Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend, the distinguished Senator from Vermont. As I have indicated in remarks throughout the Senate's deliberations on this bill, nutrition assistance is of paramount importance for enhancing our nation's security. I am familiar with the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico and recognize the importance of adjusting benefit levels and income requirements for inflation. This is why Senator Cochran and I worked together on legislation, 2 years ago, that now provides such an adjustment. I look forward to working with Senator Leahy, Chairman Harkin and the other conferees in the conference on this bill to explore this issue by assessing the needs of low-income Puerto Ricans and possible means of addressing those needs. peanut program

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Wyoming if he will respond to questions in a colloquy about the important amendment he has offered?

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask the Senator, is it his intent to bring about an authorization for this so-called LAP program, which leads to this point, as the Senator has pointed out, that it has usually been the result of the appropriations process and a disaster bill on an ad hoc basis?

Mr. LUGAR. To be a permanent program?

Mr. LUGAR. As I understand the amendment, it does not have mandatory funding attached to the program. It simply is an authorization. As the Senator pointed out, therefore, there is some planning, some attention that could be given to the livestock industry throughout the year in preparation for the appropriations process.

Mr. LUGAR. Does the Senator have a recollection of how frequently drought has occurred in Wyoming or, for that matter, the surrounding States? Is this an annual situation or perhaps it has occurred 1 out of 3 years? How would the Senator characterize the dilemma?

Mr. LUGAR. Just on a historical basis, obviously, the ranching industry has been a large one in the Senator's State for many years, and I suspect that drought has frequently come. I am just simply curious, as a matter of historical record, how have cattlemen survived these droughts? Has it been really through annual or these ad hoc appropriations or is there sort of a law of averages? How would you describe why people decide to have grazing in Wyoming and how some, at least, have thrived or they would not be in business even to this day?

Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate the Senator's responses that fill out a very fine initial presentation of the bill with the Senator's own experience. Obviously, he speaks not only for the State that he represents so well but for other cattlemen, those who are involved in this process. The chart that he has presented is a comprehensive chart of the entire United States. There are many problems; therefore, the merits of the Senator's amendment really pertain to all of these Americans in addition to those he represents in the State of Wyoming. I thank the Senator for his responses. I like the idea, and I would plan to support his amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Pat Sweeney, a detailee to the Agriculture Committee from the General Accounting Office, be granted privileges of the floor during consideration of the farm bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I commend the distinguished floor leader for working with both sides of the aisle to provide a good structure for our debate tomorrow and for a conclusion of the farm bill debate. I simply wanted to indicate that on our side of the aisle, we have worked closely with the leader and that we have an excellent format. Therefore, I will not object and commend what is occurring and will support it.

Mr. LUGAR. That is my understanding. Once again, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, Senator Santorum's amendment has been withdrawn from this list. He is modifying the amendment. It may be that amendment can be accepted in due course. If not, it will come in the normal rotation for debate.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, this is a modest amendment. I stress ``modest.'' In the event that Senators still wish to discuss the issue, I will have another amendment following this which has a much more striking possibility for reform. Nevertheless, this is important. I am surprised at the vehemence and difficulty in the debate I have heard thus far. I say this after trying to determine, at least in my State, what the implication will be from the amendment. I went, as many have, to the Environmental Working Group Web site and reviewed a printout of the last 5 years, 1996 to 2000, and who in Indiana might even be slightly affected by this. The Web site points out there were 98,835 recipients of farm subsidies in Indiana during that period of time. There are 6, out of 98,000, who would be affected by this amendment. Our State is not inconsequential in agriculture. As a matter of fact, with the number of farmers we have, it does not rank, as it turns out, in the top six States that receive farm subsidies, but we receive quite a bit. To find there are only 6 entities that could slightly be affected by this seems to me to make my point because 98,000-plus others would not be affected. This is not unique to the State of Indiana. Simply using my own home base to make the point again and again that two-thirds of the subsidies still go to 10 percent of farmers, there is still a high concentration in my State of where the subsidies go, and that is generally reflective, plus or minus in some places 55 percent, up to 75 percent in States across the Union, going to the top 10 percent. I examined the Web site for the State of Arkansas, having heard the eloquence of my distinguished colleague from Arkansas. There the skewing of the payments is slightly greater: 73 percent of the money goes to just 10 percent of the farms. The database indicates 4,822 recipients average $430,000 each in a 5-year period of time. That took up 73 percent of the money. Arkansas, as a matter of fact, received slightly more money than Indiana during the 5-year period of time-- something close to $2.8 billion as opposed to $2.7 billion, with only half as many farmers. Leaving aside that anomaly of the farm bill, I then went to the same database to try to find out how many farmers would be affected. In Indiana, as I pointed out, only 6 would be above the $275,000 times 5, which would be the relevant standard for the 5 years that are given here, 1996 to 2002. The printout in Arkansas indicates there are 583 farms that would have been affected in the 1996-2000 period. That is quite a few more than six. Therefore, I understand the eloquence of the distinguished Senators from Arkansas who have received calls from each of the 583 recipients who have jammed the switchboard. Let me point out that even if one accepts the fact that this is quite a quantum leap, there are 48,000 farmers in Arkansas. These farmers represent slightly more than 1 percent of the farmers of that State. Again and again we will have to face the fact we have a system which is so skewed toward the extraordinarily wealthy, toward the huge farms. I am not one to go into demagoguing because a farm is big, but I think taxpayers have an interest in whether that bigness is rewarded by extraordinary millions of dollars of farm subsidies while, at the same time, all of us plead for the family farmer for retention of that tradition, this honest person trying to till the soil, when in fact we are talking about entities that are sophisticated. Thank goodness that is so. I pray each one of our farms will become more so in world competition. However, it is another thing to move from hopes that we become more sophisticated and competitive to the thought that we ought to subsidize, in a very skewed way, the wealthiest of all farm entities. I think that is fundamentally wrong. I hope it is stopped. This amendment is only going to clip it at the top. Six farms in Indiana, for example. We are not unique. Taking a look at data in South Dakota, fewer than two dozen farms would find problems. That State receives about the same amount of money in subsidies as does Indiana, and a great many fewer farmers likewise. Even then, in the skewing of South Dakota, the top 10 percent get 55 percent of the payments, somewhat more leveled off, but well over half at just 10 percent. Again and again this is replicated. There are some distinct benefits of this amendment that have not been illuminated as we have been discussing the wealthy and how they make it in this case. As a matter of fact, the money that would be saved, even from this small clipping, would increase the initiatives for future agriculture and food systems in our agriculture bill from $120 million of research a year to $225 million beginning in fiscal year 2003 and continuing through 2006. In terms of overall agriculture--all the farmers of this country, the competitiveness of our system--clearly that is a better expenditure than putting money on farmers who already have extraordinary success and who are accumulating more as we proceed. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased that in a few moments the Senate will vote on the Durbin amendment that restores benefits to legal immigrants in our country. We had a good debate last evening which illuminated the fact that there are as many as 500,000 Americans who are able to meet the criteria of having lived in this country 5 years or having had a work experience for 4 years who--and most importantly their children--due to confusion of the regulations frequently have not had the Food Stamp Program and the proper nutrition that might come from that. But we are going to change that. It is a strong bipartisan force. The President of the United States has spoken forcefully on these issues and has commended the activity that is encapsulated so well in the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I am pleased to join him in hoping that we will have if not, a unanimous vote, a nearly unanimous vote. It is both a humanitarian cause and a fairness cause and a considerable extension of the nutrition safety net for all Americans. This seems to me to be a very important objective of this farm bill because we are the Senate Committee of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and we have taken the nutrition title very seriously. The Senator from Illinois has found ways that we can enhance that title very substantially. I commend that effort and ask all Senators to vote in favor of this amendment. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished Senator for that invitation. Further Modification To Amendment No. 2821 Mr. President, I do send to the desk the modification from Senator Gramm.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I stress again that the amendment is identical to President Bush's budget proposal. I think all Senators appreciate that. I want to establish that again. Secondly, I want to establish that the amendment does not affect in any way a producer's eligibility for conservation programs. It applies only to commodity programs and crop insurance. I point out that the land which exists in the Conservation Reserve Program would be eligible, and the answer is, yes, CRP land specifically is exempted from the commodity programs and crop insurance. These questions have been raised because they are material to the savings in the bill that are now to be applied for this important food stamp reform. Having said that, I commend the amendment again to Senators, and I am hopeful we will have a strong vote in support.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield back that time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2827 to Amendment No. 2471

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I alert all Members and staff as they prepare to go to lunch, we will have a debate for the next 2 hours and vote at approximately 3:05. This amendment is a radical adjustment. I am hopeful Senators will be alert to the particulars as well as to the general philosophy of the amendment. It deals with the commodity title. As I have stated on other occasions, the other titles of the bill have had strong bipartisan support. As a matter of fact, we have improved them in the amendment process, especially a nutrition amendment that Senator Durbin addressed this morning in his amendment. My criticism of the commodity area of the farm bill is substantial. It comes down to the first point that we are debating this bill at a time in which our Nation is apparently in deficit finance, which means essentially we are spending more money as a government than we are taking in. That means each dollar of additional deficit comes from the Social Security trust fund. Most lament that; both parties, through a lockbox strategy or through pledges, want that sacrosanct and recognize the public as a whole does not like the idea of the Social Security trust fund being invaded. That dislike is compounded by predictions that it will occur perhaps for many years, not simply for the year we are in or, as a matter of fact, the year we just concluded. I make that point not to say we should not proceed with the farm bill. We are going to do that. I support that. We are working with the distinguished chairman to try to finalize amendments and get a roadmap of how to do that. We are prepared to spend some money. However, we had better be thoughtful and prudent. I am suggesting that the current commodity title that lies before the Senate, plus or minus whatever adjustment amendments are brought to it, is about a $44 billion expenditure over 5 years of time. It is frontloaded into those 5 years of time. The Secretary of Agriculture already has expressed objection on the part of the administration to that. The amendment I will offer today is a $25 billion payment for a 5- year period, as opposed to $44 billion. This is for 5 years. It is a very substantial change. It is a prudent change, in my judgment. Now the second point I want to make is, if the first was not imperative enough in terms of deficit finance and money we do not have, the money that would be spent in the Daschle-Harkin bill would go--as we have heard again and again in the debate, approximately two-thirds of the money would go to approximately 10 percent of the farmers. It is even more concentrated than that. In fact, the bills we have had in the past, and this bill, essentially deal with the basic row crops of cotton, rice, soybeans, corn, and wheat. That has been the case since the New Deal days in the 1930s and still remains the case in this bill. There are smaller amounts of money, from time to time, to vegetable crops--to dairy, to tobacco, to peanuts--but essentially the money is on the row crops. That means that essentially six States receive half of the money because these are large States and they have row crops as opposed to agriculture of different sorts. So the bill is highly skewed. It is not original in that respect. That has been true of this legislation for many years. Nevertheless, we compound that problem in this bill. To lay it out so all of us can understand it, 60 percent of farmers, more or less, do not receive any subsidies; 40 percent receive all the subsidies. Of the 40 percent, 10 percent of those receive two-thirds of the subsidies. As I illustrated in debating the last amendment with regard to the limitation of $275,000 for a husband and wife or $225,000 for a single farmer, in my State of Indiana we have a very different result than was the case in the State of Arkansas, the proponents of the legislation. But in either case there are very few people who benefit--who receive, actually, more than $275,000 now. Only six farmers in Indiana, apparently 583 in the last iteration in Arkansas. We have 98,000 recipients of subsidies in Indiana; Arkansas has 48,000. So any way you look at it, 6 or 583, those particular farmers receive extraordinary sums of money, which skews the payment situation in a way that strikes most persons who are talking about retaining the family farm and supporting the modest farmer as very strange. If in fact our intent was to save the family farmer, to cashflow those farms that are in trouble, it would appear that we could probably do better than have one-third of the money going to 90 percent of the farmers. As a matter of fact, it becomes even more progressive in the other way as you proceed down through the ranks. So I add that thought. Not only are we in deficit finance, but we have a formula that, by its very nature, is going to reward those who are very large. Some would say, Why is that a bad idea? Is it not the American ideal, as a matter of fact, to succeed, to accumulate more land, to have more crops? Indeed, it is. The basic question is not one of merit. No one is being prohibited from becoming big and succeeding. The question is whether subsidies that were meant to save family farms contribute to that process. The third point I want to make is there is strong evidence that our past farm bills--the immediate one we are working on now, the bill of 1996, the one of 1991 before that--have offered incentives to produce more. Why is that bad? Because we almost guarantee that, absent a huge weather problem or a total breakdown in the world trading system because of war or pestilence or disaster, we will have more of each of the basic row crops almost every year. There are good incentives, in fact, to produce more, because each bushel of production brings its reward in higher subsidies. Therefore, Senators come to the floor and lament the fact that prices have never been so low. Well, of course. The very bills that we are passing almost guarantee they will be stomped down every year. It is impossible to think of a scenario in which we are more likely to have this problem. Mr. President, I got so carried away in my arguments, I failed to call up the amendment. So, as a result, I will do that at this point, hopefully having whetted the appetite of the Chair. I call up the Lugar amendment and ask the clock start running on debate time.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I join the chairman in commending the distinguished Senators from Missouri and Arkansas for a very constructive amendment. I am hopeful it will have universal support. Let me add a point of procedure. Senator Hatch wants to speak on the amendment. He is not visible for the moment. At a certain proper time, I will consult with the chairman. We may want to set this amendment aside so we have floor activity. I know of no opposition, but Senator Hatch is still to be heard from, so we want to reserve the opportunity for him to speak if possible. I suggest the absence of a quorum.