Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator work with me to ensure that the current USAID Administrator and the Administrator in the new administration provides $30 million for global polio eradication for fiscal 2001?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator Leahy, ranking member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee. It is my understanding that the Senate Appropriations Committee report recommended $30 million for the global polio eradication campaign at USAID and the House recommended $25 million. It is also my understanding that the Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund received a $248 million increase for Fiscal 2001 and that there are sufficient funds for the USAID to provide the $30 million for global polio eradication, am I correct?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I asked for 15 minutes at the end of the time. For some reason it got mixed up and I was not included on the list. It is my intention to ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak for 15 minutes before the Senate goes out on recess.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, every day I raise it and every day the Republican majority objects. It is still a shame that Bonnie Campbell has been tied up in that committee since May. She has had her hearing. She has done a great job running the Violence Against Women office. Everyone agrees on that. She would be an outstanding circuit court judge. No one doubts her qualifications. Yet the Judiciary Committee refuses to report out her name. It is really a disservice to her and to our country, and it is really a disgrace on this body that her name continues to be bottled up in the Judiciary Committee. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I have done every day we have been in session, I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie Campbell, the nominee for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; that her nomination be considered by the Senate immediately following the conclusion of action on the pending matter; that debate on the nomination be limited to 2 hours equally divided; and that a vote on her nomination occur immediately following the use or yielding back of that time.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Under this Act, the Secretary will establish a system of approving rehabilitation requests. As part of this process, Mr. Chairman, is it correct that NRCS should give equal priority to local sponsors projects regardless of the form of rehabilitation requested?

Mr. HARKIN. The Senate has passed a substantially similar version of the Act. When the bill was reported by the Senate Agriculture Committee our report embodied the Committee's understanding of how the provisions of the bill should be carried out. Mr. Chairman, does that report still embody our understanding of the interpretation of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000?

Mr. HARKIN. The Grain Standards Act contains the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, legislation that enables the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide cost-share money for local sponsors to rehabilitate dams that were built with funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Before approving a project, NRCS will examine all options, including correcting damage or deterioration of the structure, upgrading the structural measure to meet changed land use conditions or safety needs within the watershed, and decommissioning the structure. Let me ask you, Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that even though NRCS must fully evaluate every reasonable option, if a local sponsor does not wish to choose decommissioning the local sponsor can reject that option if NRCS presents it?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I recognize that this Act is silent on the requirements of a formal cost-benefit analysis. I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, if it is your understanding that each project should be completed using the most-effective option possible that also has the fewest environmental costs, including the options of voluntary buy-outs of at-risk structures, wetland restoration, dam decommissioning, and dam removal?

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. What did this Rand study show? Let me read the first couple paragraphs: What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us? Do the scores on high-stakes, statewide tests accurately reflect student achievement? To answer this critical question, a team of RAND researchers examined the results on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), the highest- profile state testing program and one that recorded extraordinary gains in math and reading scores. The team's report, an issue paper titled ``What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us?'', raises ``serious questions'' about the validity of those gains [in Texas]. It also cautions about the danger of making decisions to sanction or reward students, teachers and schools on the basis of test scores that may be inflated or misleading. It continues: To investigate whether the dramatic math and reading gains on the TAAS [the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills] represent actual academic progress, the researchers compared these gains to score changes in Texas on another test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The NAEP tests were used as a benchmark because they reflect standards endorsed by a national panel of experts, they are not subject to pressures to boost scores, and they are generally considered the nation's single best indicator of student achievement. Both the TAAS and the NAEP tests were administered to fourth and eighth graders during comparable four-year periods. According to the Rand study: The ``stark differences'' between the stories told by NAEP and TAAS are especially striking when it comes to the gap in average scores between whites and students of color. According to the NAEP results, that gap in Texas is not only very large but increasing slightly. According to TAAS scores, the gap is much smaller and decreasing greatly. ``We do not know the source of these differences,'' the researchers state. But one reasonable explanation, consistent with survey and observation data, is that ``many schools are devoting a great deal of class time to highly specific TAAS preparation.'' While this preparation may improve TAAS scores, it may not help students develop necessary reading and math skills. The authors suspect that ``schools with relatively large percentages of minority and poor students may be doing this more than other schools.'' Then it went on to say: Other features of the Texas test also may contribute to the false sense that the racial gaps are closing. Let me read now what Governor Bush has said about the Texas tests. According to Governor Bush: One of my proudest accomplishments is I worked with Republicans and Democrats to close that achievement gap in Texas. Bush said that on ``Larry King Live.'' The Rand study shows this claim is false. The achievement gap is not closing; it is actually increasing in Texas. Bush says that: Without comprehensive regular testing, without knowing if children are really learning, accountability is a myth, and standards are just slogans. That is from a George Bush press conference. The Rand study shows that the tests cited by Bush to support this claim are biased, the gains are the product of teaching to the test, and that claims of success far exceed the actual results. Here is another Bush quote: And our State provides some of the best education in the nation, not measured by us, but measured by the Rand Corporation, or other folks who take an objective look as to how states are doing when it comes to educating children. Bush said this in a live web chat on August 30. Governor Bush was citing the Rand Corporation as an independent, outside organization to look at what States are doing and what they are doing in educating their children. Here the Rand Corporation came out with their finding today. ``I think the, quote, `Texas miracle' is a myth,'' Stephen Klein, a senior Rand researcher who helped lead the study, told Reuters in a phone interview. He said: the ``Texas miracle'' is a myth. So much for what George Bush is saying about the ``Texas miracle'' in education. What it shows is that Texas set up its own tests, called the TAAS, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. They administered those, put rewards out there for how well you do on these tests. So what did they start doing in those schools? They taught to the test, especially in schools that had a high proportion of minority students. But when measured against the national test --that is not biased, that is generally accepted around the Nation as the test to measure achievement--the Texas test falls short. It showed that the gap is not closing. It is actually widening, especially when it comes to the gap between white students and students of color. George Bush's claim that great progress in education has been made in Texas is simply a myth. I am glad the Rand Corporation study came out at this time. The American people deserve to know this, that the exaggerations of George Bush on education are clearly just that-- terrible, gross exaggerations of what is actually happening in Texas, when he cites the Rand Corporation and then the Rand Corporation comes out and says, wait a minute, this is a myth. There are serious questions about the validity of the gains in Texas, stark differences between the stories told by Texas and by national testing. It is obvious to me. George Bush keeps talking about taking tests and taking tests, but when you measure against the nationally respected NAEP test, Texas falls far short. So much for that exaggeration. Mr. Bush believes so much in taking tests; he should take an exaggeration test. He would flunk it. So much for education. We were down at the White House earlier. We are sitting here now, almost a month into the new fiscal year. We have not passed our appropriations bills that fund education. We have no money for class size reduction, no money for rebuilding and modernizing our schools, no money for building new schools, no money for teacher training, no money for job training. We are a month into the new fiscal year. The last bill to be worked on is our education bill. The leadership on the Republican side said this year that education was their No. 1 priority. Yet it is the last bill to get through the Congress. Finally, the Governor of Texas was quoted in today's Washington Post as saying that the Vice President has blocked reform for the past 7\1/ 2\ years. This is the exact quote from the newspaper: ``For 7\1/2\ years the vice president has been the second biggest obstacle to reform in America,'' Bush added. ``Now he wants to be the biggest, the obstacle in chief.'' That is kind of a cute line, I have to admit. He says that the Vice President and President Clinton have blocked reform for the last 7\1/2\ years. He has his little chant: They have had their chance. They have not led. We will. It is a catchy little phrase. I have been watching George Bush. He has a lot of catchy phrases. It makes one wonder: What country has George Bush been living in for the last 8 years? Look at the record. During the Reagan and Bush years, we had record deficits. Our debt quadrupled in this country during those years, low job growth, low economic growth. Bill Clinton and Al Gore took us from the depths of a Republican-made recession to the heights of the longest peacetime economic expansion in this Nation's history, balanced our budgets; it took us from record deficits of $290 billion a year--that is what it was in 1992, a $290 billion deficit--and the surplus this year will be $237 billion, the largest surplus in our Nation's history. We are now on track to eliminate the public debt by 2012. The Clinton and Gore team, in contrast to what George Bush is saying, created 22.2 million new jobs, an average of 242,000 new jobs every month. That is the highest number of jobs ever created under a single administration. Unemployment is now at the lowest rate in 30 years. Under the Reagan and Bush years, the number of people on welfare rose by 2.5 million, an increase of 22 percent. But under Bill Clinton and Al Gore, we ended welfare as we knew it. We have moved 7.5 million people off of welfare, a decrease of 50 percent. Today we have the lowest number of welfare recipients since 1968. George Bush is saying: They are big spenders; they wanted to spend all this money. The size of Government has grown. Let's look at the record. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have shrunk spending. Today, Federal Government spending as a share of the economy, of our gross product, has dropped to its lowest level since 1966. It is right at about 18.5 percent, the lowest level since 1966. Al Gore was the head of reinventing government, which has saved us approximately $136 billion since he took over. How? There are now 377,000 fewer Federal Government employees than in 1993. We now have the smallest Federal workforce since 1960. Yet under George Bush in Texas, the size of the Texas government has grown. They have more people working for government. Under Clinton and Gore, we have reduced the size of the Government by 377,000 people to the lowest level since 1960. Those are the irrefutable facts. Crime has been reduced. It has dropped for 7 years in a row, the longest consecutive decline in crime ever recorded. The environment has improved. During this time of economic growth, our environment has improved. They have set the toughest smog and soot standards ever. We have cleaned up over 500 toxic waste dumps. We have protected over 650 million acres of public lands, more than any administration since Franklin Roosevelt was President. We have made new investments in our schools. We have begun an initiative to hire 100,000 more teachers to reduce class size. We have opened up slots for 200,000 new Head Start students. We have connected classrooms across America to the Internet. We have expanded afterschool, summer school, and college prep programs. Evidently, George Bush does not think much of these results. Maybe these aren't the kinds of reforms in which he is interested. I guess Governor Bush would rather take us back to the old days of deficits, debts, and recession. Tax breaks for the rich; tough breaks for everyone else. In essence, what Governor Bush wants to do is return to the failed policies of the past. Let's move beyond that. Those failed policies of the past brought us deficits, brought us more debt, brought us recession, but the economic programs of the Clinton-Gore administration have brought us the greatest prosperity we have known since World War II. That is the record. Those are the facts. No amount of catchy little phrases or platitudes uttered by Governor Bush can erase that record. Lastly on education, the Rand study shows that the Texas miracle is really a Texas myth. Exhibit No. 1 What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us? Do the scores on high-stakes, statewide tests accurately reflect student achievement? To answer this critical question, a team of RAND researchers examined the results on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), the highest- profile state testing program and one that has recorded extraordinary gains in math and reading scores. The team's report, an issue paper titled What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us? raises ``serious questions'' about the validity of those gains. It also cautions about the danger of making decisions to sanction or reward students, teachers and schools on the basis of test scores that may be inflated or misleading. Finally, it suggests some steps that states can take to increase the likelihood that their test results merit public confidence and provide a sound basis for educational policy. To investigate whether the dramatic math and reading gains on the TAAS represent actual academic progress, the researchers compared these gains to score changes in Texas on another test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP tests were used as a benchmark because they reflect standards endorsed by a national panel of experts, they are not subject to pressures to boost scores, and they are generally considered the nation's single best indicator of student achievement. Both the TAAS and the NAEP tests were administered to fourth and eight graders during comparable four-year period. The RAND team--Stephen P. Klein, Laura Hamilton, Daniel McCaffrey and Brian M. Stecher--generally found only small increases, similar to those observed nationwide, in the Texas NAEP scores. Meanwhile, the TAAS scores were soaring. Texas students did improve significantly more on a fourth-grade NAEP math test than their counterparts nationally. But again, the size of this gain was smaller than their gains on TAAS and was not present on the eighth-grade math test. The ``stark differences'' between the stories told by NAEP and TAAS are especially striking when it comes to the gap in average scores between whites and students of color. According to the NAEP results, that gap in Texas is not only very large but increasing slightly. According to TAAS scores, the gap is much smaller and decreasing greatly. ``We do not know the source of these differences,'' the researchers state. But one reasonable explanation, consistent with survey and observation data, is that ``many schools are devoting a great deal of class time to highly specific TAAS preparation.'' While this preparation may improve TAAS scores, it may not help students develop necessary reading and math skills. The authors suspect that ``schools with relatively large percentages of minority and poor students may be doing this more than other schools.'' Other features of the TAAS also may contribute to the false sense that the racial gaps are closing. Problems with statewide tests are not confined to the TAAS or Texas, the authors observe. To lessen the likelihood of invalid scores on such tests, they recommend that states: Reduce the pressure associated with high-stakes testing by using one set of measures for decisions about individual students and another set for teachers and schools; Replace traditional paper-and-pencil multiple choice exams with computer-based tests that are delivered over the Internet and draw on banks of thousands of questions; Peridocially conduct audit testing to validate score gains; and Examine the positive and negative effects of the testing programs on curriculum and instruction. In July, RAND released a detailed analysis by David Grissmer and colleagues that compared the NAEP scores of 44 states, including Texas. That study and today's issue paper are not directly comparable. They differ in scope, focus and data. Grissmer et al. found that Texas ranked high in achievement when comparing children from similar families. Both found at least some gains in the NAEP scores in Texas. Grissmer et al. suggested that the Texas accountability regime, of which TAAS is a part, might be a ``plausible'' explanation for the state's NAEP gains, but added that more research is needed before a linkage can be made. What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us? represents an important contribution to that research effort. It is also the latest in a continuing series of RAND analyses involving high-stakes testing issues.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today a very interesting release was made of a study on education in Texas by the Rand Corporation. I will read some parts from this. I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the Rand Corporation's study that was released today be printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I want to add to what the Senator from North Dakota is saying. I am sorry the Senator from Idaho has left. Basically, the Senator from Idaho said Vice President Gore's proposals would--I do not know if he used the word ``bankrupt,'' but they would destroy the Social Security surplus, et cetera. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, the actuaries of the Social Security Administration did a study. They said the Gore plan that would apply the interest savings, improve the widow's benefits, and end the motherhood penalty, would, in total--when you take the total package-- extend the Social Security trust fund solvency to over 50 years. That is from the actuaries themselves. So if my friend from Idaho were here, I would make sure he heard that. Maybe he did.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. As I have almost every day we have been in session, now, for the last few weeks--I brought up the issue of Bonnie Campbell, who has bipartisan support, who has had her hearing in the Judiciary Committee, yet has not been reported out for a vote. This is it. We had 7 nominations for circuit court judges, 2 had their hearings, one was referred, and one was confirmed--one out of 7 this year. Yet in 1992, when there was a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, we had 14 nominations for circuit court judges in the election year, 9 had a hearing, 9 were referred, and 9 were confirmed. Everyone who had a hearing got confirmed, and that was during the election year. Yet this year we only got 1 out of 7. One of those stuck in there who has had the hearing is Bonnie Campbell, who headed the Office of Violence Against Women ever since it started. She has done an outstanding job at that. We passed the Violence Against Women Act. We reauthorized it by an overwhelming vote in the House and Senate. I think that is a testimony to the fact that Bonnie Campbell has done such an outstanding job of running that Office of Violence Against Women. She was nominated in March, had her hearing in May, yet she has been sitting there ever since. It is unfair to her. It is unfair to make her sit bottled up in that committee. So, as I do when I get on the floor: I ask unanimous consent to discharge the Judiciary Committee on further consideration of the nomination of Bonnie Campbell, that her nomination be considered by the Senate immediately following the conclusion of action on the pending matter and that debate on the nomination be limited to 2 hours, equally divided, and that a vote on her nomination occur immediately following the use or yielding back of that time.

Mr. HARKIN. We always hear that objection, but we don't know why. She has had her hearing. Let's bring her out for a vote; do the decent thing. Bring her out and vote it up or down. That's the decent thing. Until we finish here, I will ask that unanimous consent to point out we are not the ones holding it up. All we want is a vote for Bonnie Campbell for the eighth circuit. I believe she deserves no less.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are now 23 days from the end of the last fiscal year, and 15 days before the election. So far, this Congress can be defined more by what it has failed to do than what it has done. The majority has so far succeeded in killing a number of critical initiatives needed by working families and senior citizens. The list of legislative corpses could fill several obituary pages. Here is the report card on this Congress: Patients' Bill of Rights, not done; prescription drug benefit for Medicare, not done; school modernization and renovation, not done; class-size reduction, not done; minimum wage increase, not done; pay equity, not done; farm bill reforms, not done; gun safety measures, not done; campaign finance reform, not done; hate crimes legislation, not done; Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, not done; college tuition tax deductibility, not done; long-term care tax credit, not done; child care tax credit, not done. That list could go on and on but I think that summarizes it pretty well. One might ask, what have we been doing around here this year? Quite frankly, not a heck of a lot when it comes to the people's business. And not only regarding the agenda, there are important authorizations and reauthorizations that have not been authorized. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the first time since 1965 that Congress fails to reauthorize. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, Older Americans Act, the Superfund, Clean Water Act, Energy Policy Act and Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act--none of these reauthorizations have taken place this year. On top of that, we failed to pass our critical appropriations bills. Right now, we are meeting--I'm the Senate leading Democrat on the Labor-HHS and education bill--on our education appropriations bill. We are in negotiations now. We have been in negotiations since last July and we can't seem to get it done. We are talking about class-size reduction. We have had it for 2 years. It is working well. Go around to your States and talk to the schools. Teachers love it. They are getting more teachers in the classroom. They are getting aides, assistant to come in, especially for kids with disabilities. And right now the Republicans want to turn the clocks back. They don't want to do that anymore. They want to turn the clock back. On school modernization and construction, they don't want to do that one, either. Mr. President, 14 million American children attend classes in buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. How do we expect our kid to learn for the 21st century when they are in schools not equipped for the 20th century? Yet this Congress says no; no to the educational things that will make our kids better students, make our schools better schools, make the future a better one for all of our people. They say no. We have had for 3 years, a demonstration projects in Iowa on school repair, $17.6 million in Federal funds to make needed repairs. It is leveraged an additional $141 million, a ratio of $8 to every $1. It has been a great success. This is what we could expect around the nation if the Republicans would just get serious and fund this modernization and classroom construction program. We need to continue the class size reduction. I read this morning in the Congress Daily that the majority leader may make public a tax plan that he intends to pass before we leave: $260 billion over 10 years, more than the prescription drug plan that we do not even have time to consider. I am very disappointed that we have not considered a prescription drug plan. Now, we may have a $260 billion tax plan dropped in front of us with a request to pass it before we have an opportunity to find out what is in it. I have not seen it. No one seems to have seen this tax bill. Unfortunately, I hear is it is full of tax breaks for the wealthy and breaks for the middle class and those with modest incomes are being taken out. If we do get a tax bill, we are going to have to look through this with a fine tooth comb before we vote on it. The American people deserve to know who benefits from this bill. I will be having more to say about that later, if and when we do see this so-called tax bill. Unanimous Consent Request

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator for pointing that out. I am as guilty as anyone--we get wrapped up in the language of the Senate, the language of legislation. I did not realize until now the Senator is making the point that the average person out there, maybe listening to what I said about the fact that we have not brought up or voted on a Patients' Bill of Rights or prescription drugs or Medicare or an increase in the minimum wage--we haven't brought any of those up--might say: Why don't you bring them up? The Senator has pointed it out--we cannot because we are blocked. Again I ask the Senator, to again clarify this one more time. This motion to proceed that has been here for a month and a day--is it the observation of the Senator that nothing has been done to move to that? We have not gone to that bill. It has just been sitting there. Does the Senator see any move on that side to go to S. 2557, whatever it is?

Mr. HARKIN. That is right.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I was at a town meeting last week and had an interesting question posed to me by a man in the audience. He said, why don't you people there work more closely together? Why don't you get along a little bit better? Why is there all this bickering? Why can't you just work these things out? I thought about that. I responded to him and said, we would love to do that but in the legislative process, the way you work things out is, I have my position; you have your position. What we do is we send the bills to the committee; we bring them on the floor; we debate them-- full, open, public debate. We may offer amendments. Maybe I want to change it a little bit, maybe you want to change it a little bit. Then when that is all done, you vote and you let the chips fall where they will. That is the legislative process. That is what the people of this country deserve. I said to him: The way the rules are set up now in the Senate, I do not get to debate or vote or offer amendments that I think might improve a bill as I might want to improve it. I might lose, but that is all right. At least I have made my case. At least we have had a vote. At least my constituents will know where I stand and what I want to do. I may not succeed, but at least I made my case. The way the situation is on the Senate floor today, I cannot make that case. I cannot tell my constituents I have fought the fight for them because I have been blocked by the rules of the Senate. I say to my friend from North Dakota, it is grossly unfair. It is unfair to the people of this country to have this kind of blockage where we cannot offer amendments, debate, vote up or down, and move on with the business of this country.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Conservation Security Act of 2000, a bill which represents a fresh new approach to the future of farm policy. America's farmers and ranchers hold the key for production of a bountiful, safe, and nourishing food supply for Americans and for the population around the globe, as well as for the future for our environment. Farmers and ranchers have a long history to build on. Specifically on the issue of conservation, it became a national priority in the days of the Dust Bowl, leading to the creation in the 1930s of the Soil Conservation Service at the Department of Agriculture, which is now the Natural Resources Conservation Service. With the very foundation of our food supply at risk, the Government stepped forward with billions of dollars in assistance to help farmers preserve their precious soils. Since that time, Federal spending on conservation has steadily declined in inflation adjusted dollars. Yet today agriculture faces a wide range of environmental challenges, from overgrazing and manure management to cropland runoff and water quality impairment. Urban and rural citizens alike are increasingly concerned about the environmental impacts of agriculture. Farmers and ranchers pride themselves on being good stewards of the land, and there are farm-based solutions to these problems being implemented all over the country. But every dollar spent on constructing a filter strip or developing a nutrient management plan is a dollar that farmers don't have for other purposes in hard times like these. And even in better times, there is a lot of competition for that dollar. So who benefits from conservation on farm lands? As much or more than the farmer, it is all of us, who depend on the careful stewardship of our air, water, soil and our other natural resources. Farmers and ranchers tend not only to their crops and animals, but also to our nation's natural resources. They are the real stewards for future generations. Since we all share in these benefits, it is only right that we share in conserving them. It is time to enter into a true conservation partnership with our farmers and ranchers to help ensure that conservation is an integral and permanent part of agricultural production nationwide. In the 1985 farm bill, we required that farmers who wanted to participate in USDA farm programs develop soil conservation plans for their highly erodible land. This provision helped put new conservation plans in place for our most fragile farmlands. In the most recent farm bill, we streamlined conservation programs and established new cost- share and incentive payments for certain practices. The Conservation Security Act of 2000, which establishes the Conservation Security Program, builds on our past successes and takes a bold step forward in farm and conservation policy. My bill would establish a universal and voluntary incentive payment program to support and encourage conservation activities by farmers and ranchers. Under this program, farmers and ranchers could receive up to $50,000 per year in conservation payments through entering into 5 to 10-year contracts with USDA and choose from one of three tiers of conservation practices. Payments are based on the number and types of practices they maintain or adopt on their working lands. It is not a set-aside or easement program. For implementing a basic set of practices, farmers would receive an annual payment of up to $20,000, as well as an advance payment of the greater of $1,000 or 20% of the annual payment. This basic category, Tier I, would include such practices as nutrient management, soil conservation, and wildlife habitat management. To receive up to $35,000 and an advance payment of the greater of $2,000 or 20% of the annual payment, farmers would add to their Class I practices by choosing a minimum number of Class II practices--including such practices as controlled rotational grazing, partial field practices like buffers strips and windbreaks, wetland restoration and wildlife habitat enhancement. Farmers who adopt comprehensive Tier III conservation practices on their whole farm--under a plan that addresses all aspects of air, land, water and wildlife--would receive up to $50,000 plus an advance payment of the greater of $3,000 or 20% of the annual payment. Again, I emphasize, the Conservation Security Program would be totally voluntary. It would be up to the farmer or rancher to decide if they want to do it. If they do, then they would get additional payments. A lot of these practices farmers are already doing now, for which they receive little or no support. My legislation changes that by rewarding those farmers and ranchers who have already implemented these practices through payments to maintain them. Again, these practices don't just benefit the farmer or rancher. The beneficiaries are all of us. We all will benefit from cleaner air, cleaner streams and rivers, saving soil, protecting our groundwater, and wildlife habitats. Our private lands are a national resource, and conservation on farm and ranchlands provides environmental benefits that are just as important as the production of abundant and safe food. I am introducing the Conservation Security Act because I believe it will help secure both the economic future of our farmers by helping them obtain better income and as a cornerstone of our national farm policy and the environmental future of agriculture.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing the Conservation Security Act of 2000, a bill which represents a fresh new approach to the future of farm policy. America's farmers and ranchers hold the key for production of a bountiful, safe, and nourishing food supply for Americans and for the population around the globe, as well as for the future for our environment. Farmers and ranchers have a long history to build on. Specifically on the issue of conservation, it became a national priority in the days of the Dust Bowl, leading to the creation in the 1930s of the Soil Conservation Service at the Department of Agriculture, which is now the Natural Resources Conservation Service. With the very foundation of our food supply at risk, the Government stepped forward with billions of dollars in assistance to help farmers preserve their precious soils. Since that time, Federal spending on conservation has steadily declined in inflation adjusted dollars. Yet today agriculture faces a wide range of environmental challenges, from overgrazing and manure management to cropland runoff and water quality impairment. Urban and rural citizens alike are increasingly concerned about the environmental impacts of agriculture. Farmers and ranchers pride themselves on being good stewards of the land, and there are farm-based solutions to these problems being implemented all over the country. But every dollar spent on constructing a filter strip or developing a nutrient management plan is a dollar that farmers don't have for other purposes in hard times like these. And even in better times, there is a lot of competition for that dollar. So who benefits from conservation on farm lands? As much or more than the farmer, it is all of us, who depend on the careful stewardship of our air, water, soil and our other natural resources. Farmers and ranchers tend not only to their crops and animals, but also to our nation's natural resources. They are the real stewards for future generations. Since we all share in these benefits, it is only right that we share in conserving them. It is time to enter into a true conservation partnership with our farmers and ranchers to help ensure that conservation is an integral and permanent part of agricultural production nationwide. In the 1985 farm bill, we required that farmers who wanted to participate in USDA farm programs develop soil conservation plans for their highly erodible land. This provision helped put new conservation plans in place for our most fragile farmlands. In the most recent farm bill, we streamlined conservation programs and established new cost- share and incentive payments for certain practices. The Conservation Security Act of 2000, which establishes the Conservation Security Program, builds on our past successes and takes a bold step forward in farm and conservation policy. My bill would establish a universal and voluntary incentive payment program to support and encourage conservation activities by farmers and ranchers. Under this program, farmers and ranchers could receive up to $50,000 per year in conservation payments through entering into 5 to 10-year contracts with USDA and choose from one of three tiers of conservation practices. Payments are based on the number and types of practices they maintain or adopt on their working lands. It is not a set-aside or easement program. For implementing a basic set of practices, farmers would receive an annual payment of up to $20,000, as well as an advance payment of the greater of $1,000 or 20% of the annual payment. This basic category, Tier I, would include such practices as nutrient management, soil conservation, and wildlife habitat management. To receive up to $35,000 and an advance payment of the greater of $2,000 or 20% of the annual payment, farmers would add to their Class I practices by choosing a minimum number of Class II practices--including such practices as controlled rotational grazing, partial field practices like buffers strips and windbreaks, wetland restoration and wildlife habitat enhancement. Farmers who adopt comprehensive Tier III conservation practices on their whole farm--under a plan that addresses all aspects of air, land, water and wildlife--would receive up to $50,000 plus an advance payment of the greater of $3,000 or 20% of the annual payment. Again, I emphasize, the Conservation Security Program would be totally voluntary. It would be up to the farmer or rancher to decide if they want to do it. If they do, then they would get additional payments. A lot of these practices farmers are already doing now, for which they receive little or no support. My legislation changes that by rewarding those farmers and ranchers who have already implemented these practices through payments to maintain them. Again, these practices don't just benefit the farmer or rancher. The beneficiaries are all of us. We all will benefit from cleaner air, cleaner streams and rivers, saving soil, protecting our groundwater, and wildlife habitats. Our private lands are a national resource, and conservation on farm and ranchlands provides environmental benefits that are just as important as the production of abundant and safe food. I am introducing the Conservation Security Act because I believe it will help secure both the economic future of our farmers by helping them obtain better income and as a cornerstone of our national farm policy and the environmental future of agriculture.

Mr. HARKIN

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