Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the tobacco legislation, S. 1415, for debate only until the hour of 3 p.m. today.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Indeed, it is always a pleasure to work with the Senator from North Carolina, I will do what I can to ensure that warehousemen who are adversely affected by comprehensive tobacco legislation are not forgotten as the tobacco legislation proceeds through the legislative process.

Mr. LUGAR. I acknowledge the importance of warehousemen under the current tobacco program and that some of those warehousemen may be adversely affected when the current program is eliminated. That is why I have made it clear in my amendment that warehousemen may be considered as recipients of some of the $1 billion in economic assistance grants to states. I believe that it will be important for state and local governments to determine the level of assistance to individual warehousemen in their localities. Local officials will be better able to assess the economic impact on individual warehousemen and can make adequate compensation accordingly.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 249 introduced earlier today by Senators Moseley-Braun and Durbin.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I must comment, in my own congratulations to the Chicago Bulls, with the observation that our Indiana Pacers extended the Bulls to seven games, as the Chair will remember. We are delighted that such a great season occurred in the NBA, and a very worthy team, including, obviously, the Utah Jazz, the ultimate survivors. We congratulate the Bulls on their sixth triumph in 8 years. I ask unanimous consent the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the resolution appear in the Record in the appropriate place, as if read.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Yes.

Mr. LUGAR. No. The amount of money in the Lugar bill for farmers is about, as I recall, $16 billion or $17 billion. And 46 percent of that would come in the first year.

Mr. LUGAR. I will not argue with the Senator's arithmetic. I suggest there is even a worse predicament; namely, as the Senator has pointed out, a marriage penalty, and the drug program. Other things have been added in since we started the argument. My thought--this was at least in the working with the health community--was to try to stake out the farmers' claims before various other claims of the health community and various others that might come along. Clearly, the amounts of money in the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky in this bill will have to be expanded. And in conference they surely will be expanded. It appeared to me to stake out the farmers' interest in this way was prudent. The amendment has not been offered. The Senator has an amendment on the floor to strike my section which is the pending business. So we may never come to that point.

Mr. LUGAR. That was my motivation. My general logic still is about the same--that we have a very crowded situation up front. But that is not precluding either one of us from arguing for the farmers' interests up front as opposed to downstream, and a long way down the stream in the case of the Senator's amendment. Let me just try to clarify another point that has arisen along the way; namely, that the Lugar plan would be of great benefit to cigarette companies. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky has frequently said, ``Are you for the companies, or the farmers?'' I am for the farmer. I have made no mistake about that for years. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky will recall that I have been attempting to wrap up the tobacco program for many years--it is not a new endeavor--because I don't believe it is good agricultural policy. But leaving that aside, the charge is made that under the Lugar plan the tobacco prices would drop dramatically and the companies would, therefore, make more profit on each pack of cigarettes. Let me try to address that as carefully as I can. Dr. Blake Brown of North Carolina State University, one of the Nation's most respected tobacco economists, studied what would happen if cigarette prices rose $1.50 cents a pack and the tobacco program were ended. As we know, the amendment to raise the price to $1.50 a pack failed. It is $1.10 a pack. So, to that extent, we have a problem with Dr. Brown's analysis. But, nevertheless, follow me if you will. He said that prices would not fall as much as opponents of the Lugar amendment assert. He projected a decline of 20 percent to 25 percent at around 35 cents to 40 cents, not the 60 cents or 70 cents claimed by some. Notwithstanding that, he said the price would fall but production would increase. The Senator from Kentucky has made that point--and he is correct, according to Dr. Brown--that, in fact, a more efficient tobacco industry is likely to arise under the Lugar amendment. This should not be surprising. Essentially, the tobacco program now brings about a very inefficient tobacco situation in the United States. I am not a proponent of tobacco, but I would say freedom to farm would be good for tobacco. In essence, the price will fall, more will be produced, exports will increase because price-wise--I would argue quality-wise--and it would be more competitive. Revenue is not simply price; it is price multiplied by volume. As a matter of fact, Dr. Brown estimates the total dollar value of tobacco sales would fall by just 2.8 percent, or $74 million, a year. By contrast, the Commerce Committee bill raises about $500 billion from the tobacco companies. Mr. President, it is my analysis that, in fact, the tobacco companies conceivably have $74 million of economy a year, not a billion a year that the Senator from Kentucky has mentioned. You multiply that by 25-- I am asserting it is more like $74 million perhaps, and conceivably less than that, as a matter of fact. That is a very different ball park to argue the situation one way or another for the tobacco companies. But I would simply say that the tobacco companies are more likely to buy American tobacco under this situation. It is unlikely to lead to a GATT crisis, simply because the market works. One reason the tobacco companies do not buy as much American tobacco now is that normally the quality of much of it is not very good. The price of it is abnormally high. They have substituted purchases from abroad. There are so many mixed motivations in this bill that some Senators might argue we do not want a more efficient tobacco industry. As a matter of fact, we want to make it as inefficient as possible, as few sales as possible of American tobacco, the least rationalization economically of it all. But you can't carry water on both shoulders on this issue. I am suggesting that this is a good time simply to get the governmental apparatus out of it, which, in my judgment, is not very helpful either to the tobacco farmers, or the tobacco companies, or to anybody involved, and clearly it leads to a balance of trade problem for America generally. Let me get into the health and research question again, because some Senators may be tempted to support the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky because they believe that health programs might be disturbed in the redistribution of these funds. Let me just point out that the technical details of Senator Ford's proposal are important to know. For example, in the amendment that he has presented--and it is part of this bill now--the Ford plan costs will immediately explode by design, because payments are accelerated if the tobacco program ends. These costs could be over $10 billion in a single year. Why do I mention this? I mention it because I would guess, having witnessed action on the floor for several years, that in some year some Senator is going to propose the end of the tobacco program. That may not occur tonight or tomorrow. It could, if the Senate passes my amendment. But for some reason, because of sentiment for the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to continue this process, after the distinguished Senator has left the floor and left the Senate, my prediction is that some Senator will say this doesn't make sense, for the Federal Government to be prescriptive with regard to tobacco and here we are supporting tobacco in this way by governmental fiat. So at some point in a farm bill, or without a farm bill, my guess is the program will come to an end. The Senator has thought of that and says if that should be the case, immediately payments of all sorts come to tobacco farmers. In other words, there is a ticking time bomb there to suggest it is very expensive for anybody to try to end the tobacco program. Members need to understand that. They are buying not only a continuation of the tobacco program but a rather huge payment, if anyone should dare to tamper with the program. The health community people need to understand that. This is not a benign amendment with regard to the health of the American people. Let me point out, Mr. President, that the charge that we will give a $1 billion gift to cigarette manufacturers, taking it out of the farmers' pockets, just simply does not hold water. We have cited Dr. Brown of North Carolina State before. I cite Dr. Brown again. He estimates, as we have suggested, that farmers' total revenue might decline by 15 percent. He said this decline assumed a $1.50-a-pack price, but even at the $1.10 we finally adopted, the increase in their loss of revenue could still be severe--maybe not 15 percent but something in that neighborhood. Keeping the current program means lower total revenues for American tobacco farmers because noncompetitive U.S. prices well encourage a continued uptrend in imports and reduce exports while domestic demand is stagnant or falling. I made the point, Mr. President, that it is conceivable through protectionist legislation on top of this that Senators might decide to try to keep foreign tobacco out of the country, might try to amend the GATT at the World Trade Organization meetings when they come along next year. That would add, I suppose, double jeopardy to the whole situation--Federal sponsorship of tobacco, compounded by protectionist legislation enveloping even that. That does not make sense. This is not the way the world works. It is not the way the policies of this country are headed. Why in the particular instance of tobacco is there a blind spot with regard to the successful economic operation of our country including this specific industry? In fact, I would suggest that the families who, under the Lugar amendment, will be collecting $8 a pound for quota will use that money, many of them, to make investments and to earn money on them that are substantially more sound and more lucrative than the investments they have in tobacco. The tobacco industry is not a winner in terms of current investment either as a farmer, warehouseman or a manufacturing concern. It is not a winner because this legislation is in the Chamber and the impact of this legislation is going to be very depressing to tobacco people wherever they are. The intent of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and myself is to not only cushion that blow for farmers and those communities, but it is to provide, upfront and quickly, capital for those farmers to have a pension or money to invest in other operations, agricultural or otherwise, or money for scholarships. And I share the enthusiasm of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for education of young people in those areas where tobacco is produced, as well as elsewhere. But I would seriously question whether the educational opportunities of those students are going to be enhanced by continuation of the tobacco program, a program that will mean less income for their families annually as far as the eye can see, from an industry and a general area, that of tobacco, in which demand will be depressed, in which sales and the amount of quota given annually will be depressed and in which, one after another, these families will in fact leave the business. I am not trying to legislate anyone out of business. I am as sensitive as the distinguished Senator from Kentucky that in a deteriorating situation people are leaving farming in general, but they are leaving tobacco farming in particular because it is particularly depressed and does not have even the liberation of freedom to farm, the ability to farm or to plant what he wants to maximize his or her production in this country. If, in fact, we are talking about the health and welfare of tobacco farmers--and that is our intent today--and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky is correct, that we were not at the table when the attorneys general of the various States met with the tobacco companies--and, in fact, testimony before the Agriculture Committee by at least one witness was that settlement for growers was deliberately left out. It was, to quote one of them, a deal breaker. Others have said that all along they expected Congress would act, and, indeed, we are attempting to do that. Mr. President, if we do not act or if we had not acted by bringing these amendments to the floor, I think it is clear to the tobacco farmers in my State they will be on a losing course with tobacco for the rest of their lives without any recourse or any particular funds. Finally, Mr. President, I would suggest as to the critical issue that has been suggested; namely, is there credible evidence that farmers will receive their money, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has pointed out that certainly my plan looks attractive to farmers who anticipate receiving $8 per pound of quota in the first 3 years after enactment; that my plan looks attractive to farmers who want to continue on and receive transition payments comparable to those of freedom to farm for corn and beans and wheat and cotton and rice, and my plan looks attractive, as a matter of fact, to communities that receive at least modest amounts of community development funds. The Senator from Kentucky has pointed out the value of these funds. I believe my amendment is attractive for all of these reasons, and this is why it is attractive to grower organizations in most States that have a lot of tobacco--a great deal of support, resolutions of support directly, editorial support in newspapers. It is not because people in those States necessarily favored my desire to end the tobacco program. It is because they came to a recognition the program is ending. It will be gone. This is the one opportunity in which some compensation might occur. It is an opportunity not to be missed. Now, if it is to be ceased in terms of the family, the money upfront makes sense. It is very important to understand that and to understand why that injection of capital and expenditure and buying power into tobacco communities is important in the short run. It is important to understand why, when a conference occurs with the House, if they pass a bill, growers need to have a strong position at the table, which our bill gives them. I think it is very important, as a matter of fact, to the success of this legislation as a whole that there be a provision such as the one I have suggested and which the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has now moved to strike--that my provision be there. It is a strong reason for Senators to vote for the overall legislation. I would say correspondingly, if in fact the tobacco program is to continue on forever, and if the expenditures the distinguished Senator from Kentucky has pointed out are very generous to his State and a few others are to be a part of that, many Senators will raise the question as to why the rest of the United States of America ought to subsidize these few States or these few counties. What equity is there, as a matter of fact, in such a transfer of money over the course of time? And Americans will clearly ask, Is it not hypocritical to maintain that entire apparatus if the point of tobacco legislation is to discourage smoking, discourage consumption, to help improve the health of the American people and the desire of young people to become committed to smoking at all. For these reasons, I am hopeful that as Members ponder their decision--and it may be a decision they will have to ponder throughout the evening or will make at some point in the morning, because I have pledged to the distinguished Senator now to make a motion. I had indicated earlier in the afternoon I was perfectly willing for a quick vote, and that situation did not materialize. There is no one here stopping progress. I will just simply say, at some point this has to be resolved, and I hope the Senators will resolve it in favor of the Lugar amendment, because I believe this is the best course for tobacco farmers, for tobacco communities, and for our national policy. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Certainly.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will understand this observation. Clearly, the strongest thing going for the Ford amendment is the Senator himself. As he has pointed out, he has long service to the people of Kentucky and his arguments on behalf of farm families with whom he has visited, and clearly all Senators have affection for the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky. It is my hope and had been my hope that I could persuade him that it is in the best interest of these farmers--the people with whom he has visited on the porches, who really have very real needs--and that is true of any tobacco farmers in the communities--and we want to support them. I know they are not as numerous as those in the Senator's State, but it is still very important to me. Our argument is really over what the future holds for them. I come into this business having conducted hearings, not claiming extensive knowledge like the Senator from Kentucky, but nevertheless understanding the predicament, it seems to me, of the tobacco program. I believe that it is a deteriorating and failing program. To give any other impression is not to give a very good forecast of the future. I hope the Senator from Kentucky agrees with me that, given that predicament, this particular piece of comprehensive legislation is almost a heaven-sent opportunity and has a lot to do with farmers who are tobacco farmers and those in those communities. I believe that if the opportunity passes, so will the opportunity for many of those families. That concerns both of us. Let me just say for the record that the Senator from Kentucky mentioned that an amendment I had planned to offer at the desk would provide for 46 percent of the farmers' money coming in the first year. That is correct. Let me point out, this is 46 percent of the money dedicated to farmers, not 46 percent of all of the money in the bill.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mary Dietrich, a detailee to the Agriculture Committee from the General Accounting Office, be granted privilege of the floor during the pendency of the tobacco farmer amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to support a program that will end tobacco subsidies, give fair compensation to farmers now rather than many years from now, make an extra $10 billion available for public health and other worthy purposes, and provide some degree of certainty for tobacco farmers, for agricultural America, with regard to our policies that would pertain with greater fairness to all farmers. Let me simply cite, at the outset my discussion of these issues, what I perceive to be the significant differences between the Lugar amendment, which I favor and which the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky has chosen through his amendment now to strike from the bill, and, in fact, the amendment provided by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and others who have supported their point of view. The basic differences come down to, first of all, should the U.S. Government support tobacco? That is a very fundamental issue. The debate, which now is in its third week on this subject, suggests that the American people are not prepared for their Federal Government to support a crop, a set of products, which they find injurious to health. Indeed, much of our debate has been about how we can protect the health of children, how we can pay for the difficulties in health that citizens of all ages have experienced. If it were not for these health issues which are serious for tens of millions of Americans and prospectively for many more, this debate would not be so intense; clearly, the remedy suggested would not be so severe. It really begs understanding of this issue as to how the same government that may legislate severely with regard to tobacco, could at the same time decide to support the price of tobacco, to support the industry, the warehousing, the infrastructure, as the current tobacco program does and has done for almost six decades. That is the first issue. Do we want the U.S. Government to support tobacco? And my judgment is we should not support tobacco. The legislation that I have suggested does not give prioritization to tobacco. Rather, it says that tobacco, so long as it is a legal crop, can be produced in America on the same terms as corn, wheat, soybeans, same freedom to farm that all other farmers have, same tests of the market, same tests of efficiency, of production. That, it seems to me, is the only way this can be rationalized, with those in agricultural America asking, Why special treatment for tobacco? Why specific situations that support that price, to support those farmers? There is no good answer to that. I understand the constituency problems of the distinguished Senators who have many tobacco farmers, and I am certainly mindful of approximately 10,000 farms in Indiana, albeit smaller ones than in Kentucky and in North Carolina and some other States, but nevertheless tobacco farmers who are impacted significantly by this debate. I have visited with them extensively. They support my amendment for good reason. Why would they support my amendment if I am prepared to say the Federal Government ought not to support tobacco? They do so because the Lugar amendment provides payment to those who hold tobacco quota, the certificates distributed principally in the 1930s, that allow people in this country to produce tobacco. We are prepared in my amendment to purchase those rights in a 3-year period of time. My amendment is attractive because the money comes to the tobacco farmers, but even more importantly, to the holders of quota certificates who are frequently elderly people, people no longer involved in production. They lease and rent the certificates to others. They really have no desire to continue in the tobacco business. On a one-time basis they can receive capital for pensions, for scholarships, money in the communities that are impacted--substantial money--and they can receive it quickly in a 3-year period of time. That is why tobacco growers in most States have indicated through their organizations that they support the Lugar approach. The Senate as a whole has to ask which of the two approaches, the Ford-Hollings or the Lugar approach, costs more. Clearly, the Ford- Hollings costs at least $10 billion more than the Lugar approach. It has a great deal more in it in terms of community development for States and localities that have tobacco farmers over the years. It is simply a very different approach which retains the tobacco program and some of the apparatus that has been associated with it over the years. I make that point because in the course of these remarks the statement has been made that somehow or other the Lugar approach will subtract money from health causes or other important objectives of the legislation, but in fact it will subtract $10 billion less than the Ford-Hollings amendment. There is no getting around that. I simply say, finally, that to argue--I believe almost disingenuously--that health groups would prefer a situation where $10 billion less is left in the general fund of this bill for health or anything else is to, I suppose, deny common sense. Many health groups perhaps were misled by the thought that in the event we went to freedom-to-farm tobacco, the price of tobacco would go down. The price of tobacco probably will go down. We have had testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee and we have had extensive hearings, as a matter of fact, on tobacco issues from which the Lugar amendment came. Essentially, the testimony was that the price of tobacco might fall by as much as 25 percent, perhaps more, depending upon how competitive American tobacco is in the world markets, and competitive abilities have been in decline. Most Americans are not aware that 40 percent of the tobacco now used in the production of American cigarettes comes from abroad, not from here. It comes from abroad because of questions of price and quality, normal economic questions. That deterioration of the American tobacco demand has been continuing at a fairly rapid pace. So, Mr. President, let me just state it fairly simply. If a pack of cigarettes now costs $2 before this bill, it will cost a great deal more after this bill. Approximately 6 cents of that $2 might be attributed to the tobacco in the package. If in fact that goes down by a quarter, maybe a cent or a cent and a half is at stake. To suggest that somehow this brings either unconscionable profits to tobacco companies or enormous new demands by young people taking up smoking is, I think, to defy both economics and logic in the midst of our raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by at least $1 or $2, or whatever the bill finally comes out to be with the overhead and all the economic costs associated. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, health groups for a long time have centered in on the fundamental issue I began with: Should the Federal Government be supporting tobacco at all? What kind of a signal does that give when we give official sponsorship and economic support to the price and warehousing and infrastructure of tobacco? I don't think the signal is very good. As a matter of fact, it is so ambiguous that it borders upon hypocrisy. At some stage, we will have to make a choice as to which of these two general thrusts in life we are for-- health or support of tobacco. Mr. President, let me just say, finally, that we are going to have to come to grips with the issue that is posed by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky in his striking of my amendment. I appreciate that. The parliamentary situation is that the Ford-Hollings approach and the Lugar approach are both in the bill. I suggested that one or the other of us might, at some point in this debate, move to strike the other, and the Senator from Kentucky, my good friend, has decided he would move to strike my situation. So that is the issue before us. Members have to make a choice. I simply say to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, who is on the floor, that it would not be my purpose to delay the choice. My feeling is, essentially, by this time, if Members are not aware of the issues, they never will be. My feeling is that we ought to get on with it and resolve it. I stated up front that this will not be a long speech and, if there are not many more, we might come to a conclusion. Let me say that in defense of what we have been doing in the Agriculture Committee, in my own point of view, I rise to affirmatively support the Lugar approach, which has been moved by the Senator from Kentucky to be stricken. I believe that it is important to adopt my approach, to keep it alive by voting ``no'' on the motion to strike, because we will end tobacco subsidies, we will end the tobacco program. Mr. President, to be quite frank, this is the major point that I make, the reason I am in this debate. I believe that agricultural policy ought to be based upon supply and demand. I believe that all farmers producing crops in this country ought to be treated equally. We had a revolution in agriculture in 1996 in which we said freedom to farm means that a farmer may decide to plant whatever he or she wants to plant on their land, have full control of that, without the Federal Government dictating how many pounds, how many acres, how many bushels. The only signals would be market signals, and they are now world market signals. They are important to America because agriculture is the thing we do best, and our surplus and balance of trade is the greatest in that area. But freedom to farm also means taking risks. It means there is no warehouse for wheat, or for corn, or for soybeans, no props, no passing on from one generation to the next the right to grow corn or wheat. We really have to get over that, Mr. President. I understand why it came about in the 1930s because essentially people felt that if you let farmers have freedom, they would inevitably plant too much, they would do too much, they would be too ingenious, and, as a result, supplies would be horrendous, prices would fall, agricultural communities would fail. The New Deal policy was one of killing little pigs, knocking out rows of corn, to dramatically change the supply and to bring the price up. Whatever may have been the rationalization in those days, it was convenient to carry this on for about six more decades. Many people in America would still like the idea of being guaranteed a price for a bushel of whatever they are producing. They would like to be guaranteed that their neighbor could not do more. But at the same time, most farmers in agricultural America resent the Federal Government's control. They resent the fly-overs, the measurement of fields, the endless sign-ups--and rightly so. So we came to a revolution of sorts, Mr. President, and we went to freedom to farm, except in the area of tobacco, for example, where persons in that industry said that, ``Notwithstanding everything else going on in agricultural America, we want to retain the same program we have had.'' Now, Mr. President, my own view is that the program is deteriorating. I am not one who would predict the month, the year, or even the decade where it will finally collapse. I just say that tobacco farmers coming to my office from my State, and also from Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, and from South Carolina, I have said during the past year, although we had quota and the right to produce tobacco and to sell it and to have a price, we were cut back 10 percent in what we could do. Furthermore, they believe they are going to be cut back 15 percent this coming year regardless of what we do on this bill. That is a big cut. That is a deteriorating program. No wonder they were attracted by my thought that they might receive $8 per pound for quota, so many of them could get out of the business altogether. Now, a good number said they want to stay in the business, but they realize they are going to have to do so on the basis of supply and demand. That is the way the world works--without all the apparatus, the warehousemen, and so forth. That is fair enough. My bill provides that you continue right on producing, if you want to, and take money for quota, if you had it. If you are renting, fair enough, you have a transition of 3 years with some payments in support, the same as do corn farmers, wheat farmers, rice and cotton farmers, in the freedom to farm bill. It is a transition period. I think that is important, Mr. President. But at least we bring to an end an era that, I think, is coming to an end anyway. Now, what if we don't pass the tobacco bill? What if, in fact, the idea of the Senator from Kentucky, or mine--either one--is not a part of the final picture? That is a real problem for tobacco farmers. It is a problem that should have been contemplated by the attorneys general when they were working this situation out last year. But, as a matter of fact, at that time they left the whole grower issue aside. That is why we had hearings in the Agriculture Committee and why Senator Ford and others have been working in the Commerce Committee--to say, what do we do about this very important group of people; namely, growers, holders of quota, holders of equity property out there in at least 10 States in substantial numbers? Now, Mr. President, my guess is that one or the other of our amendments may prevail, but I am not confident of that. It could very well be that the Senate will decide they don't want either one. It could be that if we argue this long enough, people will begin to raise questions. What is an acre of tobacco worth? In some cases, 10 times what an acre of corn might be worth on this same farm, as is the case in my home State of Indiana. One reason is because it is a very special privilege. And as Americans take a look at this, they won't like what they have to see. In the Agriculture Committee for years, I witnessed--at least during the 21-plus years that I have been a member of the committee--people protecting each other. There were a lot of special deals. People got on the committee often to make certain they protected their deal and their farmers in their State. I understand that. Most did a good job of it. Now there are fewer special deals. There really is a very short list of situations that need to be tidied up, and this is one of them. So I come, Mr. President, to the floor to suggest that this is a good time, while there is a general settlement going on, money on the table, lots of money. The question has been raised, Does the grower money subtract from health? No. The Senate doesn't want to subtract. They simply provided any sequence of years we wanted. But when Members come to the floor and they talk about $300 billion, $400 billion, $500 billion, $600 billion, the $18 billion I am talking about in the Lugar bill is a very small part of that money. If people are worried about whether it comes upfront, my advice would be to provide money upfront. If you want to provide more money for health at the same time, do it. This bill is as fluid as any piece of legislation I have ever seen. Nothing is engraved in stone as to which dollar comes where. All I am saying is if you are serious about tobacco farmers and their plight, you give them their money upfront. You do it promptly, and those that want to leave, leave. Those that want to stay, stay, and react like farmers in almost any other sphere, including sometime the same farmers are producing corn as well as tobacco on the same farm. Mr. President, that is the first big issue: The end of the tobacco program, the end of official U.S. Government sponsorship of all of this. Let me say, secondly, that my plan costs less. One could argue that in the course of all of this we have bandied about these hundreds of billions of dollars that perhaps we have lost track altogether as to how money is going to be spent. But I hope not. If there are any Members who are interested in cost, they will vote for an $18 billion bill, the Lugar bill, as opposed to a $28 billion Ford bill. In addition, I am advised that the bill of the Senator from Kentucky now includes special relief for problems in North Dakota, or perhaps other States that have been afflicted by unusual weather problems. I am hopeful that in the course of the debate all of that will be explained. But it is another unusual addition to an already belabored situation. All I am saying is that if you are interested in cost, you will be for the Lugar alternative. It is less. Obviously, Mr. President, the money gets to the tobacco farmers sooner. If you are a tobacco farmer, the Lugar bill gets money to you more rapidly. Time is money--money upfront, money that could be used for capital for other farming, for pension, for scholarships, for other things that people have a quota for, or who are farmers where that quota can be utilized, and I think that is an important issue. Finally, let's be very clear on the health issues. I go back over that again. The fact is that the health groups of the United States--major proponents of this legislation--have analyzed these bills, and some have come out one way and some another. But I would just say simply that the money for health is finally going to be the determination of this Senate in this bill in whatever amounts that we want to provide for. Some have accused the President of the United States for asking for a number of things in the health area. He cited some in the State of the Union Address, and on this side of the aisle many of us have said we ought not to be funding the State of the Union Address in the tobacco bill. But having said that, we are funding a good number of proposals that the President or the administration and its various Secretaries have made at some point. We do so because the problems of health attributed to tobacco have badly afflicted tens of millions of Americans. These problems have created enormous public costs in the Medicare Program, Medicaid, and various other ways, and compounded black lung disease and other difficult health problems in our country. Mr. President, the logic has been that if we are going to have a tobacco bill, there ought to be some compensation to States. In fact, some States have not waited for compensation. Lawsuits have been proposed and some have been successful. Thus, the attorneys general came together and said perhaps we can have a comprehensive settlement. Many in the Congress found that to be intriguing. It would have been helpful if the President of the United States, last fall, had offered a bill as opposed to general guidelines. It might have been helpful, as a matter of fact, if there had been a comprehensive bill here that had embraced at least what I know have been seemingly contradictory strains on occasion. I certainly do not fault the managers of the bill. They have had a difficult time. But we have come now to a point where the one item, one significant item mentioned by everybody that was omitted--namely the growers, the farmers--has to be addressed. I believe it should be addressed. I don't believe it should be omitted. It is not specifically a health issue, and one can argue it competes with health issues. But inequity to farmers in these 10 States, and to tobacco farmers in particular, my intent and that of the Senators from Kentucky and South Carolina has been to take that very seriously. Although we may differ upon the amounts of money and the continuation of the tobacco program and various particulars in terms of expenditures in the States for community development and other aspects, we do not differ on very serious equity problems for farmers and for holders of quota. So we must address that issue. I am simply hopeful that this issue will not be seen as a subtraction or addition to health per se. It is a narrow issue of compensation to farmers and to their communities. I hope the Senate will accept the fact that there is equity in doing that. The so-called narrow version of the tobacco legislation--that principle--might not be accepted. So we are expanding today what the attorneys general and the State governments in their wisdom tried to negotiate last year. We are doing it so deliberately. Testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee said essentially the attorneys general, health groups, and everyone else anticipated the Senate at some point would act in behalf of growers, as we are doing, and, in fact, explicitly or implicitly endorsed that activity. Mr. President, I will rest my case for the time simply on the basis that I believe I have outlined why the Lugar approach is the best. Members will have a choice, either shortly or in the long term, depending upon how much debate Members wish to hear or endure on this subject. But I will not stymie progress of the bill. This is an issue that needs to be resolved. Members will have to make an overall judgment, I believe, on the bill on the basis of all factors, this one included. I hope at least in the course of this debate that we eliminate those issues that Members want to grasp, want to hear, and will be helpful in reaching a conclusion. I thank the Chair. Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LUGAR. I respect the Senator from Kentucky. I wanted to inquire of the Senator. The discussion is very important.

Mr. LUGAR. I wonder if the Senator planned to continue his discussion until the end of the session, or whether at some point I might seek recognition to speak.

Mr. LUGAR. If the Senator would consider allowing me to speak, I pledge to the Senator not to make a motion with regard to disposition of this bill during today's session.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 17. I further ask that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Ashcroft, 20 minutes; Senator Torricelli, 15 minutes; Senator Akaka, 10 minutes.

Mr. LUGAR. I further ask unanimous consent that, following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1415, the tobacco bill.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. and begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco bill, with a Ford amendment pending regarding the tobacco farmers. Following disposition of the Ford amendment, it is hoped that Members will come to the floor to offer and debate remaining amendments to the tobacco bill. Therefore, rollcall votes are expected throughout Wednesday's session.

Mr. LUGAR. Yes, I am pleased to.

Mr. LUGAR. The unanimous consent agreement was, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the tobacco bill with the Ford amendment pending regarding tobacco farmers.

Mr. LUGAR. My understanding is that the conference of the Republicans will occur at 10:30, and the leader will make a decision in the morning with regard to any further motions in relation to that time.