Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. No. It was this huge emergency created by the drought. And many of us were involved, in a bipartisan way.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in behalf of the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, I request unanimous consent that in the event cloture is invoked and Senator McCain has not been able to offer his amendment before that time, he be allowed to go ahead and offer his amendment, and that it be considered germane.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is a thoughtful amendment, trying to bring equity between farmers who may be fairly small, quite apart from those who have substantial herds, in dealing with packers. It is a close call as to where the best interests of farmers may lie. Let me suggest that it occurs, at least to this Senator, that it is usually to the advantage of a farmer, particularly a small farmer, to have an arbitration clause that at least settles the framework in which some justice might occur. I make this point because, unfortunately, litigation tends to be expensive. There are possibilities in a court of law for discovery, for the mandating of information the distinguished Senator from Iowa has mentioned, that would be very helpful perhaps and illuminate the total field, but likewise, it is mostly the case that the company involved, the packer or whoever is the corporate dispute in this situation, is likely to have more resources, just as sometimes occurs when the resources are vastly unequal. Nevertheless, it is not something, it seems to me, the Senate ought to weigh in on. In essence, my understanding of the Feingold amendment is that it would prohibit the use of mandatory, binding arbitrary clauses in agricultural contracts. But to adopt the language of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, this ought to be the option of the farmer or the rancher as he enters the type of contract he or she may find most desirable. In other words, the individual and the smaller entity ought not to be precluded from a means--in the event of a dispute, or if there has been a history of dispute--that could be less expensive and perhaps, therefore, more certain of a day in court. Therefore, I won't belabor the issue because the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin and the distinguished Senator from Iowa have described the fact that arbitration is a frequently used means of resolving these disputes and, in fact, the amendment would not arise if this were not the case, and the belief on the part of the two previous speakers is that arbitration should not be a possibility in the contract. I will argue that it ought to be a possibility, ought to be an option for the farmer or rancher, and therefore, respectfully, I oppose the Feingold amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, I would like to make one additional comment, if I may. Mr. President, this may not be a definitive situation, but this Senator simply notes that all 50 States of the Union have adopted contract arbitration statutes that allow a provision to be placed in a written contract. I have no idea if the occupant of the chair would have a better idea from his experience as Governor of our State as to how legislatures have dealt with this problem. But it is interesting that all 50 have, and we are on the threshold of displacing whatever judgments might have occurred in those situations. I think this is something that many Senators do not approach without some thought as to why such contract clauses may have been made an option. I appreciate the point of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin that he believes, as a practical matter, farmers or ranchers dealing in these contracts have no choice; that in order to sign up at least in something that appears to be favorable, because they really would not move in that direction otherwise, they must, of necessity, accept an arbitration clause. Perhaps that is so but not necessarily. It would be the experience of this Senator, in at least a modest management of the family farm that I often describe in these debates, that I have approached or been approached by those who have offered contractual arrangements for purchase of my corn, for example. Now, I was free to either accept or reject the contract, and in most cases I have rejected the contracts. In some cases, I have accepted. I was still a free person to do this. I am not certain I see the mandatory aspects of the company that was dealing with me as having some predatory function here or ability to coerce me into this arrangement. I get back once again to my options. We are doing this from the standpoint of the individual farmer and rancher. I accept the fact that perhaps in some markets, in some counties, and in some States this degree of freedom of choice may not, as a practical effect, be the same as it is in our State of Indiana. I caution Senators, before moving too stoutly in this direction, to examine this and think about it. It is for these reasons I will vote against the Feingold amendment, even as I have admitted and acknowledged that it is a close call and that the arguments are reasonable on both sides.

Mr. LUGAR. No, and the Senator has not. I appreciate it.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, I understand the Senator asked unanimous consent that his amendment might be debated immediately following the Johnson amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator, and I apologize for my misunderstanding because I recall we had a colloquy in which the Senator was involved earlier on.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, simply stated, this amendment would curtail the ability of packers to ensure a continuous supply of meat products. Without a certain supply, packers cannot operate, as the Senator from Virginia has pointed out, in a most efficient way. Margins for packers are already tight. They would be forced to run fewer shifts and close processing lines. This would force meat prices for consumers to rise, adversely affecting the poorest Americans who spend a higher percentage of income on food. We could amplify each of these points, but they are, I believe, essential to the debate. The reason that packers attempt to make certain they have a certain supply through control of that supply is to make certain that a continuous flow of production occurs. I appreciate the point being made by the sponsor of this amendment because, clearly, in years gone by competition in the stockyards of America made for a very lively market. My family was involved in that business. My dad was a livestock commission man at the Indianapolis stockyards, handling the hogs while my grandfather handled the cattle. At 4:30 in the morning he went to the yards and did the best he could for the farmers he represented. Those stockyards long since have left our city, as they have left almost all cities of my State. It is in large part because those who are hog farmers and cattle farmers arrive at contractual arrangements that are favorable to them. The intent of this amendment, well meaning as it may be, is to roll back two decades of history in the business. The rollback will not necessarily be helpful to most Americans. It certainly will not be helpful for the price of meat or jobs of those employed by the meatpackers. These considerations have to be weighed as we evaluate the Johnson amendment. It is for these reasons, recognizing the point my colleague is making, that I oppose his amendment. I am hopeful Senators will carefully consider each of these factors as they come to a vote on this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to raise a question with the distinguished Senator from Nevada. As I understand it, the debate is concluded. My question to the Senator is, as we do not have a vote ordered, what can we do between now and 10 minutes until 2?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in the moments before our rollcall vote, let me respond briefly to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota. I observed during the past 48 hours that Senators have had an opportunity to offer amendments to the farm bill. I believe all witnesses to the debate would understand it has been spirited and vigorous. As a matter of fact, all of the amendments offered have been very relevant to agriculture. There were obviously many more amendments that Senators wished to offer that would be relevant to agriculture. We have compiled a list of 44 such amendments. In relation to the colloquy I just enjoyed with the distinguished chairman, two of those amendments--one to be offered by Senators Cochran and Roberts, and one to be offered by Senator Gordon Smith-- have been deemed germane by the majority leader's unanimous consent request, even if cloture is invoked. Those Senators have asked for this privilege simply because cloture would mean the possibility that very relevant amendments would be deemed nongermane. The problem for many Senators is that the agriculture bill has gone through several rewritings, including the bill offered by the distinguished chairman, Senator Harkin, but then supplanted by a complete substitute offered by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Daschle, with over 1,000 pages. Many Senators have found this situation difficult, although they are researching precisely where their amendments are, in a parliamentary situation, in order. In any event, they would like to have the opportunity to offer them. Very clearly, the invoking of cloture today would limit those Senators' ability to offer the pertinent amendments and, in some cases, completely eliminate it. Therefore, knowing there are many Senators on both sides of the aisle who have those amendments that we believe would perfect this bill, I am very hopeful that cloture will not be invoked when that time of vote comes at about 4 o'clock this afternoon. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes. Senator McCain has requested essentially the same privilege that was accorded to Senators Roberts and Cochran and to Senator Gordon Smith by the majority leader when he made his original unanimous consent request.

Mr. LUGAR. Not until Senator Burns, who wishes to be heard, comes to the Chamber to speak.

Mr. LUGAR. I object.

Mr. LUGAR. In response to the distinguished Senator, we have additional debaters.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, there is a request for further debate.

Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, what was the request from the distinguished Senator from South Dakota?

Mr. LUGAR. We would continue with debate on the Feingold amendment at this point, as I understand it, so the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin can be heard but, likewise, the Senator from Iowa could be heard, and others who may wish to debate that amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. May I ask a question of the distinguished Senator?

Mr. LUGAR. My understanding is there is still time to debate the Feingold amendment. The distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, wants to be heard on that amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. My understanding is, following the conclusion of the Feingold debate, there will be a vote on the Bond amendment, followed by a vote on the Feingold amendment, and then the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, would be recognized to offer an amendment at that time.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senators.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, could I raise the question: Would, then, the leader anticipate a vote on or in relation to the Feingold amendment following the rollcall vote on the Bond amendment, if it reached a conclusion at that point?

Mr. LUGAR. My reservation is managed and I will support the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Reserving the right to object, I just wish to respond to my colleague.

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I think he is outlining a reasonable course of activity. As I understand the Senator's proposal, Senator Wellstone would debate his amendment; others would debate the amendment. As we know, a rollcall vote will not be in order, given the unanimous consent agreement, until Tuesday. Therefore, after that debate, this will be laid aside, and then Senator McCain will be recognized so we can proceed then, as the Senator from Iowa has suggested, to amend the--whichever--the underlying amendment at that point; is that what the Senator said? In any event, whatever appears to be in order so he is able then to complete the debate on his amendment.