Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Very well. I yield that time.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Kansas. How much time does the Senator require?

Mr. LUGAR. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

Mr. LUGAR. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.

Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator accept 5 minutes? We are almost at our limit.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LUGAR

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in due course we will be debating a very important bill for American agriculture. As the distinguished chairman of our committee, Senator Harkin, has pointed out, the needs of farmers throughout our country are evident to most Senators. In fact, all Senators, I suspect, share an empathy for attempting to do what we can to help. I want to take these moments, before we get into the substance of the debate, to describe the problem as I see it; the reason the Ag Committee and the Senate and our compatriots in the House of Representatives have taken this up. To begin with, however, I simply want to make a comment with regard to the colloquy I heard in the Chamber a short time ago suggesting delay with regard to the agriculture situation. The comments of our distinguished colleagues really related to more than agriculture, and other bills certainly have a different track, but in the case of this supplemental bill to help American farmers, the House of Representatives passed legislation on June 26. It was not until July 25 that legislation came before our Agriculture Committee. There was almost a month intervening. I do not charge delay. There are many things in the lives of Senators, many activities in the life of the Senate Agriculture Committee, but I simply point out that at any time from June 26 on we could have acted, even if we were to adopt, for example, the House bill, obviating a conference, and to move on to assist farmers within this fiscal year. As the distinguished majority leader pointed out last Friday evening at the termination of debate, there is a technical problem of cutting the checks physically and getting the money to farmers by September 30, and that is one reason that the urgency of this bill is apparent to most of us. My own guess is as we approach the cloture vote on the motion to proceed at 5:30 this evening, there will be surely almost a unanimous vote, if not a unanimous vote, to proceed. I think we all understand that. To suggest on our side we have been delaying action for agriculture would be inaccurate. Perhaps that was not even implied. Putting that aside, the fact is we have had packages of this variety now for the last 3 years. I just want to review, for the benefit of Senators as well as for the American people, some of the assumptions behind these supplemental packages that arrive at this point in time or sometimes even earlier in the year. Essentially, we had a very good year in American agriculture in 1996. For a variety of reasons, a lot of income that may have been delayed by events in the world and other circumstances that led to very strong export markets led to a net farm income in 1996 of $54.9 billion. If we look at the year before in 1995, it was only $37 billion. An average of those 2 years would lead to something between $45 billion and $46 billion. Nevertheless, in 1996, often mentioned in debates because it was an extraordinary year, it was also the year we passed a farm bill. The thoughts are perhaps we were carried away by the euphoria of that situation. I doubt whether anyone was carried away, but nevertheless it was a good year. Generally, the years came into something else. In 1997, net farm income was $48.6 billion, down well over $6 billion really from the previous year; then in 1998, $44.7 billion; and in 1999, $43.4 billion. In those last 2 years, the $44.7 and the $43.4 billion, these figures would have been lower still except for the fact we plugged in some income, a supplemental bill just like the one we are discussing now. Those monies brought things to about a $45 billion level. We can ask, why $45 billion? Because that seemed to be a general average. Those observing the debate should say: Are we saying this is a plus-$45 billion, American agriculture made $45 million? I am saying that. This was always a plus, never a deficit. In no year was there a net farm loss. It was always a net farm gain, and it was substantial. As we started this particular year, as a matter of fact, even the latest estimate by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is that without action by this body the net farm income in 2001 would be $42.4 billion. That is roughly the same figure the Budget Committees of the Senate and the House had earlier in the year when they had an extended budget debate. They knew that somewhere in the $41 billion to $42 billion level net farm income would come out about that way for 2001. They knew we had taken action in the past to bring things up somewhere in the $45 billion area, comparable to the years before. We did not quite succeed in 1999 at $43.4 billion, but we did succeed in 2000 at $45.3 billion. They came to a figure by their deliberations in debate in the Budget Committee that $5.5 billion was about the right size to plug the gap. If this, in fact, were adopted, the $42.4 billion estimated plus the $5.5 billion should come out somewhere around $47.9 billion. That would be about $2.5 billion more than 2000. It would turn out, in effect, to be about $4.5 billion more than 1999. As a matter of fact, it would be very close to the $48.6 billion in 1997, really exceeded only by the banner year of 1996 which, if averaged with the year before that, came out somewhere in the $45 billion to $46 billion level. Americans outside of agriculture looking into this would say: Is this done for people in the electronics industry or retail stores generally in America, or struggling manufacturing firms, or anybody? The answer is: No, there is no other business in America that takes a look at net income for the whole group of people doing it, every entity collected in these figures, and says we want to make you whole, at least whole at a level of a multiyear picture. This is the only situation of that sort. It is not by chance. Those of us who are involved in farming, and I have been one of them--my family has been involved for generations. I think it is fair to say that in terms of the truth and being upfront about this bill and this advocacy. I know the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and his family have a farm in Iowa. When he served on the Agriculture Committee, he and I, I believe were the only two involved in these farm programs to keep the books, to make the marketing decisions, to either have to borrow money and repay it or distribute whatever profits there are to our family members. This bill is one that my farm, 604 acres in Marion County, IN, will have to live with, or benefit from, as the case may be. I understand intimately what these figures mean. I am not an advocate for clients or just trying to do good for the farmers I have met in my States. I am one of them, a member of the Farm Bureau, a regular at whatever meeting farmers call. I am sympathetic with the thought that if we are truly interested in family farmers, in retaining farmers in agriculture, we ought to move on this legislation. I will vote for cloture so we can proceed. I will try to work with my distinguished friend, Tom Harkin, chairman of our committee, to come to a constructive result in this debate. It is important. It is timely. Having said that, it is also unique. What has occurred in the evolution of the current farm bill is a quest on the part of the Senate and the House and the President to save every family farmer, every single entity in American agriculture. That is the purpose of filling the gap, of making certain net farm income stays at a level comparable to years before. To a great extent we have succeeded. One of the interesting aspects of the same agricultural report that has net farm income is a discussion of farm equity. By that, I mean the U.S. Department of Agriculture has pulled together the total assets of all of American agriculture and the total liabilities and has come to a conclusion in this year of 2001. As it stands, total farm equity, net worth, all the farms in America, will be $954 billion. That will be up from $941 billion in 2000. That was higher than $940 billion in 1999, or $912 billion in 1998, or $887 billion in 1997, or $848 billion clear back in the golden year of 1996. In fact, the annual increase in the equity of American agriculture has been 3.2 percent over the period of 1995 to the year 2000. If one asked, how can that be, given the stories of failing farms, of desperate people all over our country, how is it conceivable that given a whole group of farmers, whatever they are doing, in livestock or grain or the specialty crops, so far there has been a gain in equity. This is true in large part because through our policies, through the supplemental bills, we have almost guaranteed an income for agriculture in America, and at a fairly high level. One of the dilemmas of this is because of this prosperity--and I say that advisedly, at a 3.2-percent increase in equity over the course of time; in fact, the land prices in that same period have risen on average of 4.6 percent a year countrywide--there is not a region of the country that did not have an overall percentage change in land values that was positive between 1996 and the year 2000--every single part of our country, some a little stronger than others. I note, for example, strangely enough, in the Appalachian region, a 6.3-percent gain in land values on an annual basis throughout that period of time. In the Lake States, an 8-percent change. In the Northeast, only a 2.8-percent change in agricultural lands. But everyone gained. The dilemma, having said that, and this is why I coupled these two figures--net farm income, roughly $45 billion on an average; net worth of American agriculture, about $954 billion, more or less--if you take those figures, you come out with a figure of roughly 4.5 to 5 percent as the return on invested capital, the invested capital being the net worth, the equity, the net income being the 45, and maybe this year 48 as it turns out. When I have talked to farm bureau meetings, on occasion the question has arisen: Lugar, what kind of return do you get on your farm? Why are you still involved in this? I have recited that over the 45 years I have managed our farm, 1956 to the present, we have had roughly a net gain on worth of 4 percent a year on the value of the farm. We have not always gotten 4 percent every year, but nevertheless we made money in all 45 years, and the average return has been 4 percent. Many say that sounds a little too high to me; I have not been getting 4 percent. I said, we have been fortunate, perhaps. That is not out of line with what appears to be the case with American agriculture across the board--apparently, a return on net worth of about 4.5 to 5 percent. Outside of agriculture meetings, people say, well, something is missing; you could have gotten 6 or 7 percent on 30-year Treasury bonds throughout this whole period of time and not taken any risk with regard to the weather, exports, or the vagaries of Congress or whatever else might have happened. That is true. In fact, for most people involved in investment, a return over a long period of time of 4 to 5 percent does not appear to be particularly attractive. That is why we are always likely to have agricultural debates with regard to money. The difficult secret of this is the business does not pay very much. If you are an entrepreneur and you want to go into electronics or into a dot-com situation or whatever venture capital has taken a look at in recent years, the odds are you looked for a much more attractive rate of making your money grow faster. As I mentioned earlier, I plead guilty to 45 years of staying with this because I like it. That is why people farm. They want to do it. They love the land. They love the lifestyle. They have some reverence for their dads, their grandfathers, the people involved in it. They want to save it, perpetuate that. We know that in the Senate Agriculture Committee or the House Agriculture Committee. That is why we have the debates without apology and we try to make certain that heritage might flow. All of these debates have to have some proportion to them. I started out by pointing out a $5.5 billion supplemental will elevate income this year somewhere into the $47, $48 billion net as opposed to the $45 we were aiming at. There is no magic about 5.5. The Budget Committee must have gone backward and forward on that subject for some time. But it gets the job done. I conclude this particular thought by saying the Agriculture Committee of the Senate came forward with a package of expenditures that exceeds $7.4 billion. The distinguished chairman of the committee, I am certain, will have more to say as to how the components were put together. Let me just say from my own experience, not from his--he will have to explain how it happened this year--but as chairman of the committee for the previous 6 years, I was responsible for at least three of these situations. Essentially, you visit with members of the committee. They make suggestions for what ought to be a part of the package. When we started these packages we were dealing with the traditions of agricultural farm bills which dealt with so-called program crops, programs that have gone on for a long time, since the 1930s and Franklin Roosevelt. The big four in this respect were corn and wheat and cotton and rice. They were programs because, in the 1930s, my dad and others were asked to destroy crops and hogs. At least that occurred on our farm. This was supply management with a vengeance. It was not just planning for the future, it was actual destruction of crops, and rows that were in the fields, and actual livestock at that point. The philosophy was if you let farmers plant as much as they wanted to plant, inevitably they would plant too much. They simply would use their ingenuity, their land, their resources, and we would have an oversupply and depression of prices. Prices were very low during the beginning of the New Deal period. So the thought was supply management, but a program would come along with that. In other words, you became a member of the program. You worked so many acres, whatever the quantity was that you were dealing with, in return for assurance of payments, therefore a sustenance of your income. There is no reason why this should have gone on for over 60 years, but it did. It was an attractive idea. In 1996, with this farm bill, we changed and we fulfilled perhaps the worst fears of those in the 1930s because we said Freedom to Farm means freedom to plant whatever you want to on your land; use those resources with your own ingenuity. A lot of farmers did. They made a variety of choices. By and large, less wheat has been planted in some years, more soybeans have been planted. That seemed to meet, really, world market conditions. People have been planting soybeans in different States more than they had been before. I suppose that may be true of cotton, but by and large, less cotton, seemingly, has been produced and perhaps less rice. It is a close call because these are large farms and there are fixed costs and many people have continued on, whether it was a program or not. When we talked about our supplemental payments, when we began to plug these gaps, we went to the program crops because they have behind them a list of farmers, names and addresses, people who are part of the picture. If you are attempting to get money to people rapidly, checks could be cut to people who were known, with a name and address and a quantity behind their name in terms of planting expectations and history. Some have come to the fore this year, and to some extent last year-- really, I think, for the first time. They said: What about us? We are not in a program crop. As a matter of fact, we plant so-called specialty crops. We have melons, we have apples on trees, we have strawberries and raspberries--and we have problems. If you think people in rice country have problems, you ought to see our problems. In the old days--and by that I mean, say, the last 10 years-- essentially many of those problems were met by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The appropriations subcommittee came along at a time of year in which the weather disasters of the winter or spring or much of the summer, sometimes, were apparent. They made an appeal to the Senate. They said there has been very bad luck in this State or this district or with this crop and therefore we ought to do something about it in an emergency, compassionate sense. Each of us have been voting for these programs for years. I cannot recall those pleas being rejected. But the so-called specialty situations were enveloped in this. Why? Because it was very difficult to find out the crop histories of people who were involved in melons, for example, or in raspberries. Is there anywhere a 5-year idea or any idea of support payments or so forth? The answer in most cases was no. This means, if you get into melons, the USDA has to formulate a new program. It has to determine who really is eligible. That takes time. We found that out last year. We had a supplemental. It came along as a part of legislation to strengthen and reform the Federal Crop Insurance Program. That was not totally inadvertent. Agriculture usually has sort of one shot on the floor each year and we had been working on crop insurance reform for some time. It was contentious all by itself, among various groups, as well as the total amount. Senators, I think, have been advised--they probably understand--that the crop insurance program we strengthened as a result of last year's legislation is a generous one. It was a safety net. It will probably cost an average of $2.9 to $3 billion. That is not a supplemental, it is just there. It will go on permanently. I would say from personal experience, I have purchased the 85-percent level of insurance coverage on the income of my corn and on my soybeans. Many people in Indiana, I have found, have not gone to the 85 percent because either they have not discovered it or they do not really understand why that is such a good deal. But I would say arithmetically this is a remarkable way of ensuring income, even without the supplemental. Without getting into an advertisement for crop insurance, nevertheless it is there, and it is important, but not everybody in the Senate sought crop insurance as a priority item. They understood the pleas of those of us from the Midwest and the plains States. They saw some of the difficulties in the South with the program crops. But they said we are from New England--for example. Or we are from States which have never been involved in program crops. What are you going to do for us? As a result, we had, in addition to crop insurance, the supplemental. The supplemental last year included, for the first time, a number of crops at least that I do not recall being a part of these emergency actions before. As predicted, the checks went out right on time to the so-called AMTA payment recipients--the program crop people. That is quite a number, probably a majority of farmers in our country, in terms of income and acreage. So that was not inconsequential. We have had testimony, as the Chair knows, in our committee, the Ag Committee, from farmers who said the check got there just in time. So did the country banker testify that it got there in time. The farmer met the banker, repaid the planting loan, was in business again to try again in the year 2001. What seemed to be a potential crisis was alleviated just in time. But with the rest of the group who were not program people, the checks did not come quite so fast. USDA really had to work out the details of a good number of complex programs. As a matter of fact, in February, March, even April of this year, those qualified were finally being identified. Weeks later, in some cases, the checks finally came that were being sent to them. In many cases, that is being cited with regard to the bill we passed in the Senate Agriculture Committee. There is a large component, once again, either in the bill for which the distinguished chairman from Iowa and I were present, which was adopted 12-9 in the committee, or in the amendment that I offered, which had a $5.5 billion limit, which was rejected by this 12-9 vote. Both of us had a fairly large component of that in the so-called program crops. In large part, if we are talking about money being dispensed in this calendar year, this is about the only group of people likely to see a check because they can be identified as they were the year before and the year before that. In the event people come along then and suggest there are other situations, this means they spill over. This is a part of the debate over the additional $1.9 billion to $2 billion. Some would say that is all the spillover from the year before because they were busy attempting to do these things. This year the Budget Committee of the Senate mentioned $5.5 billion. The Office of Management and Budget, through its Director, Mr. Daniels, more pointedly mentioned $5.5 billion in his correspondence with the House committee. Who took that seriously? The distinguished chairman of the committee offered a package of $6.5 billion, but the members of the committee, led, as it turned out, by the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Stenholm, from Texas and Mr. Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, and others reversed that decision. They came out at $5.5 billion, and the House, as a whole, adopted that without rigorous dissent. All of this could have been adopted by the Senate a month ago. But it was not adopted. A month has transpired in the meanwhile, and in the same way that I collected sentiments a year ago, the distinguished chairman of the committee has collected those sentiments again this year. They add up to $7.4 billion. There is no magic in that figure, and one would say no magic in the $5.5 billion. The whole exercise was attempting to plug a gap between the $42.4 billion in net farm income that was estimated this year and the $45 billion average we have achieved in recent years. The $5.5 billion will get us there. It gets up close to $48 billion, as a matter of fact. The Director of the OMB, Mr. Daniels, has written that. He pointed out, and he even offered some charts in his letter to the chairman of the committee, to me, to the chairman of the Budget Committee, to the ranking member, to Senator Daschle, and to Senator Lott. To the extent we have shared that correspondence with Members, they know the argument of the administration. We could say after all that the administration has their view and we have ours. Honest people can differ. We are all trying to do the best we can for agriculture. I made the comment--it has been repeated in the press--about our public deliberations the other day in the Agriculture Committee. Is it really the intent of our committee of the Senate to taunt the President, and say, Mr. President, regardless of what you and your OMB Director and others may have to say about this, we want to do more than you want to do? We really feel more deeply about the farmers than you do. So, by golly, even though it is pretty clear that all of this may lead to zero at the end of the trail, we are going to have a go at it. We really do not believe you will veto it. We think when it comes to agriculture that your heart is in the right place. So is that of the American people generally. So whether the figure is $5.5 billion, $6.1 billion, or $7.1 billion, maybe, for all I know, in conference there will be a larger figure. That is the way these things go. They never have too much discipline or form to them. They just sort of add up so you can get enough people on board to get a majority, and hopefully, in fact, the big majority. Maybe that was the intent, but I doubt it. I think the intent of our committee in the Senate and the House committee is, in fact, to get money to farmers by September 30 so that they will have successful meetings with the country bankers; so that our intent that no family farm should fail will, in fact, happen and they, in fact, stay alive and stay in business even in difficult times. Meanwhile, both Houses think about larger farm bills which may go on for many years. The House of Representatives' committee acted on one last Friday, which was a significant bill. The House will still need to debate that. Obviously, our debate lies ahead. These are important times not to be confused with the supplemental bill that we have at the present for emergency activity for money to be dispensed by September 30. But I take the time of the Chair and my colleagues this afternoon to recite all of this to give at least, as I see it, some background for this enterprise, why we are involved in it at all, to what extent the effects are, if you add up the figures, and what I perceive to be the dynamics of the political situation, if there is one in this. My hope is that at the end of the debate--I hope we will have one, and, as I indicated when I started, I will certainly vote for cloture on the motion to proceed so we can proceed--the leaders will formulate a program for that process. I am hopeful that I will be recognized fairly early in the debate to offer what I believe to be a constructive amendment that I think will lead to rapid resolution and reconciliation with the House of Representatives and some hope for farmers out there that this is not going to be an interesting debate among Senators but rather a kickoff of activity in a week that some Senators characterize as the fairly slow beginning given the urgency of a number of topics that we need to discuss. I am optimistic as always. I am sure the Chair shares that optimism and desire for constructive activity. During this rather calm hiatus before the debate really begins, technically, as the Chair knows, we are discussing really whether to proceed. I come out in favor of that. I hope my colleagues will, too. But, after we have proceeded, we need to have at least some framework I believe of how to manage this situation. I look forward to those hours ahead and a constructive result. I do not see other Senators. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I simply thank the majority leader for this motion. It sets us off on a constructive path for consideration of this bill, and it offers an opportunity for me to present an amendment, which I am prepared to do. We look forward to working with him. I do not object. I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, earlier this month, the United States and the country of Kazakhstan successfully completed one of the most ambitious nonproliferation projects undertaken in history--the securing of one of the world's largest stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium under the auspices of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program. The security surrounding some three tons of plutonium-- sufficient to make some 400 bombs--was enhanced and, commencing in 1998, the fuel assemblies containing spent nuclear fuel were packaged to prevent theft. In August of 1998, I visited a torpedo factory in Almaty, then the capital of Kazakhstan, that had been converted to manufacture the big steel cannisters in which the plutonium-rich assemblies were packaged and sealed. The last cannister was sealed and lowered into a cooling pond in early July of this year. Last week, the Washington Times carried a special report by Christopher Pala on this program under the title of ``Kazakh Plutonium Stores Made Safe.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record and urge all of my colleagues to inform themselves about a real success story in U.S.-Kazakhstan relations.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a distinguished Hoosier and tireless public servant, former Congressman Bud Hillis. My colleague, Mr. Bayh, and I are introducing legislation to honor Congressman Hillis by naming the Post Office in Kokomo, Indiana the Elwood Haynes ``Bud'' Hillis Post Office. Congressman Hillis honorably served the people of Indiana's 5th District in the House of Representatives from 1971 to 1986. Congressman Hillis was a fair and reasonable voice on national security, trade, and veterans' issues. A graduate of Indiana's Culver Military Academy, he enlisted in the Army at the age of 18 and fought in the World War II European Theater as an infantryman for 27 months. After leaving active duty as a first lieutenant, Bud Hillis attended Indiana University and the Indiana University School of Law. He went on to practice law in Howard County, Indiana, and served as Chairman of the county bar association. Before being elected to Congress in 1970, Congressman Hillis served two terms in the Indiana House of Representatives. The 1970s and early 1980's were difficult times for many in Indiana's 5th District. A downturn in the auto industry during the recession brought unemployment in some of the district's more highly industrialized communities to over 15 percent. He founded the Congressional Auto Task Force and he helped to round up votes in 1979 to pass legislation that I had sponsored here in the Senate to guarantee loans to the struggling Chrysler Corporation, an employer of more than 60,000 Hoosiers at the time. In 1983, he worked to protect the auto industry from Japanese imports by extending a voluntary restraint agreement. He was a strong force on the Congressional Steel Caucus and served as Vice President of the executive committee. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, Congressman Hillis was a dependable ally of the Reagan military build-up that helped to bring an end to the Cold War. He supported American service men by backing enlistment bonuses for military personnel and was a proponent of reinstating draft registration, which had ended with the Vietnam War. Further, he was instrumental in development and deployment of the M-1 tank and the preservation of Grissom Air Force Reserve Base in Peru, Indiana. Congressman Hillis also took a personal interest with the veterans of our Nation. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he was a leader in improving health care for veterans and was instrumental in the construction of the community-based outpatient clinic in Crown Point, IN. Congressman Bud Hillis has a distinguished record of service to his country and to the people of Indiana. The dedication of the post office in Kokomo, Indiana, a city that continues to be involved deeply with the American auto industry that Congressman Hillis supported so strongly, would be a fitting tribute for such an honorable statesman. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a distinguished Hoosier and tireless public servant, former Congressman Bud Hillis. My colleague, Mr. Bayh, and I are introducing legislation to honor Congressman Hillis by naming the Post Office in Kokomo, Indiana the Elwood Haynes ``Bud'' Hillis Post Office. Congressman Hillis honorably served the people of Indiana's 5th District in the House of Representatives from 1971 to 1986. Congressman Hillis was a fair and reasonable voice on national security, trade, and veterans' issues. A graduate of Indiana's Culver Military Academy, he enlisted in the Army at the age of 18 and fought in the World War II European Theater as an infantryman for 27 months. After leaving active duty as a first lieutenant, Bud Hillis attended Indiana University and the Indiana University School of Law. He went on to practice law in Howard County, Indiana, and served as Chairman of the county bar association. Before being elected to Congress in 1970, Congressman Hillis served two terms in the Indiana House of Representatives. The 1970s and early 1980's were difficult times for many in Indiana's 5th District. A downturn in the auto industry during the recession brought unemployment in some of the district's more highly industrialized communities to over 15 percent. He founded the Congressional Auto Task Force and he helped to round up votes in 1979 to pass legislation that I had sponsored here in the Senate to guarantee loans to the struggling Chrysler Corporation, an employer of more than 60,000 Hoosiers at the time. In 1983, he worked to protect the auto industry from Japanese imports by extending a voluntary restraint agreement. He was a strong force on the Congressional Steel Caucus and served as Vice President of the executive committee. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, Congressman Hillis was a dependable ally of the Reagan military build-up that helped to bring an end to the Cold War. He supported American service men by backing enlistment bonuses for military personnel and was a proponent of reinstating draft registration, which had ended with the Vietnam War. Further, he was instrumental in development and deployment of the M-1 tank and the preservation of Grissom Air Force Reserve Base in Peru, Indiana. Congressman Hillis also took a personal interest with the veterans of our Nation. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he was a leader in improving health care for veterans and was instrumental in the construction of the community-based outpatient clinic in Crown Point, IN. Congressman Bud Hillis has a distinguished record of service to his country and to the people of Indiana. The dedication of the post office in Kokomo, Indiana, a city that continues to be involved deeply with the American auto industry that Congressman Hillis supported so strongly, would be a fitting tribute for such an honorable statesman. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, former Congressman, Vice President and President Gerald R. Ford turned 88 on July 14. A birthday tribute to our 38th President was written by White House correspondent Trude B. Feldman for the New York Times Syndicate; and it includes reflections by former Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, given to Ms. Feldman for Gerald Ford's 80th birthday. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. President Ford was a healing force at a time of much greater political upheaval than we have today. The lessons to us today are that: disagreements should not become divisive; and political revenge is a vicious cycle without winners. Most important, as President Ford reiterates in this interview, is that ``truth is the glue that holds government together--not only our government, but civilization itself.'' He tells Ms. Feldman, who has also written numerous articles on Mr. Ford and his family for McCall's Magazine, that his main ambition was to become Speaker of the House of Representatives ``because the legislative process interested me and was the kind of challenge I enjoyed . . .'' Gerald Ford concluded this interview--which I recommend to my colleagues and our staff--with his beliefs that during his 29 months as President, he had steered the U.S. out of a period of turmoil, making it possible to move from despair to a renewed national unity of purpose and progress. ``I also reestablished a working relationship between the White House and Congress, one that had been ruptured,'' he notes. ``All that made an important difference. I consider that to be my greatest accomplishment as President.''

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate the previous support the subcommittee has granted to the Fine Hardwoods Tree Improvement and Regeneration Center at Purdue University. The HTIRC is engaged in research problems and technology transfer related to the regeneration of fine hardwoods. It is a regional center emphasizing not only genetic improvements and silvicultural goals, but addressing wildlife and riparian buffer issues and providing information and outreach to forest landowners. In establishing the center, I worked with Dr. Robert Lewis of the Forest Service. The project has widespread support and is financially supported not only by the Forest Service and Purdue University, but by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and by a very wide variety of forest landowner, industry groups and foundations. It is designed to improve the quality of hardwood tree seedlings and to address the annual shortage of hardwood tree seedlings in the midwest. The Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture view the center as an excellent example of cooperation between government, academia, and industry in addressing important issues concerning the regeneration of hardwoods. The proposed new forest biology building and laboratory complex will soon house eighteen Forest Service employees and would provide office space and high tech laboratories for these Forest Service employees rent-free and without any charges for maintenance or services over the lifetime of the facility. The total cost of the forestry complex is $27 million. Purdue has committed $20 million to this effort. The remaining $7 million would be derived from the Forest Service as its share of the cost to house its employees, who would receive office space rent-free and maintenance- free over the lifetime of the facility. Based on a life cycle analysis, the Forest Service has concluded that this degree of cost sharing is fully justified and is in fact extremely favorable to the Forest Service. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including a provision in this bill that releases $300,000 in previously appropriated funds for the design and construction of this facility. Construction of the facility is planned to begin during fiscal year 2002 and the Forest Service share of that fiscal year's funding needs is estimated at $2 million.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a true pioneer in public service, Colonel James Garrard Jones. Colonel Jones was born in Paris, KY on July 3, 1814, but soon became a resident of the great State of Indiana when his family moved there in 1819. This move was Indiana's good fortune, for it did not take long for Colonel Jones to become involved in public life. The young Colonel Jones served as Surveyor and Deputy Recorder of Vanderburgh County, leaving a lasting mark as the county's early field notes and books of deeds and mortgages appear in his handwriting. He went on to serve as Evansville Trustee and Evansville Attorney under the town corporation. In 1847, Colonel Jones's efforts in the establishment of a city government culminated with his election as first Mayor of Evansville. He won reelection as Mayor in 1850. Colonel Jones took his service to the State level with his election as Attorney General of Indiana in 1860. But shortly thereafter he was appointed Colonel of the Forty-Second Regiment of the Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and he left office to serve with the regiment. After hostilities ended, Colonel Jones practiced law until Governor Baker appointed him to his final position of public service in 1869 as Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Colonel Jones passed away on April 5, 1872. This public servant, husband, and father to eight children is remembered not only for his public service, but also for his intelligence, kindness, and geniality. On June 23, 2001, the descendants of Colonel Jones, the current Mayor of Evansville, IN, Russell Lloyd Jr., the Friends of the Forty-Second Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, and others will gather to remember Colonel Jones with the placement of a new bronze marker at his grave site in the Oak Hill Cemetery in Evansville. I am pleased to join them in honoring this fine man who contributed greatly to Evansville, the state of Indiana, and our nation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senator Biden and I are today introducing a bill to reauthorize appropriations for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 for the Fiscal Years 2002, 2003 and 2004. We are joined in this effort by Senators Chafee, Craig, Kerry, Leahy, Lieberman, Murkowski, Reed and Roberts. The United States has a significant national interest in protecting tropical forests in developing countries. Tropical forests regulate the hydrological cycle on which world agriculture depends. The genetic diversity contained in tropical forests is important for plant breeding. Twenty-five percent of prescription drugs come from tropical forests. Tropical forests also serve as carbon sinks, storing carbon to mitigate the potential effects of the increase in greenhouse gases on the world's climate. Avoiding tropical deforestation is essential to mitigating the threat of climate change. Worldwide, there is a net loss of thirty million acres of forests every year. The heavy debt burden of many developing countries encourages them to engage in unsustainable exploitation of natural resources in order to generate revenue to service external debt. At the same time, these poor governments tend to have few resources available to set aside and protect key areas. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act addresses the economic pressures on developing countries through ``debt for nature'' mechanisms that reduce foreign debt while leveraging scarce funds available for international conservation. Specifically, the Act authorizes the President to reduce certain bilateral government debt owed to the United States through three distinct mechanisms: debt buybacks; debt restructuring and reduction; or debt swaps. In return, eligible developing countries with significant tropical forests must establish and place local currencies in tropical forest funds. These funds are managed primarily by local, non-governmental organizations and make grants for projects that are designed to protect or restore tropical forests or to promote their sustainable economic use. The debt for nature mechanisms in the Act effectively leverage the limited funds available for international conservation. Under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, the host country places currencies in its tropical forest fund, the value of which typically exceeds the cost to the U.S. Treasury of the debt reduction agreement. Furthermore, because these tropical forest funds have integrity and are broadly supported within the host country, conservation organizations are interested in contributing their own money to them, producing an additional leverage of federal conservation dollars. Our bill would reauthorize appropriations for the Act for three years, with funding levels of $50 million in Fiscal Year 2002, $75 million in Fiscal year 2003 and $100 million in Fiscal Year 2002. President Bush has indicated his strong support for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, which is modeled upon President George Herbert Walker Bush's Enterprise for the Americas program as well as upon the Biden-Lugar Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act of 1989. These programs have helped to foster the development of responsible, community-based conservation organizations that are capable of addressing environmental problems at the local level and ensuring successful program implementation. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act encourages the repayment of debt owed to the United States government, addresses the cash flow problems of poorer nations, promotes cooperation between governmental and local conservation organizations and helps to save the world's outstanding tropical forests, which are disappearing at an alarming rate. It is my understanding that Congressmen Rob Portman and Tom Lantos are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. Senator Biden and I plan to work with our colleagues in the House and Senate toward speedy passage of this three year reauthorization bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senator Biden and I are today introducing a bill to reauthorize appropriations for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 for the Fiscal Years 2002, 2003 and 2004. We are joined in this effort by Senators Chafee, Craig, Kerry, Leahy, Lieberman, Murkowski, Reed and Roberts. The United States has a significant national interest in protecting tropical forests in developing countries. Tropical forests regulate the hydrological cycle on which world agriculture depends. The genetic diversity contained in tropical forests is important for plant breeding. Twenty-five percent of prescription drugs come from tropical forests. Tropical forests also serve as carbon sinks, storing carbon to mitigate the potential effects of the increase in greenhouse gases on the world's climate. Avoiding tropical deforestation is essential to mitigating the threat of climate change. Worldwide, there is a net loss of thirty million acres of forests every year. The heavy debt burden of many developing countries encourages them to engage in unsustainable exploitation of natural resources in order to generate revenue to service external debt. At the same time, these poor governments tend to have few resources available to set aside and protect key areas. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act addresses the economic pressures on developing countries through ``debt for nature'' mechanisms that reduce foreign debt while leveraging scarce funds available for international conservation. Specifically, the Act authorizes the President to reduce certain bilateral government debt owed to the United States through three distinct mechanisms: debt buybacks; debt restructuring and reduction; or debt swaps. In return, eligible developing countries with significant tropical forests must establish and place local currencies in tropical forest funds. These funds are managed primarily by local, non-governmental organizations and make grants for projects that are designed to protect or restore tropical forests or to promote their sustainable economic use. The debt for nature mechanisms in the Act effectively leverage the limited funds available for international conservation. Under the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, the host country places currencies in its tropical forest fund, the value of which typically exceeds the cost to the U.S. Treasury of the debt reduction agreement. Furthermore, because these tropical forest funds have integrity and are broadly supported within the host country, conservation organizations are interested in contributing their own money to them, producing an additional leverage of federal conservation dollars. Our bill would reauthorize appropriations for the Act for three years, with funding levels of $50 million in Fiscal Year 2002, $75 million in Fiscal year 2003 and $100 million in Fiscal Year 2002. President Bush has indicated his strong support for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, which is modeled upon President George Herbert Walker Bush's Enterprise for the Americas program as well as upon the Biden-Lugar Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act of 1989. These programs have helped to foster the development of responsible, community-based conservation organizations that are capable of addressing environmental problems at the local level and ensuring successful program implementation. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act encourages the repayment of debt owed to the United States government, addresses the cash flow problems of poorer nations, promotes cooperation between governmental and local conservation organizations and helps to save the world's outstanding tropical forests, which are disappearing at an alarming rate. It is my understanding that Congressmen Rob Portman and Tom Lantos are introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. Senator Biden and I plan to work with our colleagues in the House and Senate toward speedy passage of this three year reauthorization bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in celebration of the Memorial Day holiday, I would like to recognize the work of Gertrude Stephenson, whose dedication to the remembrance of veterans has led to deeper awareness and ongoing appreciation of fallen heroes in Washington County, IN. What began as a project of the Salem High School Class of 1965 to honor Jerry Sabens, killed in Vietnam, developed into a community-wide effort to acknowledge the sacrifices of all Washington County veterans who gave their lives in service to our country. Thanks to Mrs. Stephenson's direction and the research assistance of Martha Bowers, more than 100 articles were printed in The Salem Leader detailing the stories of these veterans. With the help of Cecil Smith, former editor of The Salem Leader, and his staff, the stories have been compiled in a book, ``Gone But Not Forgotten.'' This labor of justice will greatly benefit the citizens of Washington County, IN, as families come together to share stories, photographs and personal information of the loved ones who died protecting our freedom. County youth will gain new understanding and appreciation of our American patriots of war. I am personally grateful for all in Washington County who contributed to this project, including the Washington County Veterans Office, the County Extension Office, the Stevens Museum staff and so many others.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have the privilege of welcoming our guest Chaplain, the Reverend John Johnson. We are indeed fortunate to have Reverend Johnson with us today. He is a true Renaissance man and public servant. He brings to us his vast experience, not only in the ministry, but also in academia, business, law, and volunteerism. Reverend Johnson has a master's degree in physics. He studied as a Churchill Scholar at Cambridge University in England. He has a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Chicago. And he has had a successful business career, creating a leading technology company. Not content to stop there, Reverend Johnson earned his Master's of Divinity degree in 1997 and now is ordained as a minister in the Presbyterian Church. Reverend Johnson currently serves as interim minister at the First Presbyterian Church in Merrillville, Indiana. Amidst these multiple careers he even found time to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 from Indiana's Fifth District and for the Indiana Republican gubernatorial nomination in 1992. Reverend Johnson has remained active in the academic community, and he has generously volunteered his time to many organizations including the United Way Campaign, the YMCA, the Indiana Corporation for Science and Technology, and the Public Broadcasting System. He is a dear personal friend. It is a privilege to thank him for joining us and for his inspiring words of prayer for us this morning.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I respond to the distinguished whip by saying that this morning there will be 1 hour and 50 minutes remaining for closing remarks on the budget resolution conference report. Senators can expect a vote on the conference report between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Following that vote, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, the education bill. Votes on amendments are expected throughout the day in an effort to make significant progress on the bill. I encourage those Senators with filed amendments to work with the chairman and the ranking member in order to schedule consideration of those amendments. I thank my colleagues for their attention and for their cooperation.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Domenici for all his efforts helping to bring about this historic conference agreement on the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 83. The agreement's reserve fund for agriculture, Section 213, provides the Agriculture Committee with mandatory spending authority totaling $66.15 billion over fiscal year 2003-2011 in addition to the current law baseline to support the Agriculture Committee's work to formulate a new multi-year farm bill. I want to make certain that there is full agreement and understanding as to how the Budget Committee will interpret the reserve fund for agriculture on a couple of key points. First, I understand that the $66.15 billion in new mandatory spending authority over fiscal year 2003-2011 will be available to support reauthorization, modification, extension, expansion, and innovation concerning any or all titles of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. FAIR Act titles are the Agricultural Market Transition Act, Agricultural Trade, Conservation, Nutrition Assistance, Agricultural Promotion, Credit, Rural Development, Research, Extension and Education, and Miscellaneous. Is my understanding correct?