Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time on the Harkin amendment on our side.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield time to myself as I may require. Mr. President, I appreciate the spirit of the argument. I pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Iowa for the work he has done in this area of environmental consideration for livestock. It is an important area in his State and in mine and in the many States that our committee serves. The program does offer us, through the cost-sharing situation, an opportunity to make a difference in encouraging smaller operations to have more environmentally satisfactory hog operations, although it is not limited to that. The Senator pointed out that there are limits with regard to cattle and turkeys and chickens. The problem here, Mr. President, is trying to arrive at some compromise in terms of the size of operations farmers now have. The original limitations on size, I believe, were derived from the Clean Water Act regulations that discussed confined feeding operations in the 1970's. That was the genesis, at least, as I recall of the figures at the time. Of course, the average size of the facilities for feeding of livestock and birds has increased very, very substantially. I make no case, specifically, for the figures that the committee came up with and that are incorporated in this legislation as having the wisdom of Solomon. They are clearly a compromise, after listening to a large number of producers and trying to think through the intent of the act, which, as the Senator from Iowa has stated correctly, is one of trying to help smaller producers, with the thought that the larger producers will have to take care of their own expenses. My point is that these terms are relative. Some can move way off the spectrum and they are very large indeed, and under no circumstances are they going to qualify for cost-sharing money. The argument has been about what ought to be the limits as to what is a small- or even medium-size producer under these terms. The Senator from Iowa has probably visited with the pork caucus in Iowa and, within the last week he will have discussed this, I suspect, with many Iowa hog producers who were raising questions about--in terms of the number of hogs in the operation, as well as the payment--the limit of $10,000. In both cases, the point they have made--and it is a very lively issue in Iowa--about the size of hog situations and environmental consequences, because Iowa is a very important pork production State. It is the same in Illinois, Indiana, really, across the corn belt where there are large hog production situations. Certainly, a number of farmers who came to visit with me about this wanted still a higher limit to qualify. In other words, they had more animals than the limit. They were past the cutoff and they were not going to qualify. They want to get the threshold up higher. They would like to see more money, likewise. I understand what they are saying. I was not able to offer them promises that this is likely to occur, given a limited amount of money and what have been some very extensive conversations with producers of all sizes. I say, Mr. President, that the Senator raises a good point and is the type of consideration probably best discussed in a roundtable discussion of many producers of different sizes to bring some reality into the argument as to how hogs and cattle are now produced in America and what size operations we are headed toward. It is in that spirit that I simply defend the work we have done and the reasonably pragmatic compromise, based upon the sums of money available, and the actual size of operation in the country now. I hope the Senate will support that, unless there is a substantially greater preponderance of evidence that we have simply missed the mark by a whole lot.

Mr. LUGAR. Will the Senator modify the request to state the next Democratic amendment?

Mr. LUGAR. I suggest now it would be good to expedite the situation by asking the Senator from Iowa to offer his amendment. We are going to have a backup.

Mr. LUGAR. I will respond to the distinguished Senator, there is no one present on our side of the aisle, therefore, the Senator can proceed.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Santorum amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Bryan amendment be set aside temporarily.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I see no other Senators on our side of the aisle who wish to be heard on this amendment. Therefore, I yield back our time.

Mr. LUGAR. I yield as much time to the distinguished Senator from Idaho that he may require.

Mr. LUGAR. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi as much time as he wishes.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Santorum amendment be temporarily set aside.

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the normal rotation would be now to come to our side of the aisle, if one of our Senators is ready. Is the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania ready?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will follow the same course as the distinguished Senator from Iowa. We have had a good discussion of both amendments and, therefore, I yield our time back on our side. I ask unanimous consent that the second Harkin amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move that the Harkin amendment be set aside.

Mr. LUGAR. I am prepared to yield back, that is, if all time is yielded back on the Harkin amendment.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, indeed, makes no apology for being candid. He always has been a truth teller, and I appreciate that. The facts are clear that the Senator believes farmers should receive lower interest rates in this particular instance in the CCC loan than commercial rates. Clearly, as a part of general equity, the committee felt otherwise. We feel as a matter of fact that the loan rates ought to be comparable for commercial activities in our country, and this was a good time to rectify that. It was a part of the budget consideration, and I hope we have not forgotten that altogether. That is not an issue that has been laid aside by the country, and it is not a question of sticking it to the farmers. The question is simply equity for farmers, equity for taxpayers, equity for all of us. I think this is an important consideration. It is a $260 million consideration, as a matter of fact. Finally, Mr. President, with regard to stability for consumers, the distinguished Senator from Iowa mentioned that because of high prices now the bins are empty. They will always be empty if prices are very high in the world. The point is, we ought not fill them up again and thus depress the prices because of this overhang. That is the principle and that is the policy. Furthermore, $100 million of savings to the taxpayers is involved in not reinstituting bad policy. Mr. President, how much time does our side have?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will just respond briefly to the distinguish Senator's argument. Obviously, we are not imposing a tax on farmers. A farmer wishing to borrow money does that as a citizen, a voluntary act. The question is whether that loan ought to be subsidized by all the rest of the taxpayers, people in various other businesses all over the country. To some extent it is now subsidized, and the legislation that the distinguished Senator from Idaho and I introduced eliminates 100 basis points of the subsidy. It brings the loan rate for farmers closer to that of commercial loans in our country, some basic fairness really with all borrowers. That is the issue. Now, if we offer a subsidy to farmers, I have pointed out it will cost taxpayers and other borrowers $260 million. That has no relationship whatever to baseline or budget or what have you. It is just a cost of the subsidy. In the agriculture legislation we provided this year, we have tried to bring about more equity among farmers and other taxpayers in the country. I believe the savings involved are substantial. They are over a 7-year period of time. They do not bring any injury to farmers as a group of people with relationship to anybody else. They bring about equity, and I believe the taxpayers care about that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LUGAR. I have no objection.

Mr. LUGAR. In two amendments?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if I may raise a question of the distinguished Senator, he wishes to separate the two issues?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, two elements of the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Iowa are costly provisions. I think Senators need to understand that there are expenses attached which the taxpayers would have if the amendments were to be adopted. Specifically, the Harkin amendment as it deals with CCC credits and the 100-basis-point increase, which the pending legislation would provide in the CCC interest rates, if that were stricken, this would cost the taxpayers $260 million. So it is a significant item. The point made by the distinguished Senator is, why should interest rates for farmers be increased as represented by the CCC interest rates? And the fundamental answer is that these rates are well below commercial rates. In essence, as the Agriculture Committee dealt with this problem, we have tried to bring some equity among farmers, business people, and those who are involved in commerce generally in America. And the elimination of the 100-basis-point advantage likewise was a very important saving at the time that we were all considering the balanced budget amendment that was vetoed ultimately by President Clinton. I hope that simply because the President has vetoed this particular budget, even as the President and congressional leadership are still hard at work as far as we know attempting to find a balanced budget in 7 years, that we would not abandon all of the thoughts that we had that were very important with regard to balancing the budget. This is a $260 million item. Mr. President, the second part of the Harkin amendment would restore the farmer-owned grain reserve which pays farmers 26\1/2\ cents a bushel for storing grain. I would simply point out that restoration of this farmer-owned reserve will also be a costly item--in this case, $100 million of additional expense to taxpayers in this country. Furthermore, I would simply say as a farmer who has adequate storage capacity on my farm, and well aware of how the farmer-reserve plan worked in the past, that I do not think it is a very good idea. I say this as a farmer, not as somebody coming in from the outside offering advice to farmers. The truth of the matter is, so long as we had the farmer-owned reserve we had an enormous overhang of grain on markets. Those of us who looked to the markets to give signals for our marketing plans always had to take into consideration hoards of grain--hundreds of millions of bushels held out there that could depress markets strangely and sometimes almost capriciously. The thought was suggested this morning that this farmer-owned reserve gave some solace to consumers. But it is really quite to the contrary, Mr. President. It has led to fits and starts with regard to marketing plans for farmers that finally we got rid of all of this grain, and the farmer-owned reserve was finally depleted. It is gone. It is no longer a hanging sword over the market price. I would like to leave it that way, Mr. President. I think that is the desirable policy. In fact, the Senator's amendment does two unfortunate things: It would reestablish bad policy, and charge the taxpayers of the country $100 million for that dubious privilege. Mr. President, the arguments are starkly simple. I will not embellish them further--$260 million more cost if you strike the 100-point interest differential and $100 million more cost if you restore the farmer-owned reserve situation. In both cases, I think they are bad policy and very expensive. So, obviously, Mr. President, I strenuously oppose the amendment for the reasons I have suggested. I reserve the remainder of our time. amendment no. 3445, as modified

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I require on this side.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the floor is now open. In fact an amendment from the Democratic side would be in order. Amendment No. 3445 to Amendment No. 3184 (Purpose: To strike the section relating to the Commodity Credit Corporation interest rate and continue the farmer owned reserve)