Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my good colleague from New Mexico for understanding the reason why this amendment is important to not only my state but the safety of future underground shallow gas structures in the entire U.S. I look forward to working with him and the Senate conferees on the energy bill to ensure the proper report language is in the conference report based on the legislative language in my amendment. Amendment No. 3185

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, thank you very much. This is one of those speeches I had not intended to make. I have to make it, but I would just as soon not make it. I rise today to provide a few comments on the situation we are facing regarding the farm bill and the possibility of an assistance package this year. My colleagues are working very hard in the conference. I don't mean to perjure anybody's intent. These are friends of mine, and I know we have strong differences of opinion. But we are in pretty rough shape for the shape we are in, in farm country, and we need assurance that there will be an assistance package as of this year. For several weeks now, I have been warning that we need to either get a farm bill finished and apply it to this year's crop or pass an agriculture assistance package, and then pass a new bill that goes into effect for the 2003 crop. The thinking behind that is it is better to pass a good bill than simply disagree on a bad bill and try to expedite that. Prior to the Easter and Passover recess, I introduced an assistance package that I said was a placeholder if a bill could not be passed almost immediately after the recess period. Well, it is now April 17. We still have not passed a bill. In fact, the negotiations did break down yesterday, unfortunately. It seems clear that a bill will not be passed as of this week. Madam President, the clock, if not expired, is certainly ticking. It is the 11th hour and 59th minute. It is time for us to admit what farmers and ranchers already know: It is too late to pass a bill that applies to this year's crop. Consider these facts: The 2002 wheat crop was planted last fall and harvesting in the far southern region will begin next month. Several crop reports in recent days have said that 9 percent of the Nation's cotton crop is planted, including 37 percent in Arizona, 35 percent in California, and 13 percent in Texas, with the rest of the States starting to plant. Corn planting is 59 percent complete in Texas; 25 percent in Tennessee; 3 percent in North Carolina; 26 percent in Missouri; 17 percent in Kentucky; and in Kansas--yes, we grow cotton--11 percent. Another article said corn planters were already in the field in eastern Iowa. And 43 percent of the sorghum crop is planted in Texas and 18 percent in Arkansas. Rice: Texas, 85 percent planted; Louisiana, 69 percent; 10 percent in Arkansas. Our producers and our bankers, lenders, must make planting and lending decisions. We cannot continue this game of Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football. This will not work in farm country. Our producers have been told that the bill could be completed prior to Christmas, the bill could be completed right after the first of the year, the bill would be completed by Easter, and the bill would be completed by April 15. Quite frankly, we have people who crawl out of train wrecks faster than the farm bill conference is proceeding in regard to the tough amendments they must reconcile. My producers do not believe any predictions they hear at this point. They now need to make decisions forced by their lenders. I want to make it clear to colleagues that if we pass a new bill for this year's crops, we are setting ourselves up for another disaster or supplemental bill this fall--even after spending $73.5 billion in new funding for agriculture. Unfortunately--and this is the one I want all farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness to pay attention to--you are going to discover that in both House and Senate farm bill proposals, there will be no supplemental AMTA statement, no market loss payment in September, as producers have grown accustomed to. Instead, under the countercyclical proposals in the two bills, producers and farmers could receive a portion of their countercyclical payment for wheat in December, while other crops would receive no assistance until next spring. To put it another way, none of this countercyclical assistance, after all the talk we have heard in the last years as to the current farm bill--about the lack of a safety net and the need for countercyclical assistance--none of this assistance for the 2002 crop will even go out until the spring of 2003. When farmers discover this, there is going to be an outcry. That is why, in a recent poll, 70 percent of the farmers said about the supplemental in this crop bill: Put the new farm bill under 2003. We are receiving indications that any agreement on the farm bill will include much higher loan rates--most likely at the expense of direct payments or the countercyclical payment. It was 97 degrees in Dodge City 2 days ago. That is pretty hot for Dodge. Nearly 50 percent of our Kansas wheat crop has been rated at below favorable conditions and getting worse. My producers who may have no crop to harvest--and that is the condition in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, moving north--will gain nothing from higher loan rates. Loan rates don't help if you don't have a crop. This is a blueprint for disaster. We cannot continue down this path. It appears the farm bill will not be completed this week. We still have 8 or 10 contentious amendments. They probably should not be part of the commodity title. I am putting colleagues on notice that as soon as the procedural situation allows, I will either ask unanimous consent that S. 2040--the supplemental bill I just referred to, which I previously introduced--be pulled up and, hopefully, passed by the Senate or I will offer it as an amendment to any bill under consideration by the Senate. Madam President, it didn't have to go down this road. I hope my Senate colleagues serving on the conference--good men and women all-- can reach some accommodation by the end of this week and break this logjam or we are going to have to go this route because we will be in a world of trouble in farm country. We already are. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, what we have before us is an amendment to the election reform bill that is now pending that would basically eliminate the mass mailing requirement to give local and State election officials more time and resources to improve the overall election management and to register voters and to comply with the newly enacted mandates of this bill. This is an unfunded mandate. This amendment is supported by the National Association of Secretaries of State. It is cosponsored by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, and Senators Feinstein and Levin. Why? Because the secretaries of state and county election officers have indicated there is no need to put in a mandate to make sure that your voters who are provisional voters must be notified by mail within 30 days. There are other ways you can do this. Our amendment says to States, if you want to do a mass mailing, you can do that. But at least there is an option here to use a Web site and toll-free numbers and other means of communication that will actually allow a provisional voter to know much faster than the mass mailing whether or not they are properly registered and their vote counted. As a matter of fact, it will enable local county officials and others to make sure a provisional voter is registered, so you can actually make the argument that we will make more progress. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by myself and the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. I also ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have at the desk an amendment numbered 2907, and I ask for its consideration at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my friend from California to offer an amendment to the provisional voting section under the election reform bill. This amendment improves on the voting requirement found on Section 102 (page 13.) Specifically, current language requires--emphasize the word ``requires''--election officials to notify voters in writing by mail, within 30 days after the election as to whether their provisional vote was counted. Our amendment eliminates the 30 day mail notification requirement. Instead, it requires states to implement a free-access system so the voter can find out quickly and efficiently whether his or her vote was counted. This can be done through an Internet web site, a toll-free number, or by any means available, so long as voters have access to this information. We think the current language on provisional voting is restrictive. By communicating through mail, we run the risk of voters never knowing whether a vote was counted. Incorrect addresses and lost mail are all factors to consider. Let us also remember that the Senate's own mail system was in turmoil 3 months after the anthrax attacks. So you really don't know what to expect. As we painfully discovered, the mail is very vulnerable. It is not unlikely that a similar scenario could take place during an election year. Secondly, the whole purpose of this debate is to improve the election process. Now, I have been told, with some very good advice by my good friend, Secretary Ron Thornburg, the secretary of state in Kansas and the president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, representing all secretaries of state all throughout the country, that sending out mass mailings within 30 days of an election or primary is very burdensome and costly. He writes: I do not believe it is reasonable or expedient to require the election officer to formally notify the voter by mail as to the disposition of the ballot. If written into law, this provision will cause unnecessary burden and expense to election officers who are very busy after the election finalizing vote tabulations and preparing for official certification of election results. What am I talking about? Let's just examine the duties that are performed by election officers during the 30-day period after an election all across the country. They must--and I am going to itemize some things right now--conduct campaign finance report deadlines. They must prepare a national/State election abstract for submission to the secretary of state. They must prepare ballots, and the tabulation of results, and other election materials. They must research the provisional ballots to determine whether or not they are valid. They must conduct recounts of primaries if requested. They must begin to prepare for the general election, including the finalizing of the candidate lists and ballot forms and precinct election board worker appointments. They also have to update the voter registration rolls. Now, that is a lot of work to do immediately after an election. And those are just a few duties in a laundry list of obligations that all election officers must complete after an election. Further, in the 2000 general election, over 22,000 provisional votes were cast in the State of Kansas alone. Sending out a 30-day mass mailing is another burden added for these election officials--22,000. We do not advocate--we do not advocate--a prohibition on anyone from obtaining information as to whether a vote was counted or not--that is absolutely essential--but let's not ignore what I call common sense. Having a free access system is not burdensome on voters. If this is a problem in small States, it is magnified a thousand times in the larger States. Take California. This is why the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is a cosponsor of the bill. Bradley J. Clark, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, wrote a letter expressing concern with these requirements. He wrote: We specifically oppose the section that would establish rigid requirements and time lines for notifying hundreds of thousands of provisional voters whether or not their provisional ballots were counted. The provisional voter notification provisions currently written in the bill would do nothing more than antagonize those voters who were determined ineligible. Election officials can make better use of their time in improving the election process rather than exerting energy and resources on mass mailings. This amendment does not eliminate the use of mass mailings. Let me repeat this: We are not saying you can't use a mass mailing. States can do this if they want. I would advise the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, who has a lot of concern about this, that States can go ahead and use the mass mailing provision if they want. It does not eliminate it. Nor does it eliminate the 10-day notification requirement. If a State wishes to contact voters by mail, they can retain that right. Our amendment simply gives the election officials that option or the State that option. Now, some might ask, What is wrong with requiring the 30-day mailing along with the free access system? Why don't we retain both? The answer to that is very simple. It gives provisional voters a false sense of reliance that they will be notified by mail. In other words, if they believe they will receive a mailing, why would they then make an effort to check any other means of communication--either a toll-free number or, say, by simply using a Web site? Again, change of address, loss in the mail, and the ever looming threat of some kind of attack on our postal system make mail a less reliable means of communication. A centralized calling system does not--does not--in any form disenfranchise voters. We need to have faith in a voter's ability to make a simple phone call or visit their local library to use their computer facilities. This does not create an undue burden. Rather, it is an undue burden if we give voters false reliance that they may or may not receive any notification through the mail. Here is something else I would really bring to the attention of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. It is important that we register voters. Under this amendment, a voter will know within 10 days whether their vote was counted or whether they need to register. Let me repeat that. A voter is going to be informed within 10 days. With the mail, they may not know for 3 or even 4 weeks the status of their vote cast in a primary, giving them less time to register for a general election. If we adopt this amendment, we are going to have more people registered, more people taking part in the election process. Finally, the goal of this bill is to improve the election process. Let's give election officials more time to improve administration, rather than burden them with more mass mailings that may or may not be received by the voter. This is a simple, commonsense approach that gives voters a greater chance of knowing whether their vote was counted. It has support from the other side of the aisle, from all election officials, all secretaries of state. I ask for its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I imagine, I tell my distinguished colleague, about 12 or 15 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the distinguished Senator will yield, I have spoken with Senator Byrd, and I will always yield to his request, but I thought we had an understanding that I could precede him for 10 minutes. It will not take too long. I thought we had an understanding. I know with this new schedule perhaps that is not the case. I leave that up to his judgment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank Senator Byrd, the institutional protector and flame of the Senate, for allowing me to precede him. (The remarks of Mr. Roberts pertaining to the introduction of S. 2040 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an agricultural supplemental assistance package for the 2002 crops. I had hoped we would not be in this position today. Unfortunately, due to delays in completing the farm bill conference report prior to the Easter recess, I believe it is necessary to introduce this legislation. I want to make it very clear that in introducing this legislation, it does not mean the farm bill is dead. It may need CPR, but it certainly is not dead. Quite the contrary. The staff of conferees have been instructed by the distinguished leadership of both parties of the House and Senate to continue to work over the recess period in the hope that a bill can be completed shortly after the Easter recess. Having been involved in numerous farm bills, I know these conferences can often become quite contentious and bogged down. Furthermore, it is not going to be easy to implement this bill, not to mention the wisdom of simply trying to push through a bill so we can just say it applies to 2002 crops. That may be easy to do this year, but it may be difficult to live under the problems we could create for the next 5 or 6 years. Has anyone really stopped to consider this? In addition, we already have many farmers in the South who have begun their spring planting, and producers all throughout the Nation will begin to pull their drills through the fields in the coming weeks. Many of these producers and their bankers are desperately trying to run cashflow charts and figure out exactly what they will be dealing with for this current crop as they work to determine their operating loans. They are scratching their heads. The biggest uncertainty they face is the level and form of agricultural assistance for this crop-year. Will it be through a new farm bill, if we can get through a new farm bill--and I certainly hope we can and people are working in good faith to get that accomplished-- but will it be through a new farm bill in place for the 2002 crops, or will it be through a supplemental assistance package for 2002 while the new bill would go into effect for the 2003 crops? My point in introducing this legislation is to send a clear message to producers and their bankers, and that message is this: We are going to do everything in our power in Congress to get a farm bill completed and out the door, but we should also make sure it is a good bill, and doing a good bill does take time. If additional time is needed to complete the bill past the time when it can apply to this year's crops, we are then ready to come in with a supplemental assistance package. This is an important line in the sand that our producers and our lenders can use to gauge cashflow projections as they work on operating loans for this crop-year. It is an important and necessary signal as we move toward a planting season that will soon be in full swing in many parts of the country. Unlike the 1,400-page farm bill we passed in the Senate, there are no surprises in this supplemental legislation. The bill is very similar to the assistance packages we have provided to our producers in recent years, and it adheres to the budget allocations that were provided for agriculture in last year's budget resolution. I have a list of levels of assistance that will be provided to farmers and ranchers. The levels of assistance are as follows: $5.047 billion for a Market Loss Assistance, MLA, payment equal to the 2000 AMTA payment received by our producers. On a crop-by-crop basis, this is: wheat, 58.8 cents a bushel; corn, 33.4 cents a bushel; sorghum, 40 cents a bushel; barley, 25.1 cents a bushel; cotton, 7.33 cents a pound; rice, $2.60 per cwt; oats, 2.8 cents a bushel. All of these figures are above the level of MLAs we provided last year. The bill also includes: $466 million for oilseed payments; $55.21 million for payments to peanut producers; $93 million for recourse loans to honey producers; $186 million for specialty crop commodity purchases, with at least $55 million used for school lunch program purchases; $16.94 million for payments to wool and mohair producers; $93 million for cottonseed assistance; LDP eligibility for crops produced on non-AMTA acreage; LDP graze-out for wheat, barley, and oats for the 2002 crop; extension of the dairy price support program through December 31, 2002; $20 million for payment to producers of pulse crops; $100 million for tobacco assistance; $44 million for Conservation Reserve Program Technical Assistance; $200 million for the Wetlands Reserve Program; $300 million in additional funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP; $161 million for the Farmland Protection Program; and $500 million for the livestock feed assistance program, LAP, to provide assistance to producers for losses suffered in 2001 and 2002. I will be happy to talk this proposal over with my colleagues, and I seek bipartisan cosponsors in this effort. These market loss assistance levels are above the levels provided to program crops last year and they are similar to the AMTA payment levels we provided in 2000. In closing, while this package does not represent a new farm bill, it does send a strong signal to producers and their bankers that even if a farm bill cannot be completed in time to apply to the 2002 year crop, we do intend to hold them whole or have a hold harmless bill at a level of Market Loss Assistance that is somewhat higher than occurred last year. Many of us are hearing from producers and lenders for guidance on what to plan for in terms of assistance this year. This bill makes clear we stand ready to again support our producers if we cannot complete the new bill in time for 2002 crops, which I hope we can do. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an agricultural supplemental assistance package for the 2002 crops. I had hoped we would not be in this position today. Unfortunately, due to delays in completing the farm bill conference report prior to the Easter recess, I believe it is necessary to introduce this legislation. I want to make it very clear that in introducing this legislation, it does not mean the farm bill is dead. It may need CPR, but it certainly is not dead. Quite the contrary. The staff of conferees have been instructed by the distinguished leadership of both parties of the House and Senate to continue to work over the recess period in the hope that a bill can be completed shortly after the Easter recess. Having been involved in numerous farm bills, I know these conferences can often become quite contentious and bogged down. Furthermore, it is not going to be easy to implement this bill, not to mention the wisdom of simply trying to push through a bill so we can just say it applies to 2002 crops. That may be easy to do this year, but it may be difficult to live under the problems we could create for the next 5 or 6 years. Has anyone really stopped to consider this? In addition, we already have many farmers in the South who have begun their spring planting, and producers all throughout the Nation will begin to pull their drills through the fields in the coming weeks. Many of these producers and their bankers are desperately trying to run cashflow charts and figure out exactly what they will be dealing with for this current crop as they work to determine their operating loans. They are scratching their heads. The biggest uncertainty they face is the level and form of agricultural assistance for this crop-year. Will it be through a new farm bill, if we can get through a new farm bill--and I certainly hope we can and people are working in good faith to get that accomplished-- but will it be through a new farm bill in place for the 2002 crops, or will it be through a supplemental assistance package for 2002 while the new bill would go into effect for the 2003 crops? My point in introducing this legislation is to send a clear message to producers and their bankers, and that message is this: We are going to do everything in our power in Congress to get a farm bill completed and out the door, but we should also make sure it is a good bill, and doing a good bill does take time. If additional time is needed to complete the bill past the time when it can apply to this year's crops, we are then ready to come in with a supplemental assistance package. This is an important line in the sand that our producers and our lenders can use to gauge cashflow projections as they work on operating loans for this crop-year. It is an important and necessary signal as we move toward a planting season that will soon be in full swing in many parts of the country. Unlike the 1,400-page farm bill we passed in the Senate, there are no surprises in this supplemental legislation. The bill is very similar to the assistance packages we have provided to our producers in recent years, and it adheres to the budget allocations that were provided for agriculture in last year's budget resolution. I have a list of levels of assistance that will be provided to farmers and ranchers. The levels of assistance are as follows: $5.047 billion for a Market Loss Assistance, MLA, payment equal to the 2000 AMTA payment received by our producers. On a crop-by-crop basis, this is: wheat, 58.8 cents a bushel; corn, 33.4 cents a bushel; sorghum, 40 cents a bushel; barley, 25.1 cents a bushel; cotton, 7.33 cents a pound; rice, $2.60 per cwt; oats, 2.8 cents a bushel. All of these figures are above the level of MLAs we provided last year. The bill also includes: $466 million for oilseed payments; $55.21 million for payments to peanut producers; $93 million for recourse loans to honey producers; $186 million for specialty crop commodity purchases, with at least $55 million used for school lunch program purchases; $16.94 million for payments to wool and mohair producers; $93 million for cottonseed assistance; LDP eligibility for crops produced on non-AMTA acreage; LDP graze-out for wheat, barley, and oats for the 2002 crop; extension of the dairy price support program through December 31, 2002; $20 million for payment to producers of pulse crops; $100 million for tobacco assistance; $44 million for Conservation Reserve Program Technical Assistance; $200 million for the Wetlands Reserve Program; $300 million in additional funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP; $161 million for the Farmland Protection Program; and $500 million for the livestock feed assistance program, LAP, to provide assistance to producers for losses suffered in 2001 and 2002. I will be happy to talk this proposal over with my colleagues, and I seek bipartisan cosponsors in this effort. These market loss assistance levels are above the levels provided to program crops last year and they are similar to the AMTA payment levels we provided in 2000. In closing, while this package does not represent a new farm bill, it does send a strong signal to producers and their bankers that even if a farm bill cannot be completed in time to apply to the 2002 year crop, we do intend to hold them whole or have a hold harmless bill at a level of Market Loss Assistance that is somewhat higher than occurred last year. Many of us are hearing from producers and lenders for guidance on what to plan for in terms of assistance this year. This bill makes clear we stand ready to again support our producers if we cannot complete the new bill in time for 2002 crops, which I hope we can do. I urge support for this legislation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the Girl Scouts of America who are celebrating their 90th anniversary. As the largest organization for girls in the world, the Girl Scouts promote self confidence, values, integrity, and leadership. Through this worthwhile organization, girls are able to build character, skills for success, and have fun while doing it. For a moment, I would like to brag about the Girl Scouts of Kansas. With over 40,000 girls and over 10,000 adult members in Kansas, the Girl Scouts are an active and necessary presence in my home State. Throughout Kansas, the Girl Scouts are involved in various volunteer and community activities. Some programs include: Promoting anti- violence education; helping children of parents who are going through divorce; reaching out to immigrant children; organizing activities between girls and their incarcerated mothers; partnering with the Boys and Girls Club of America on various projects. I am proud of all our Girl Scouts, most especially the ones in Kansas. Through the promotion of science, technology, health, fitness, and friendship, these girls will grow up to be outstanding young women. I commend all the Girl Scouts on their success and their commitment to this organization.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, recently our State of Kansas lost a giant within our political system with the unexpected passing of our Republican National Committeeman, Calvin James of Jewell, KS. All those involved in public service in Kansas, regardless of party, mourn his loss. Calvin James was a textbook study in the pursuit of politics for the public good, not personal gain I endeavored to capture what Cal James has meant to his hometown, his State, and our nation and to his family and friends with an article and eulogy published in the Salina Journal last week. I extend the thoughts, prayers and best wishes of Calvin's many friends to Betty, his wife, and to his daughter Susan and her family. I ask the article be printed in the Record. The article follows: With the death last week of Republican National Committeeman Calvin James, Jewell, Kansas lost a giant of politics. He is remembered not only for what is good about Kansas politics, but also for what is great about Kansas communities. For me, Calvin James was a mentor, a friend, my strongest supporter and my sharpest critic. He smoothed the ups and downs of winning and losing. He set a high standard, but he was gentle in reaching for it. At his funeral Saturday, a warm February afternoon, the Methodist Church in Jewell overflowed with friends and family from across the state. Among those attending were a sitting governor and two former governors, two U.S. Senators, a Congressman, the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of State, legislators and political officials--a virtual who's who of the contemporary Kansas GOP. It was the kind of gathering that happens only rarely in rural communities. It signifies the esteem in which Calvin James was held statewide. Calvin was remembered for commitment to family, to his community and to his state. Quietly, behind the scene with his yellow legal pad, Calvin was a key advisor to governors, senators and congressmen. He believed strongly in the two- party political system and in the role political parties play in good government. In an era of impersonal media campaigns, he was a people politician. He scouted candidates and recruited precinct committee men and committee women the old fashioned way--by getting in his car and driving from county seat to county seat and talking to people up and down main street. He worked tirelessly in their campaigns and, once elected, he expected them to remain accountable to grassroots Kansas. Calvin knew that to get the votes, you first had to count the votes. He was good at it. In his own race for National Committeeman he had the final vote counted exactly--the day before it was taken. He believed in consensus, in detail and in organizations well run. As Republican Chairman in the first Congressional District of Western and Central Kansas, Calvin made the rounds by car and by phone every two years to build consensus ahead of party elections, which he expected to operate smoothly. A few years ago in Great Bend, he was challenged by a delegate with different ideas: ``This appears to be a railroad operation,'' the delegate said. ``If it is, I am the conductor,'' Calvin retorted. It is a direct result of Calvin's work over three decades that First District Republicans are more activist, more interested and more involved than their counterparts in other parts of the state. Calvin was born in Jewell and he died there. He left only twice, once as a young man for a job in a larger Kansas community and once to serve in the Army in Korea. On that first job, in a drug store, African Americans were not to be served at the counter. Outraged, Calvin did so anyway--then walked out before he could be fired. Calvin was once asked if he had considered moving to a larger community. ``Why?'' he answered, ``I have everything I need here.'' ``Everything'' especially included his wife, Betty, and daughter, Susan. He believed in the worth of Jewell and his family and neighbors and he worked to make the place better. From the school board to the church board, he applied the same energy he applied to politics. The first stop for every new Methodist minister in Jewell was Calvin James, who ``educated'' him as to the proper way to draft, present and implement a church budget in order to build consensus and lower controversy. He brought government officials to Jewell and Beloit to ``educate'' them on the need for low income housing, elderly housing, rural water infrastructure, highways and, lately, broadband internet capability. He built James Clothing, with stores in Jewell and Beloit, selling in recent years to his younger partner and protege. He was a self-described ``rag merchant.'' In retail clothing as in retail politics, there are certain individuals you would rather not see walk through the front door. Those are the folks, Calvin often said, who you must ``smother with the milk of human kindness'' in order to make the sale, secure the vote, cement the support. Calvin James is a textbook study in the pursuit of politics for the public good, not personal gain. He did not get rich at it. He did not use his many connections to those in politics to accrue personal power. Rather, he used it for the benefit of his community, his state and his nation. That is a legacy worth renewing as the torch of political leadership passes to a new generation.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair, and I thank my distinguished friend from Colorado. Addressing this issues is certainly long overdue. If we are going to have an election reform bill, the very definition of election reform begins with the intent of my friend's legislation. As most marines know, there are no ex-marines. There are only former marines. As a veteran and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I recalled what happened in our last election to military personnel. We witnessed a travesty. Election officials in some areas of the country failed to count thousands of military absentee ballots. This is a slap in the face to the men and women who serve in the armed forces protecting American interests. We must respect the constitutional rights of all citizens--especially those in uniform defending our country. It seem to me that a very basic Constitutional right was abrogated. This amendment achieves the goal of giving military personnel the confidence that their vote matters. It ensures that military personnel have the right to cast votes in local, state and federal elections, and makes certain those votes are counted. It extends voter registration, absentee ballot protections, and requires that states prove fraud before disqualifying votes in federal elections. Until recently, we took for granted the sacrifices our military made on a daily basis. The supreme purpose of the federal government is defense of our homeland. Give those who defend our homeland the same rights and privileges ordinary citizens enjoy. Consider a 1952 letter written by a former member of this body, which pertains to this issue: Many of those in uniform are serving overseas, or in parts of the country distant from their homes. They are unable to return to their states either to register or to vote. Those risking their lives deserve to exercise the right to vote. The least we can do at home is make sure they can enjoy the rights they are preserving. President Harry Truman penned those words. His support of the military vote was so strong that he signed the Federal Voting Assistance Act into law in 1955. That legislation laid the groundwork for the 1975 Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act, and it is now being improved the Senator from Colorado and others who are cosponsoring this bill. Voting is the cornerstone of democracy. Before passing any piece of this legislation, we must first show our appreciation to service men and women by letting them know that their vote is a right, not a privilege. So again, I credit the distinguished Senator from Colorado, and all those involved--Senator Smith, Senator McConnell, and the distinguished chairman, who I know is also very supportive. I am very proud to have my name as a cosponsor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I am happy to respond to the distinguished Senator from Arizona. The answer is: No.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the section on certification of third party technical providers allows the Secretary to certify providers. The legislative language, regarding the certifying programs run by the United States Department of Agriculture is designed so that the USDA does not run the programs in a manner that directly or indirectly undermines the ability of private, long- standing, and highly regarded certification programs like those operated by the Certified Crop Advisors and National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants. The intention of the conservation title, and especially this section, as I understand it, ensures that the Nation's farmers and ranchers will be able to continue to receive high quality conservation technical assistance, and that there will be enough technical assistance to allow the complete and proper delivery of the conservation programs funded in the farm bill. In addition, it is my understanding that the Secretary of Agriculture will consult with and be advised by representatives from federal, state, and local agencies as well as representatives from the private and non-profit sectors on an Advisory Council. It is expected that in selecting representatives, the Secretary shall appoint representatives from the following groups: Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest Service and Farm Service Agency, the National Association of Conservation Districts, the Certified Crop Advisors, the National Association of State Foresters, the National Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants and the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Together with other appointed members of the Advisory Council, these representatives will advise the Secretary of the management of certification programs for the provision of technical assistance by third party providers.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, it is with deep regret that I must rise today in opposition to the second-degree amendment offered by my good friend from Iowa. His intentions are good, but I sincerely believe his amendment will have unintended effects that will hurt producers in the long run and that could have an unfortunate effect on the livestock industry in the United States-- particularly the beef industry in Kansas. Kansans are proud of the beef industry and the history it has played in our state. From the days of the cattle drives that stretched from Texas to Abilene and Ellsworth it has been one of our top industries. I have always argued that we need to give our producers every tool necessary to compete and that we should carry a big stick to ensure the packing industry treats producers fairly. Coming from Dodge City, I fully understand the concerns of those who are worried about the largest packers having control over the market. Prior to a devastating fire in late 2000 at the ConAgra beef division plant in Garden City, KS we had all four of the major meat packers doing business within a 100 mile radius of Dodge City. While some argue that the packers have a crippling effect on the cattle market, I can tell you that the economy of western Kansas would not survive without the beef industry--individual producers, feeders, and packers. How important is this industry to Kansas? Cattle represented 62.6 percent of the 2000 Kansas agricultural cash receipts. Cattle generated $4.95 billion in cash receipts in 2000. More than double that generated by our second largest commodity--wheat. Kansas processed 8.21 million head in 2000; grazes 1.5 million stockers annually; and, had 1.52 milliion beef cattle in the State on January 1, 2002. Kansas ranked first in commercial cattle processed in 2000. Kansas ranks second in the value of live animals and meat exported to other countries at $969.7 million in 2000. Kansas ranked second in fed cattle marketed with 5.37 million in 2000, representing 22.3 percent of all cattle fed in the United States. Kansas ranks second, with 6.34 billion pounds of meat produced in 2000. These numbers extend simply beyond the number of cattle we have and the producers who raise and feed them. These numbers also represent jobs that are the linchpin of many of our western Kansas communities. As a couple of examples: Farmland Industries employees 5260 people in Kansas in its beef packing sector and 850 in pork packing. Most of those jobs are in Dodge City and Liberal, Kansas. Cargill employees approximately 4500 people. 3600 of these people work in its meat and livestock businesses in Leoti, Dodge City, and Wichita. If those promoting this amendment are wrong, and it indeed does cause a restructuring in the industry or forces packers to move from the country, the economic impact and ripple effects it could cause would be devastating to the Kansas economy. Farmland has informed me that it is the legal opinion of their lawyers that this amendment would put them out of the beef and pork packing businesses. We cannot allow that to happen. I am also deeply concerned that this amendment appears to severely curtail the ability of producers to enter into producer alliances and marketing agreements that allow them to gain additional dollars for the livestock they produce. Several of these alliances already exist, or are being formed, in Kansas. And I have been told that no fewer than 80 are in some stage of development throughout the United States. One of the most successful of these alliances has been U.S. Premium Beef. This producer owned cooperative has become one of the most successful producer initiated businesses I have ever seen. Last year 13,300 head were marketed through USPB each week. In fiscal year 2001, USPB cattle earned an average of $18.95 per head in premiums over the cash market. The top 25 percent earned a $46 per head average over the cash market, the top 50 percent $35 per head, and the top 75 percent $27 per head more than selling on the cash market. U.S. Premium Beef has informed me that despite the best intentions of the authors of this amendment to exempt them from this amendment, USPB would also be put out of business. I understand the concerns of the supporters of this amendment and many producers who argue for its passage. But I also have many producers in Kansas who argue against its passage, and I cannot in good conscious vote for an amendment that I believe ties the hands of producers to compete against the large meat packers and that I believe could devastate the beef industry in Kansas. I urge my colleagues to vote against the second-degree amendment offered by Mr. Grassley and to vote for the amendment offered by Mr. Craig.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. This is a matter that is important to the Nation, our national security, and the great State of Kansas. I, too, would like to join with my colleagues to review the leasing issue.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is my understanding that Italy and Japan have selected the 767 tanker for their air forces and that 767s are being modified in Wichita already. Italy intends to buy four of the tankers and Japan intends to purchase at least one. I also know that this same tanker configuration is being offered commercially to other countries to meet their in-flight fueling requirements. Is that the Senator from Alaska's understanding as well?

Mr. ROBERTS. I agree and pledge my support to making this effort a successful one.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Basically what you are trying to do is take the House farm bill as passed. I just asked staff what it passed by over there. It was 291 to 120. That is a rather strong bipartisan declaration. Basically, what you are doing is taking the House farm bill under the banner that most people have been talking about--the farm groups, the commodity groups, all the farm organizations, and many of us on this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle have said for some time two key things: One, move the bill, make sure we move it, make sure we expedite it. I would like to respond to the distinguished leader on the other side of the aisle. Senator Daschle indicated we have spent probably more time on this bill than at any time in the history of farm bills. The shortest amount of time we have ever spent in the Senate--and I can refer to the House as well--is 5 days and the longest is 31. All this time hasn't been spent on the farm bill. I am not advocating more time; don't misunderstand me. Chairman Harkin has worked very diligently to move this process along. I credit him for that. But if, in fact, we are going to get this done--and that was the key premise of the many farm groups and commodity organizations and many of us who said we need to expedite this in an odd-numbered year, don't put it off until a political year. And the other premise was, if I understand the Senator and from most of the rhetoric in this regard, to save the investment, the money, the $73 billion. The administration has indicated basically that they don't have any quarrel with the money. Oh, I am sure they would like to come down somewhat, but I don't think that is the issue. It is the policy that is the issue. What the Senator is trying to do is say, OK, if we want to accomplish that and save the investment and expedite the progress, this is the way to do it, and that all this talk about stalling and putting things off could be answered by his amendment. Is that how he sees it?

Mr. ROBERTS. I object.

Mr. ROBERTS. This is a most interesting approach, it seems to me. I credit the Senator for trying to find a road to break the logjam, to try to get out of the box canyon we seem to be in with regard to concluding the farm bill. I must say at the outset that it is my understanding, basically, that your amendment is in the form of a substitute; is it not?

Mr. ROBERTS. I object.