Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

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 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, two clerical errors were made in the manager's amendment adopted yesterday. I ask unanimous consent that the manager's amendment, as adopted, be amended to correct these two clerical errors.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I commend the staff of Senator Roberts, particularly Mike Seyfert; Senator Kerrey's staff, Bev Paul; Senator Harkin's staff, Mark Halverson and Stephanie Mercier; Senator Grassley's staff, Mark Reisinger; my own staff, Andy Morton, Michael Knipe, Chimene Dupler, Bob Sturm, Dave Johnson, Keith Luse, and Terri Nintemann; Senator Cochran's staff, Hunt Shipman; and Senator Daschle's staff, Zabrae Valentine, who made very instrumental contributions to this bill.

Mr. LUGAR. The pilot programs authorized in this bill are a tool to find new ways to improve crop insurance for farmers. I agree that the USDA should give every consideration to including farmers in Maine in such a pilot program. I would also commend the Senator from Maine's efforts to work with us in crafting a bill that address the concerns of farmers in her state.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., in SD226.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, for hearings regarding Trade with China and its Implications for United States National Interests.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The committee will consider the nomination of Thomas A. Fry III, to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to continue to receive testimony on the national security implications of export controls and to examine S. 1712, the Export Administration Act of 1999.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing and a markup.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be authorized to meet on Thursday, March 23, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending Committee business.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I note the presence of two distinguished Senators and perhaps more will come to the floor to offer comments on this bill or other bills. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, Senators may then speak on crop insurance or other subjects. The unanimous consent request I have stated on behalf of the leader will permit that debate to continue. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. The passage of this legislation is long overdue. The Social Security earnings test is bad for our economy and bad for individual senior Americans who wish to continue in the workforce. I am extremely pleased that the Senate is moving to eliminate the earnings test. I am hopeful, however, that passage of this bill will not mark the end of thoughtful policy regarding the role of seniors in the American workforce. Senior workers are an invaluable resource for our nation. As the number of Americans of retirement age increases, the economy's need for senior workers will inevitably increase as well. We should encourage those seniors who wish to continue working by making certain that they are treated fairly by tax and retirement laws. Too often, government policy toward retirees has assumed that all seniors have the same needs, goals, and desires. Mr. President, each individual is different. Many seniors look forward to a leisurely retirement that allows them to pursue activities for which they did not have time when they were working. American seniors have earned this option, and trends over the last several decades that demonstrate the average senior is enjoying a healthier and more prosperous retirement are extremely encouraging. But other senior Americans wish to delay retirement for as long as possible. Many seniors who have communicated with me about this subject simply enjoy the stimulation that a workplace provides on a daily basis. Others are not ready to leave businesses or farms that they have spent their entire lives building. Still others wish to continue to contribute to the income of their families, children, or grandchildren. Regardless of their reasons for wanting to stay in the workplace, no senior should find that government policy is a disincentive or barrier to work. In addition to ensuring basic fairness to individuals, providing further incentives to senior workers makes good sense for our economy. Seniors who stay in the workforce continue to pay taxes on their earnings and continue to provide much-needed experience to the American economy. As our economy grows and the baby-boom generation approaches retirement age, we may experience more frequent labor shortages. Ultimately, a declining number of qualified workers could be detrimental to the economy. Adding incentives that reward older Americans for staying in the workforce could help alleviate such shortages while continuing to improve our economy and standard of living. Last month, with the support of Senators Breaux and Gregg, I introduced two pieces of legislation that would encourage American seniors to stay in the workforce. These bills, entitled the Retired Americans Right of Employment Acts (RARE I and RARE II), are based on the premise that many seniors want to work and their labor is invaluable to our economy and society. Both bills would repeal the earnings test, as we are seeking to do today. But they would go further by implementing specific tax and benefit changes that would reward seniors who choose to work. Among other provisions, both bills would phase in a formula allowing income earned after the retirement age to be counted in the calculation of an individual's Social Security benefits. Currently, Social Security benefits for most people are based on the average of the top 35 earning years prior to age 62. Allowing income earned after age 62 to be included in benefit calculations would increase the benefits of those seniors who choose to continue working. The two bills offer alternative methods to reduce the taxes of working seniors. RARE I would cut the FICA tax of seniors by 10 percent when they reach full retirement age. As a result, retirees would see their FICA tax reduced from 7.65 percent of their paycheck to 6.885 percent. Because taxes are levied on the first dollar of wages earned, this tax reduction would benefit all income levels of retirees, including those who choose to work part-time. RARE II would provide individuals who have reached the full retirement age with a tax credit equal to 10 percent of the lesser of the amount of income tax owed or the earned income of the individual. This provision would effectively reward older Americans who continue to earn and to pay taxes after reaching retirement age. Mr. President, in closing, I want to reiterate my strong support for the underlying bill being discussed today. The elimination of the Social Security earnings test would be a huge step toward ending the disincentives for seniors to work if they choose. But I hope this is only a first step in adjusting policy governing seniors in the workplace. Other changes contained in the RARE bills, which I have described, as well as the repeal of the Clinton Administration's 1993 tax on Social Security benefits, would reaffirm the importance of seniors in our society. The health of our economy and even our national strength will increasingly depend on retaining the services of productive seniors. We should begin constructing these policies now. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized in recognition of the fact that very shortly we may have an agreement on the crop insurance risk management debate. At the suggestion of the leadership, I would like to initiate debate on the subject, and perhaps we can move along expeditiously in the event we finally have a parliamentary structure in which to work.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today we will debate a matter of special significance and timeliness to agriculture producers throughout the United States, and that is the subject of risk management legislation. During many full committee hearings, a public roundtable and hundreds of hours of research and public discussion spanning the past year, members of the Senate Agriculture Committee have engaged in active deliberation, considering a host of options in providing risk management assistance to our Nation's farmers. The task has been formidable. Variances in agriculture production, regional considerations of weather patterns, and different perspectives on farm management have contributed to a most complex and yet beneficial discussion. The foundation of our efforts was section 204 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2000. Six billion dollars was provided over a 4-year period commencing October 1, 2000 for agricultural risk management. The basic rationale was that farm producers could take action to minimize risk, including severe market price fluctuations, and therefore render emergency recovery legislation less necessary. My colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator Conrad played a major role in the Budget Committee's action on risk management and have advocated crop insurance legislation offered by Senator Roberts and Senator Kerrey that would increase Federal subsidies for crop insurance premium payments to make Federal crop and revenue insurance policies more affordable for farmers, particularly at the higher levels of coverage. In recent months, I suggested that risk management strategy involves more than crop insurance. Cash-forward contracts, hedging contracts, reduction of farm debt, diversification of crops, conservation, and substantial capital land improvements are important risk management tools also available to farmers, and hopefully will be utilized by farmers. As a result of our extended debate on risk management matters in the Senate Agriculture Committee, more producers are aware or at least reminded of the risk management tools available to them. I am grateful for the support so many have shown to my initiative. Nevertheless, on March 2 of this year the Senate Agriculture Committee acted and approved legislation, principally the legislation offered by Senators Roberts and Kerrey, that over the next 4 years recommends $6 billion for improving and strengthening the Federal Crop Insurance Program, beginning with the 2001 crop. Included in the bill is a pilot program providing $500 million in direct risk management assistance to farmers who choose to forego crop insurance subsidies in a particular year. A producer would receive a risk management payment for utilizing 2 out of 12 risk management options. The legislation also raises premium subsidies to make Federal crop and revenue insurance policies more affordable for farmers, particularly at the higher levels of coverage. The bill eases actual production history so that farmer insurance coverage is less likely to be artificially suppressed by successive years of bad weather; encourages the development of insurance coverage for specialty crops and revenue insurance on a whole farm rather than a commodity-by-commodity basis; it eliminates requirements of the area- wide loss before disaster payments can be made to producers of currently noninsurable crops; and it reduces the potential for insurance fraud and abuse with strong program compliance provisions. In my judgment, it is very important that the Senate act favorably and promptly on this legislation. It will provide an important safety net component for agricultural producers. Let me mention a practical example of how crop insurance works in my own situation. There may be others in this body who have been purchasers of crop insurance on their farm. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, comes to mind. I have utilized crop insurance on my farm. Let me suggest to the Chair the crop insurance that is now available to farmers may insure the yield; that is, take a look at your farm and try to make certain that the yield you believe you would normally get is going to be there through insurance, or at least as great a percentage of that as possible you can insure, and for a premium price you can insure that yield. Or farmers can insure the revenue that might come from yield and price and take out a policy that might cover that situation. Farmers can do both--yield and revenue. There have been in the past catastrophic insurance policies. They contemplated the loss of over half of the crop. A while back, such insurance was required. The requirement was relieved by the farm bill of 1996. This is available to farmers to guarantee income to them, regardless of the weather or other hazards that might come from nature; likewise, hazards that might come from loss of exports as it affects the revenue that comes from that farm. To take a very practical example, last Friday I was in a situation where I was able to make a sale of 2,000 bushels of corn from my farm to a grain elevator in Indiana. A commonsense person would ask: But you haven't planted the crop yet; where did you get the corn to make a forward contract, a promise, to deliver 2,000 bushels of corn? I promised to deliver that corn in March of 2001, and I will receive $2.57 a bushel for that corn. For me, that was a significant contract. That may not be the top of the market, but I point out that in our debates on agricultural pricing last year, the Chair will recall some debaters pointed out that the price of corn had fallen to $1.70 a bushel. Many pointed out that effectively there was a floor through the loan deficiency payment of about $1.96 for corn farmers throughout the country. That was the minimum price for corn in most sections of our country. The current cash price for corn in some elevators around the country is somewhere between $2.10 to $2.15, as of March, if you are going to deliver. I mention this to give some benchmarks. Mr. President, $2.57 is obviously much higher than the floor of $1.96 which would still prevail in the current crop we are speaking about, much higher than the current cash price. That is, obviously, far higher than journalistic accounts of how far the price of corn fell last year. I was able to make that sale because I have crop insurance. Last year, I took out a 65-percent CRC policy, a crop revenue coverage policy. That particular policy means, in essence, I can take a look at the number of acres I want to plant, the average yield from those acres on my farm. The crop insurance people then take a look at the price of corn in the December futures as reflected for a period of 30 days; they take a look at what happened in the past. In essence, I am guaranteed at least that if I want to I can sell my crop in advance and take bold maneuvers with regard to marketing. That is one of the major purposes of crop insurance. What I have described is a fairly simple device used by most farmers; namely, a forward contract, based upon the fact you have something to sell and based upon the fact the price for corn goes up and down. You can look at futures markets. You can look at the trends and make sales. You are not left to wait for the elevator price at the time the corn comes in. An abundant harvest sometimes puts corn and other grains on the ground because elevators cannot handle it or railway cars cannot take it away. I mention this because crop insurance is obviously an extremely vital part not only of a safety net to make sure farmers are going to have a substantial amount of income but as a part of marketing strategy. As a part of this debate, we have talked about marketing strategies because they are going to be required for most farmers in America to make a profit and to do well enough to support their families. It will not work for farmers to plant, as they always have planted, whatever does well on their land, and to hope that the price will be high at the time of harvest. As a rule, price is low at the time of harvest. Unless there is a marketing strategy, farmers do not maximize their income, and many are not doing very well. This is a very important part of the 1996 farm bill legislation. As my colleague, Senator Roberts, has pointed out during his chairmanship of the House Agriculture Committee, this is a part of the picture that was never completely filled in. We have an opportunity to do that today. The bill Senator Roberts, Senator Kerrey, and their staffs have researched, and which I support, calls for higher possible percentages. I spoke of a 65-percent policy which I took out last year, but higher percentages are possible. Of course, that means higher premiums. The bill before the Senate lessens those premiums to farmers by offering a much stronger subsidy. There is a certain inversion of the subsidies. By that I mean, if farmers reach out for more safety, farmers receive more support from this bill. The point is to try to persuade farmers to take seriously the safety net provided by crop insurance risk management tools. This bill goes a long way to offering those incentives. Let me take, once again, a concrete example anecdotally from my own situation last year. The premium for my crop insurance on my corn crop was $1,700, quoted by the crop insurance salesman out in Indiana. Ultimately, I paid about $700-plus. The subsidy to the policy was about $1,000. That is a very strong inducement to take crop insurance seriously. In my home State of Indiana last year, approximately 44 percent of farmers did take crop insurance seriously, although many at much lower levels--some at simply the catastrophic level, at a very low premium. Therefore, even after we pass this legislation, which I hope we will do, and confer with the House--they have passed legislation that is very similar to this--and enact this so it comes into force prior to the fiscal year that begins the first of October, each one of us will have an obligation to visit with our farmers, to visit with the extension offices of our agricultural universities and others, to explain the possibilities that are there for risk management for a very large safety net provided in the farm bill and provided by the Budget Committee for these next 4 years. This is an extraordinary opportunity. We owe it not only to the country to pass legislation, but we owe it to our farmers to make sure our advocacy reaches a new level of information and education about very constructive legislation. I yield the floor for my distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee. In due course, I know Senator Roberts will want to be heard, and should be heard, and Senator Kerrey, who have been largely responsible for fashioning portions of this bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we have had an hour of general debate and discussion. On behalf of the leader, I would now like to offer a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 464, S. 2251, the crop insurance bill, and it be considered under the following time agreement: One amendment to be offered by the managers limited to 10 minutes and not subject to second-degree amendments and no budget points of order be in order prior to the disposition of the managers' amendment, and for the purposes of complying with section 204 of H. Con. Res. 68, the bill, as amended by the managers' amendment, be considered as the committee-reported bill: Two relevant first-degree amendments in order to be offered by the majority leader, or his designee; Two relevant first-degree amendments in order to be offered by the minority leader, or his designee; That those first-degree amendments be subject to relevant second- degree amendments; That all amendments except where noted be limited to 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form; That no motions to commit or recommit the bill be in order; And following disposition of the above-described amendments and use or yielding back of debate time, the bill be advanced to third reading. I further ask unanimous consent that following third reading of the bill, the Senate proceed to the House companion bill, H.R. 2559, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 2251, as amended, if amended, be inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading and passage occur all without any intervening action or debate. I finally ask unanimous consent that following passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, and the Senate bill be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 464, S. 2251, the crop insurance bill, and that it be considered under the following agreement: First, an amendment to be offered by the managers, limited to 10 minutes and not subject to second-degree amendments, and no budget points of order be in order prior to the disposition of the managers' amendment, and for the purposes of complying with section 204 of H. Con. Res. 68, the bill, as amended by the managers' amendment, be considered as the committee reported bill. Parenthetically, the amendment offered by the distinguished Senators from New York and New Jersey would be a part of that managers' amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes.

Mr. LUGAR. I am sure the Senate will argue the merits of the Senators' suggestions as well as the rest of the managers' amendment, and whatever else transpires, with vigor.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senators from New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island for their leadership. Mr. President, can we lock in that part of it?

Mr. LUGAR. No. This is a portion of it. The request is the managers' amendment be offered.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me proceed. I further ask unanimous consent that a relevant amendment by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, with a time limit of 30 minutes be entertained, and that a statement by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts be permitted for not to exceed 30 minutes; that a sense- of-the-Senate amendment be offered by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, and that one relevant amendment be offered by Senator Wellstone. May I inquire of the Senator if he would permit us to have a 30- minute time limit for each of these two amendments?