Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. That is correct.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes in support of the McConnell amendment. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky has stated the case well. In earlier debates, both of us pointed out that the McConnell amendment is essential to bringing justice to all Americans who are recipients of food stamps--in this case, among those who are most vulnerable in our society. It does so at a minimal change with regard to payments to farmers. I suspect most farmers recognize that and would commend the intent. In fairness, my distinguished colleague, the chairman of our committee, does not argue about the intent. Indeed, the Senate bill is much more generous than the House bill in regard to nutrition programs and food stamps in particular and is much more generous than administration proposals. At the same time, we have spent the time in committee attempting to explore equity. This seems to me to be an amendment that rounds this out, and that brings completion to our argument in a very satisfying way. The savings account idea is a good one, but to introduce it at this point seems to me to be inappropriate. I am most hopeful that Senators who support the McConnell amendment will think through, once again, an opportunity that we have in a humane way to help those who are vulnerable in our society through satisfying nutrition programs. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me ask the distinguished chairman of our committee for his attention to the Helms amendment No. 2822 dealing with animal welfare. I wanted to inquire of the Senator with regard to the Helms amendment No. 2822 on animal welfare. It is my understanding that on both sides of the aisle we are prepared to accept that amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to the McConnell amendment No. 2854.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the that Chair consider an amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, No. 2542.

Mr. LUGAR. I ask clarification from the Chair. On the copy of the amendment I am looking at, it identifies it as amendment No. 2639. Can the Chair help illuminate?

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to bring us to consideration of the Gramm amendment No. 2849.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2856

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2845

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2848, offered by Senator Gramm of Texas, be withdrawn.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. If I may respond to my colleague, shortly, I will offer a motion that the Inhofe amendment be withdrawn. That means there will be only three amendments other than the debate on the estate tax. I inquire if we might get a time agreement of 20 minutes on each of those three amendments.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes. And then perhaps work out time agreements so that there are up-and-down votes on the two estate tax amendments.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LUGAR. I call up amendment No. 2851, which I offered on behalf of Senator Domenici earlier today, and I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President I will read from a letter which Senator Domenici has written to his colleagues in the Senate in support of amendment No. 2851: I ask you to join me in making the dairy title of the farm bill equitable to all producers across the country. There is currently $2 billion available in S. 1731 over the next five years for the dairy program. However, the dairy title of the farm bill currently under consideration on the Senate floor gives special treatment to 12 states at the expense of the remaining 38. Specifically, those producers in the 12 New England states currently producing 18% of our nation's milk, will receive a disproportionate 25% in producer payments. This is inconsistent with the vast majority of other programs where the loan rate, or payment rate for a particular commodity is the same for producers all across the country. There is no market justification for this type of division. FAPRI analysis of S. 1731 shows that the response to these payments would result in depressed market prices. By the last year of the program, estimates predict that income to dairy farmers in every state would be reduced. This is a reduction on all milk--not just milk of a certain level of production. Thus, producers whose milk is not eligible for the payments will be receiving less money for their milk than if the payments were not made at all. To be fair, those producers should not have to pay for this policy. All producers should be allowed to fully participate. I ask that you support an amendment that will be offered on my behalf that will distribute this $2 billion in a more equitable manner. The program that I propose is national in scope. Dairy prices can change rapidly from month to month. Rather than burden the Secretary with the costs of computing payment rates and making monthly payments, I propose to streamline this process and make an annual flat payment to producers over the next five years which will approximate the counter- cyclical payments they would receive if computed and paid like other commodities. Estimates show that rate to be approximately 31.5 cents per hundredweight on all milk produced. Under this approach, administrative costs will be reduced and payment uncertainties will be eliminated. A payment on all milk will provide, in gross dollars, as much or more money to virtually all states. A table illustrating this is attached. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR. I continue reading: I also propose the elimination of caps on payments to producers based upon production. This is a fairness issue. Since 1983, dairy producers have paid assessments for their programs. These assessments have always been without limitation. Now that there are payments, these producers should benefit from the same policy--payments without limitations. A well known dairy economist with Penn State University, using recent historical prices, estimated that payments for the Northeast farmers would be from 24 cents to 91 cents per hundredweight with an average of 57 cents. At the same time producers elsewhere would receive from nothing to 35 cents with a mid point of 14 cents. Producers in the same marketing orders who share the same blend prices and the same markets, could be treated vastly different under S. 1731. These producers are members of the same cooperatives, use the same trucking companies and otherwise participate in a single market. Yet, some in the market order stand to make 3 to 4 times as much as their neighbors, while market prices in the rest of the country are significantly reduced as a result of the disparity. Again, I urge you to join me in making the dairy title equitable to all producers. If you are interested in co-sponsoring this legislation or need additional information, please contact Shelly Randel at 224- 1964. I wish Senator Domenici were here to make the statement himself and to further amplify the equity of his program, but common sense would dictate that there should be equity among the States. Clearly, there is not. Clearly, dairy farmers with almost identical conditions and identical cooperatives should have equitable treatment. S. 1731 clearly does not accomplish that. Therefore, I commend the Domenici amendment to Senators. I am hopeful when the debate concludes tomorrow after the 2 minutes, 1 minute a side to summarize, that Senators will vote in favor of the Domenici amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will ask again that a quorum call be instituted with the time evenly divided between the two sides.

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