk. Estimates show 31.5 cents would cover all of the milk nationwide. The $2 billion cap would force the Secretary to adjust in the final year to make sure the amount is not exceeded. A fixed payment is not only more cost effective to administer, but it will provide predictability in a volatile price market. Producers will be able to plan. If it is already a ``good year,'' producers can set the payment aside for future years that may not be so good or pay down debt to better weather future economic storms. On behalf of Senator Domenici, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the ramifications for dairy farmers in their States and to vote in favor of the Domenici amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me respond to the distinguished Senator. I personally favor the amendment. I will ask for 3 more minutes for the hotline on our side to ascertain whether all of us are in agreement. I am hopeful that is the case. If I may have the indulgence of Senators, I will ask for a quorum call for about 3 minutes of time. It would be my hope we could accept the amendment at that point.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will return now to the amendments of the Senator from Wyoming. I had an opportunity to visit with the Senator and to appreciate the depth of his understanding and research with regard to both of these amendments. On our side, we are pleased to accept them and, hopefully, we will have a unanimous vote.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time being charged to both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, the Senator from Wyoming has arrived and may wish to speak on the Wellstone amendment. How much time remains?

Mr. LUGAR. My understanding is that a recorded vote would occur at the expiration of the time of this amendment and the expiration of the time of whatever amendments that were in the original unanimous consent request. In other words, a list of, I think, four amendments needed to be disposed of. So after we have completed work on all of those, there would then be rollcall votes therefore required, and this would be one of those instances.

Mr. LUGAR. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time being charged to both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. Will the Chair turn our attention to the Helms amendment No. 2822 and proceed with the regular order with that amendment?

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

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair for that information. I ask that the Chair proceed to consideration of the amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2850

Mr. LUGAR. That is my understanding. I believe, in addition, another amendment will be offered in relation to the Kyl-Nickles amendment on estate taxes.

Mr. LUGAR. A second-degree amendment. But there will be votes on both of those; that is, they will be side by side in the debate.