Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, a good friend whom I think every farmer understands. Every farmer and rancher understands that it has been Senator Thad Cochran who has provided the investment in American agriculture so as to keep our heads above water and invest in the man and woman whose job it is to feed America and a very troubled and hungry world. I thank him for his contribution. As Senator Cochran said, we want to preserve the best in the current farm bill--much criticized, I understand, but basically build on that. My concern in regard to the Daschle-Harkin bill is that changing the Daschle-Harkin bill really takes us back to the past. I am talking about agricultural program policy that was built several decades ago. I used to support those bills. But I don't think it really fits the modern reality that faces agriculture today. I think it will lead us right back to calls for additional emergency assistance which we have tried to avoid. With all due respect, I do not think the proposal that is before us today is strictly bipartisan in the true sense of the word. When I say that, I understand we all have partisan differences. I understand we all have serious intent. I am not challenging anybody's intent or questioning anybody's intent. But especially on the commodity and conservation titles--and as the distinguished Senator pointed out on the rural development title--it has been a one-way street. I guess you could call it bipartisan. As a matter of fact, someone on the other side indicated the Republican position on this bill has been one of stalling. I don't think that is the case. I think we had very important amendments. I think we have a very strong difference of opinion as to where our farm program policy ought to go. But I guess you could call this bill bipartisan except for the front loading of the funding. We have $73 billion over a 10-year period. This farm bill is 5 years. Based on budget, it is already outdated. As a matter of fact, the administration says it is not the money, it is the policy we worry about. But if you look at the underlying bill, the Daschle-Harkin bill, it is front loaded to the tune of about $46 billion. That only leaves $28 million in regard to any future bill or any baseline we would use in the future. That is something on which there is a strong difference of opinion. If you want to say that is partisan, I suppose you can. I think that is a significant difference of opinion. I guess you could call it bipartisan, except that the underlying bill is opposed by the administration and by the President. I suppose then you could say, well, yes, the President, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Trade Ambassador, don't think it is a good idea for all the reasons the distinguished Senator from Iowa has pointed out, but I wouldn't say it is exactly bipartisan in that regard. Then, of course, you could say it is bipartisan except for the WTO problems down the road. The Senator from Iowa did point this out: What if we reach a WTO agreement--that is a mighty big if; I know we are going to have a difficult time doing that--and all of a sudden in this bill that ``amber box''--and all that is is a box that all of a sudden is flashing ``amber'' as fast as it can--indicates you are over the limit in regard to the WTO cap. Then you have to come back in, and you could be fined. You could be in the business of trade retaliation. You could even, conceivably, have the Secretary of Agriculture come back and ask farmers and ranchers to give back some of the investment they have already received. I don't think we want that. So it is bipartisan except for, of course, that little minor disagreement. Then it could be bipartisan except for the farm savings account. We have the farm savings account in our bill. The Daschle bill does not have that. I am not saying they would not have it or they are not acceptable to some portion of it, but that is not bipartisan either. It is not bipartisan in regard to the situation of going back to loan rates and target prices as the investment by which we are going to protect our farmers as opposed to direct payments. We have a strong difference of opinion. So that really isn't a bipartisan situation either. It certainly isn't bipartisan in regard to how we use crop insurance. Crop insurance reform: It took us 18 months--us, meaning Senator Bob Kerrey, the former Senator from Nebraska, myself, Senator Cochran, Senator Burns, and others--to forge together and put together crop insurance reform. Where does the Daschle bill, and also the Harkin bill, get the money to increase loan rates? From crop insurance. That is not very bipartisan. We had a strong difference of opinion. It would be very bipartisan if in fact it were not for the really strong difference of opinion in regard to State water rights. That is the bill that was introduced by Senator Reid. It has Senator Crapo of Idaho and others from the West very worried about it. So it isn't very bipartisan in that regard either. Then we have mandatory conservation programs. And then we have this statement that we could go to conference a lot more quickly if in fact we would just pass the Daschle bill. My colleagues, the differences between the bill that is referred to as Daschle-Harkin and the House bill are enormous. You are not going to get that done until next year anyway. On the contrary, in the Cochran- Roberts approach I think we could probably go to conference and settle it out in a day or two. We could get that done. So when people say it is partisan or bipartisan, or there are strong differences of opinion, or people are stalling, I think a little clarification certainly is in order. Let me just say I have touched on some of the specifics I had in my prepared remarks. I am not going to go over the process. If anybody wants to talk about process and what we deem as a better way to approach the process of this bill, they can go back to the statements Senator Cochran and I made last Friday. But let me say, again, that I believe the commodity title in the bill would really take us back to the past. Our producers will receive higher payments through higher loan rates--if they have a crop to harvest. If they have no crop to harvest, they receive no loan deficiency payments. The bill also includes a ``technical correction'' to the bill that addresses a $15.5 billion scoring problem in the dairy title of the committee-passed bill. That is quite a technical correction. Again, that is a strong difference of opinion. If you are going to return to target prices, I would say to my colleagues, that only results in payments to the producers if the price for that crop year is below the target price. And it has happened time and time again when a State up in the Dakotas, or a State such as Kansas, in high-risk agriculture will lose a crop, and the price rises above the target price, and then, when the farmer needs the payments the worst, then is when he does not get it, either from the target price or the loan rate. That is something we tried to fix in 1996 with our direct payment program. And that is basically the feature of our bill. I talked a little bit about the front-loading of the bill, which I think leaves us in a very precarious situation in the years of the coming deficits if in fact that takes place. Senator Cochran also pointed out that the underlying bill, the Daschle bill, front-loads spending for the popular programs, including EQIP, the Wetlands Reserve Program, WHIP, and the Farmland Protection Program. I think we could make a pretty good case, I say to Senator Cochran, that our bill is better in regard to the environment and conservation than the underlying bill. So we are basically mortgaging future farm bills simply to buy off votes on this one. I do not think that is good policy, and it is not good for the future of our farmers. We think we have the better approach. We take a very commonsense approach to conservation. It puts funding into those popular programs I just mentioned. It ramps up the funding so we have a significant baseline as we head into the next farm bill. I think the Senator from Mississippi indicated $2 billion in that regard. That is a big investment. We don't go ``Back to the Future.'' We don't raise loan rates or return to the target prices of the past. Instead, we increase the direct payment--listen up, all farmers, ranchers, and their lenders--we increase the direct payment levels back to near their 1997 levels while adding a payment for soybeans and minor oilseeds. This does create a guaranteed payment that the producers and their bankers can count on, even in years of crop losses when they need it the most. They do not have that guarantee in the committee-passed bill. Again, I would like to reflect on what the Senator from Iowa said. It is WTO legal. It will not really shoot our negotiators in the foot in these international trade negotiations. He is directly on point in warning what could happen on down the road. Our bill is supported by President Bush and Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman. So you are past that, and I think, obviously, you get to conference a lot quicker. Let me say that to the Kansas farmer and, for that matter, to the Mississippi farmer or the Montana farmer, or any of our colleagues who are privileged to represent agriculture and they say: Wait a minute, if you are stalling a bill, and you are going to hold up this bill, and you are not going to get progress, and you are not going to get the money invested--that the administration has said, over and over again, it is not the money, it is the policy, so the investment in agriculture will be there--if somebody comes to me and says, Pat, let's pass the farm bill, I would love to pass the farm bill in an odd-numbered year as opposed to an even-numbered year because it does get to be a tad political. But if I said: Now, wait a minute, Mr. Kansas farmer, what if that bill that you want to move, or that others on the other side want to move, contained $46 billion up front and left no money for future farm bills, would you support that? They would probably say: No, Pat, I don't think that is a very good idea. What if I said: Do you want to go back to loan rates? They might say: Well, I am not too sure. We never figured out whether that was income protection or market clearing. I don't know. We need that debate. We are having that debate. Actually, we are not having that debate. Nobody spoke to that. How are you going to pay for that? We are going to take it out of your crop insurance reform we had only last year. I don't think they will buy that and say: Pat, I don't want that kind of bill. Then if I said: Well, Mr. Farmer in Kansas, if this bill is supported by the President and the Secretary of Agriculture, and we could conference it more quickly with the House, would you prefer this than the other? Is that stalling? They would say: No, Pat, I don't think so. What if I said: Is it consistent with the WTO negotiations? They would look at me and say: Pat, do you think we are going to get that done? I would say: We haven't yet, but we are going to keep trying. Lord knows, it is a difficult process. But if the bill that we passed already has more money, so that the ``amber box'' is flashing so you can't even see past it, they are going to say: Well, Pat, I don't think we want that bill either. If they say, we are going to maintain the integrity of the crop insurance program in our better substitute, I think most farmers would say yes. Then there is an analysis by the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute that says the Cochran-Roberts proposal will result in higher market prices for farmers in the program crops than the committee- passed bill. It says it right there. In Kansas, every Kansas farmer will understand we are losing $1.3 billion over the life of the bill if we go with the committee bill as opposed to our substitute. I could go on, but I think I have used up enough time and have made the points I tried to make. I do not want to go back to the old, failed policies of the past. As the distinguished Senator from Mississippi has indicated, let's preserve the best, and let's improve it. I say to the Senator from Mississippi, I think you control the time, sir. So I yield back to you.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Virginia who has been an absolute champion of Virginia peanuts.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is $2.58.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thought I had 7 minutes. I can't squeeze 1 more minute out of--didn't we say 7 minutes before we got into the colloquy on Senator Harkin's time, the distinguished Senator from Virginia who was extolling great virtue and compliments to the distinguished Senator on his time?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased that with the passage of this legislation, we are on our way to assisting our Nation's schools in providing a quality education for each and every child. I want to thank Senators Kennedy and Gregg, Congressmen Boehner and Miller and their staffs for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan piece of legislation that will give children the opportunity to succeed in the classroom. I am also happy to see that this legislation includes an emphasis on math and science education. Senator Frist, Congressman Ehlers and myself have worked hard to make ensure that there is a renewed focus on a portion of education curricula that needs addressing. Scores on the National Assessment for Educational Progress, NAEP, test in the subject area of science have not improved over the last several years and, in fact, have been lower than previous years test scores. Seniors in high school who took the 2000 NAEP science test scored, on average, three points lower than those taking the test in 1996. Only 18 percent correctly answered challenging science questions, down from 21 percent and those students who knew just the basics dropped to 53 percent. This is simply unacceptable. According to an Associated Press article that appeared in the Kansas City Star on November 20, many science teachers complain that they can't persuade school officials to give them the time or money required for training. Our math and science provision in this bill addresses this very problem through a variety of ways, including: one, improving and upgrading the status and stature of mathematics and science teaching by encouraging institutions of higher education to assume greater responsibility for improving mathematics and science teacher education; two, create career-long opportunities for ongoing professional development for math and science teachers; three, provide mentoring opportunities for teachers by bringing them together with engineers, scientists and mathematicians; and four, develop more rigorous math and science curricula. This legislation authorizes the math and science partnerships at $450 million in the first year. I would encourage my colleagues, especially in light of the recent NAEP scores, to adequately fund this program in order to improve the abilities of our teachers to provide good, quality instruction in math and science. We are in an age where science and technology fields are booming and yet we cannot produce students who even have an understanding of basic science principles. How can we attract students into fields that are experiencing dramatic shortages such as nursing or engineering when they don't have a good background in math and science? We have failed our children and I believe it is imperative to the future of our country to make sure that our children are adequately prepared in math and science subject areas. I am disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to provide our school districts the financial relief needed in the area of special education. I have strongly supported funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, at the full 40 percent and yet we will go another year with it being inadequately funded by the Federal Government. We have made dramatic improvements in the funding levels over the last several years. However, we are now only providing approximately 15 percent instead of the 40 that we said we would commit 26 years ago. I look forward to working with my colleagues who have stated throughout the conference their willingness to address this issue next year when IDEA will be reauthorized. I am pleased with our overall product and will be looking forward to seeing results in the years to come as our States and local districts work to implement the reforms made in this bill. I believe the State of Kansas overall provides a good education for it's children and I look forward to seeing the quality of education in Kansas get even better.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pending legislation and the responsibility that we have in the Senate to carefully craft our Nation's future farm program policy. Note that I said ``carefully craft.'' In doing so, I am being joined by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, my good friend and colleague, the former chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations for agriculture on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran. I do not know of any Senator in the Senate who has been more of a champion for our farmers and ranchers throughout our country. We refer to him as ``our banker'' on the Appropriations Committee, who has the tremendous responsibility and does it so well in making sure we meet our budget guidelines while also ensuring the needed investments we must make in agriculture. I feel quite honored and privileged to have him as a coauthor of the alternative amendment to the bill pending in regard to farm program policy. I also thank his staff, Mr. Hunter Moorhead, who has worked extremely hard many hours; and my two staffers, Mike Seyfert, who is sitting to my right, and I would like to let his wife Christy know he is here. He has been by my side early morning, day, and night for the past week. I want to let her know he is really doing fine. Matt Howe, who is sitting in the back, has helped me tremendously. We are only as good as our staff. We think we have come up with a positive alternative with the current legislation which makes a great deal of sense. I thank Thad Cochran for his leadership and help and for being a coauthor on this amendment. This legislation directly affects the daily life and well-being of every citizen in America and many throughout a very troubled and hungry world. You can't read the headlines about Afghanistan and not realize there is a humanitarian effort now taking place with many organizations. That effort is made possible by the food which is produced in this country going to our troubled and hungry world--and the modern miracle of productivity of American agriculture. But more particularly, this legislation directly affects the livelihood of America's farm families, those who persevere and prevail despite all sorts of obstacles not of their own making and things beyond their control. Yet despite the tough times, they feed us and those in need, and their record of productivity is, indeed, a modern miracle. So here we are, my colleagues, on a Friday morning with several Senators present. We have had quite a debate over the last 3 or 4 days on yet another farm bill. Counting the years I have been here as a staff member, a Member of the House, and a Member of the Senate, this is my sixth farm bill. I can recall the former esteemed chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the venerable Bob Poage of Texas who used to describe farm bills in this way: My colleagues, is this the best possible farm bill? He would say: No, but it is the best farm bill possible. There is a difference. That is usually the way legislation works as we try to reach a compromise and pass the ``best bill possible.'' We need to certainly do that this time around. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers remain in the midst of very difficult times. We are not in very good shape in regard to farm country. The challenges that we face today in the domestic and global marketplace and the revolutionary times we face today in agriculture are certainly unique. I had hoped we could carefully craft a bipartisan bill and pass it out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. As a reminder, we did that in achieving significant crop insurance reform just a session ago. It took 18 months. That bill was coauthored by myself and Senator Bob Kerrey, the former Senator of Nebraska. In fact, we have had more interest in that particular bill than almost any bill I have been associated with since I have had the privilege of public office. In farm country, if you call a meeting of farmers, and if I happen to be the speaker, there may be 30, 50, or 100 farmers present, depending on where you call a meeting. With crop insurance, you will have 1,000. Those of us who are privileged to serve American agriculture are very much aware of the fact that we have a very disparate and independent bunch of farmers and ranchers. We know they are in much better hands if we work together, if the agriculture posse tries to ride in the same direction, more or less, despite our differences. I regret to report to you, Mr. President, and my colleagues and our farmers and ranchers, that I don't think that is the case today. We, unfortunately, are at odds both in terms of policy, and some would even allege there is just a tad bit of politics being played in this year's farm bill deliberations. That is not only too bad, but it is downright counterproductive. In fact, in Dodge City we say it is ``a dirty shame.'' For the record, I thank the chairman of the committee. I thank him for asking my advice and for meeting with me and my staff to see if we could reach an accord on a bipartisan bill. We just had a discussion to see if there was some way we could work this out. I hope we can. The chairman, his staff and mine met for several hours in private discussions. I believe we made some real progress toward a bipartisan proposal that could, and I think would, have garnered support of the majority of members on both sides of the committee. Certainly the Harkin-Roberts bill would have caused some double takes and some jaw dropping on the part of a few veteran farm bill watchers. I am sure of that. I sincerely appreciate the effort by the chairman, who is a good colleague and a friend. The key was in the mailbox, according to that old Country Western song. And he said: Come on in. Let us work something out. We left town Friday before Veteran's Day, and I believe some progress was being made. Unfortunately, something happened during the weekend. When we returned the following week, both the key and the mailbox were missing, and we were told to plan immediately for a very different bill and some different marching orders. I remember an old television program called ``Name That Tune.'' They would listen to the song on the record. Then two people would race down the corridor and grab onto something, and say: I can name that tune in about 3 seconds. I guess that is sort of dating myself. Unfortunately, with regard to the new committee bill, others have named the tune--more particularly, leadership--and there was a new game. It was called ``Name Your Price''--a game that is still in progress, by the way. The end result was a bill that is now going back to loan rates and target prices as income protection. And the committee bill was passed on a party-line vote. Now, I do not question the intent of people who truly believe we ought to go back to loan rates and higher target prices. I just think that is not the way we ought to go. I think we have a better alternative. I do not question the intent of my colleagues. But I do question the process and the policy, and both, in my view, are counterproductive. That is about the nicest way I can put it. It is one thing, my colleagues, to decide you are going to do a partisan bill, but it is another to deny the minority of the right to review the language of the bill and, as a result, the right to debate in an effort to, once again, carefully craft policy that will better enable the farmer and the rancher and the consumer to survive the fast- changing and dynamic environment in today's agriculture. Just when farmers and ranchers need new tools and new policy, and a new reality check, the committee is playing the lead role in ``Back to the Future.'' My colleagues, we did not even receive a final copy of the commodity title of this bill until 1 o'clock a.m. on the same morning of the markup. Now, that alone is ludicrous and a black mark on the committee. For those of us who have no offices to work from--I am one of those who is a Member of the ever-increasingly disgusted ``Hart Homeless Bunch'' where we do not have an office, no access to files, limited access to computers, limited access to telephones, and limited access to e-mail due to closure of the Hart Building--the situation was impossible. One o'clock in the morning we got the mark. Markup on the committee bill started at 8:30. I was still trying to write my statement to summarize my concerns at 8:47. I noted it on the clock. Staff had not even had time to read the bill, let alone carefully craft a substitute with Senator Cochran, which we finally did. I mentioned before, I have been through six farm bills and some pretty tough debates with strong differences of opinion, but at least I knew, or staff knew, what was in the bill. Now, there is more than one way to ``skin the minority cat'' than to put his head in a bootjack and pull on his tail. That is no way to run a committee. Certainly, that was not the way it was done when our distinguished ranking member, Senator Lugar, was chairman. I understand that maybe I am erring on the side of being too harsh. Maybe this effort to lock up $73 billion for agriculture over 10 years, in a 5-year farm bill, to meet the requirements of an already outdated and unrealistic budget and to accommodate the party leadership and old partisan constituencies, and to satisfy the insatiable needs of different commodity groups and farm organizations and your same party colleagues, was just too overwhelming. I don't know. It is a daunting task. It is a tremendously daunting task. I know; I have been there. And I sympathize and I empathize. This task must be overwhelming, Mr. President, because the show is still going on. I would like to say last-minute major policy changes stopped when the bill passed the committee, but it did not. This bill is probably about 1,000 pages. I meant to have a copy of the bill to see if I could lift it, but I am not going to go through that. Staff reports just a small $15 billion scoring problem with the dairy section of the committee-passed bill, something that may be of interest to the Presiding Officer. The answer was a ``technical correction'' that solved the problem that completely changed the content of the language in the dairy section. Now, that is quite a technical correction. When we have the final bill language for floor debate and action, and wade through it, we not only find dramatic changes to the dairy title, but significant changes to the conservation title as well. It is like Topsy; it tends to grow with each passing day and each passing vote. Mr. President, so much for process. After all, fair and reasonable deliberation is in the eyes of the beholder. Process does not mean much to the producer down at the feedlot or the country elevator or the coffee clatch. But, by golly, policy does. Policy sure counts. It counts because it directly affects the farmer's pocketbook and his future. Today, as I said before, we are not in very good shape. I do not criticize this bill because of intent or even the politics of bringing back outdated farm program policies simply because it is in the calcified bones of its authors and supporters. We all have our prejudices. I criticize this bill because I think it will be counterproductive, because I do not think it is going to work, that it will take us back to policy that does not fit today, and it will increase additional farm assistance in the future. At the same time, through its use of front loading of spending and budget manipulation, the bill mortgages what we call future baseline or our ability to write future farm bills. Latest figures: $45.2 billion over 5 years in regard to the Daschle- Harkin bill. That leaves $28.3 billion for the second 5 years. Basically, if we do this, we have eliminated much of the baseline in the outyears. We need to find $16.9 billion when we write the next bill just to get back to this first 5-year level. We are mortgaging our farm bill future. There are also two other considerations of no small notice. In its current and ever-changing form, it will be almost impossible to conference with the House. The President opposes it. The administration opposes this. They have a statement of administration policy opposing this. More about that just a little bit later. Let me spell it out. The bill before us takes us back to past farm program policies of trying to provide income protection with higher loan rates and target prices. Now, there is no question that the farmer needs income protection with all the variables that he has to face and all that has gone on that is not talked about much in regard to critics of agriculture spending: the loss of the Asian market, the value of the dollar, different buying patterns, the European Union spending incredible amounts of money, and on and on and on, a glut all across the world in regard to commodities, which is unprecedented. Not many people really take a look at that when they try to criticize the farm program policies that are spelled out either by the distinguished chairman or by Senator Cochran and myself. At the same time, it pays for higher loan rates and target prices by phasing out direct payments to the farmer and by cutting some $2 billion from the bipartisan crop insurance reforms we passed last year. Now, I am not happy about that. We spent 18 months putting together crop insurance reform as one of the tools that we promised when we passed the Freedom to Farm bill. The Freedom to Farm bill was passed on one side. And then there were about six other promises that we made to try to complement that bill. No farm bill by itself can do what we all want to do on behalf of the American farmer. It took 3 years to pass the crop insurance reform. Here we find that we are virtually phasing out direct payments. In order to pay a higher loan rate and target prices, we are cutting $2 billion from the crop insurance reform we passed last year. That is wrong. This business is supposed to provide a better safety net again by phasing out direct safety net payments and cutting crop insurance, the one program we have passed in the last years that prompted an overwhelmingly positive response from farmers. I want to restate that. I do not think I can restate it too many times. The bill takes money from a bipartisan reform bill passed last year to pay for a ``scheme''--that is not a nice word --a plan that is shaping up to be a party-line battle. I do not think that is progress. Now, my friends, we have been down this road before, and it did not work. Some continue to insist that higher loan rates will mean more safety net protection for producers and will prop up prices. I know that. I have listened to that argument during six farm bills. It is an old argument. It is a good argument, but it is a misconception, in my view. First, our farmers only receive a payment under the marketing loan program, the loan program, if the market price is below the loan level and if the farmer actually produces a crop. If the producer does not have a crop to harvest, if there is a crop failure, of which we have many--that is why the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, in his role on the Appropriations Committee, steps forward year after year, to make ends meet--when farmers suffer from crop failures, all across the country, guess what. Then there is no payment. So the loan rate really does not provide any income protection for a farmer who does not have a crop. When he needs it the most, the assistance is not there. Second, under the target price proposal, which, by the way, does not take place until 2004--until 2004--farm prices have to be below the target price level to receive a payment. The problem is, crop failures often result in reduced supplies that cause high prices above the target price. That occurred in Kansas in 1988 and then 1993. In 1995 there was a freeze, a drought. Again, a producer may have no crop, and if prices rise because of decreased production and supplies because of crop failures, there may well not be the so-called target price countercyclical payment. Go through the history of past crop failures where they occurred, count the bad years. It is possible that a farmer could have no crop to harvest, still receive no assistance through the loan deficiency program and the so-called countercyclical programs in the committee bill. If that happens --and I hope it doesn't--does anybody here believe those producers and their farm organizations will not be back asking for additional emergency assistance or, for that matter, a higher loan rate or target price? It has happened before. I remember the late 1970s, the American Agricultural Movement came to Washington. Was that an experience. As a result, we simply increased the target price from $2.41 to $2.90. I think that was what it was. The distinguished chairman of the committee at that particular time was Ambassador Tom Foley, Speaker Foley, from the State of Washington. What happens is, we simply increase the loan rate or the target price. That is not a safety net. Relying on loan rates and target prices under those circumstances is not a safety net. It is a hammer. I think the farmer prefers the safety net. All of the uncertainty and unfair competition and lack of an aggressive, consistent trade and export policy is why we moved away from the higher loan rates and target prices and provided a guaranteed direct payment that the producers and their lenders--don't forget the lenders--could count on every year, especially when they suffered a crop loss. We made a deal. We made a contract. We even had a colloquy on the House floor. Is this a contract? Can't take it away? No. And we wrapped up what we thought was a reasonable investment in regards to farmers and farm programs only to face unbelievable changes about two crop- years after that, and we had to move to some emergency help. Even that was under the rubric or the architecture of the 1996 act. Again, I am very concerned that the proposal before the Senate basically pays for higher loan rates and target prices through a virtual phaseout of these payments by 2006. This is the wrong way to go. We do not think we should take away a payment our farmers and lenders can bank on--no pun intended--when they are drawing up operating plans for each crop-year. We also need to remind everyone that the commodity title before us today tends to be less environmentally and conservation friendly than the proposal Senator Cochran and I will put forward. Ours is the better bill in this regard because it is not coupled to production. That is a big difference. When you have a payment program that is more dependent on actual production, there is a greater incentive to farm fragile land and use excessive chemicals and pesticides to improve yields. That is why the 1996 act was the most favorable to the environment passed up to that date. This bill, with some differences in conservation, will have that as a hallmark. I do credit the chairman of the committee for focusing on conservation. But if you couple production and your payments, that is what will happen under the committee-passed proposal. Here again, we go back to the future. In addition, we made a conscious decision between two basic choices when we wrote the last farm bill. We could continue on a course of micromanaged planting and marketing restrictions that have often put our producers at a competitive disadvantage in the world market, or we could pursue a course that would eliminate these restrictions and allow farmers to make their own planting decisions based on domestic and world market demands, while also receiving guaranteed levels of transition payments. That, in fact, was the primary purpose, the primary goal of the 1996 act and the much maligned Freedom to Farm bill. It was not to take the Government payments and transition them and march the farmer off the cliff when the free market does not exist. It was, in fact, to give more decision making power and decisions to the farmer and, with that flexibility, as I have indicated, five or six other initiatives: Tax policy changes, crop insurance reform, regulatory reform, aggressive trade policy, and sanctions reform. We might have been a little naive in thinking we could accomplish this, but I would hope we could accomplish this prior to consideration of the next farm bill. That was the goal. Before these changes, farmers used to put the seed in the ground according to dictates issued by the Department of Agriculture. It was what I called a command-and-control farm program policy. We lined up outside the ASCS office, now the FSA office, walked in and talked to Aunt Harriet. She made out all the paperwork and forms. And you set aside this ground and then you waited on Washington to figure out how much you had to set aside and what you could plant, when you could plant it. We were paying farmers for not growing anything. We lost market share. We used to have 24 percent of the world market share in terms of global exports. Now we are down to about 18. Guess who is 17? The European Union. Guess who is going to be 18 next year and we will be 17, if we pass this bill? The United States. That is not right. That was a dead-end street. We are pleased that whatever proposal will be before us does at least maintain the planting flexibility. At least we did retain that. But we are also concerned that because of the increased focus on loan rates and target prices, we may end up with budget exposures that will force us back to set-asides and supply management--it would be an easy thing to do--in order to avoid excessive budget costs. Then we are really back to the future. That would be one of the most counterproductive things we could do for U.S. agriculture which must compete in a global marketplace. We may not like it, but that is the way it is. Furthermore, since the committee bill or the substitute's basic tenet is raising loan rates, let me reflect for a moment on what the purpose of a loan rate is. This seems to be the nexus of the dispute between the two bills. Is the loan rate a market clearing device, or is it price support? I don't think it can be both. If we set the price at $3 on wheat and $2.08 on corn--and you could do the corresponding number with other crops--it very well may become a ceiling on price. We also understand the belief among many Members and some producers that a higher loan rate is a greater incentive to put the crop in storage and simply wait for a higher price. That is the alleged goal of the loan program. The question is, Would that result in a greater income for farmers, or does it mean that they will simply pay higher storage and interests costs that would more than offset any increase in the loan rate? We have to ask ourselves what raising loan rates does for those producers who again suffer no crops and disaster. We are well aware of the problems our friends in the northern plains have faced in the form of floods and blizzards, crop disease in recent years. Time and time and time and time and time again, with chart after chart after chart, we have seen our distinguished colleagues and friends across the aisle come down to the floor, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7 years straight, and talk to us about the blizzards and the intemperate weather, the infestation, and goodness knows what else. These are regional weather problems that would have occurred regardless of the farm policy we put in place. I grieve for those farmers. I empathize with those farmers. We have that in high-risk country in Kansas as well; not to that extent, but at least we know what they are talking about. Can we guarantee that higher loan rates would have done anything for these producers because they had nothing to harvest? The answer is no. They wouldn't have gotten a payment without the crop under higher loan rates. So does it make sense to spend $73.5 billion on a new policy that won't provide assistance to producers when they need it? It is because of these concerns that Senator Cochran and I are offering our amendment to this legislation. Our bill is the only one of these two proposals that is, No. 1, nonmarket or production distorting. No. 2, it provides a guaranteed direct payment to producers when they suffer a crop loss, when they need it the most. No. 3, it provides a new, innovative approach to a countercyclical program, which I will describe in a moment. No. 4, it creates a stronger footing for our international trade negotiators by enhancing the level of green box support we are providing to our producers. Let me stop for a minute and indicate that on the Daschle-Harkin bill we have been warned by the administration that box may not be amber, it may be red. We can get to the cutoff very quickly. If we are successful in the WTO negotiations--and I don't know if we will be or not--it could conceivably result in the WTO really taking us into the proceedings where the United States government and the Secretary of Agriculture would have to come back to our producers and ask them to give money back. Senator Grassley has a bill to address that, and it is a very important bill. I can't imagine it would come to that, but why go down that road to begin with? So certainly, this bill doesn't have that problem because you are in the green box, not the amber box. Those are the boxes we define as to whether you are WTO legal or whether you are working out an international trade agreement with which you can work. No. 5, let me say this is supported by the administration, supported by the President, and can be conferenced. All these groups and commodity organizations that have come in here and written letter after letter saying ``move the bill,'' if you want to move the bill, that can be conferenced with the House Agriculture Committee, pass Cochran- Roberts, and it can be signed into law this year. I think our approach is clearly the better way to go as it provides a direct payment that reflects the unique and very difficult times we face in agriculture today. As I have said probably 10 times--and now I will say it for the 11th--it ensures that our producers will get assistance when they need it the most, when they have no crop to harvest. While our colleagues across the aisle have looked to the past in creating their countercyclical program, we have looked to the future. This is a unique program. It would ask the farmers and ranchers to pay a little attention. We have proposed the creation of a farm savings account, set up by a producer, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, at the bank of the producer's choosing. Under our proposal, a producer can place a portion of their yearly earnings into a farm savings account. The Secretary of Agriculture will then provide a matching contribution of up to $10,000, which will be based on the producer's level of contribution and the total number of producers who participate in the program. The total level of funding in the account at any one time cannot exceed 150 percent of a producer's 5-year average adjusted gross revenue. In addition, a producer can only pull funds out of the account in two instances: No. 1, when his or her adjusted gross revenue for the year falls below 90 percent of their 5-year adjusted gross revenue, or when the producer retires. By putting in these withdrawal triggers, we are setting up a countercyclical program that will only be triggered when an individual producer's gross revenues fall below their historical levels. Thus, it becomes truly a countercyclical program that guarantees that a small, or regional, crop loss will not prohibit producers from obtaining assistance when they need it the most. Under the committee proposal, and the substitute--a thousand pages or more--producers may not receive assistance, again, when they need it the most. There are three additional important points we want to make regarding this farm savings account. I want to make sure our colleagues understand this. First, participation is voluntary. A producer only participates if he wants to, but the incentive is that they will receive a matching payment from the Secretary of Agriculture. Second, specialty crop and livestock producers are eligible for this proposal. How many times have we heard the livestock producer and those who represent specialty crop producers--more especially from the Northeast--complain that the farm program left them out? That is not the case here. The producers of fruits, vegetables, forestry, and livestock are all eligible to receive matching payments from the Secretary. Ours is the only proposal that will provide assistance directly to specialty crop producers. While the proposal across the aisle provides for specialty crop commodity purchases, where most of the funding goes to large cooperatives or businesses, ours goes directly into the hands of the specialty crop producers. Finally, we want to clear up some false statements that have been put forward regarding our savings accounts. They are not tax provisions. These are not tax-deferred accounts as have been proposed in separate legislation in this and previous Congresses--I am for those, by the way. However, they can earn interest at a rate determined by the bank where the account is established. Mr. President, the choice between the two proposals could not be clearer on the commodity titles, as I have demonstrated. The proposal put forward by the committee takes us back to the policies of the past while our proposal looks to the future and is more consistent with the bipartisan proposal passed in the House that largely maintains current loan rates and provides reasonable direct payments to our producers. We also have serious concerns with the proposed conservation title. It has been changed considerably from what passed the committee, and, in an effort to attract votes, it is dangerously mortgaging future farm bills by taking funds from the budget baseline in the years beyond the 5-year length of this proposed farm bill. I already referred to that in terms of the one figure, $45.2 billion over 5 years, leaving only $28.3 billion for the second 5 years. So that is what we are talking about. Specifically, they are jeopardizing the future of some of our most popular and successful environmental programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program--EQIP--Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and the Farmland Protection Program. Their proposal frontloads funding for these programs and then provides for draconian reductions in the baseline for 2006 through 2011. At the same time, it greatly increases funding for something called the Conservation Security Act. That is a new, interesting, but untested program in 2006 through 2011. I don't argue that the Conservation Security Act's goal of providing conservation incentives on working lands is not a good one. It is a good one. In fact, in our alternative we set aside a portion of our EQIP funds for activities on working lands. But I don't think it would be right, and I think it would be a critical and unfortunate mistake, to eliminate the future of many of the successful programs I just mentioned in 2006 and beyond and, instead, stake our conservation success on an untested program. We also remind colleagues that those programs that would face the most severe cuts and restrictions in the outyears are those that most directly impact wildlife, livestock, and dairy producers. Is this really the way we want to go? Senator Cochran and I don't believe so. That is why you see a significant investment in current conservation programs and the ramping up of these conservation programs in our bill. We gradually increase funding for the popular programs that farmers now enjoy and participate in over 5 years for all of the specific purposes that certainly are commensurate with the worth of the programs. Let me say that we are not trying in this effort to point out the differences between the bills, to create a partisan fight in response to what happened regarding the process of the debate. We are simply putting forward what we believe is better policy and a more responsible use of the funds available to it. The time is short in this session of Congress, and even shorter as we speak today on Friday. If we are serious about really finishing the farm bill this year, we should pass our proposal, which is very similar to the bipartisan bill passed by the House and, again, which could be conferenced with that bill in a matter of days. Our alternative does not slow the process. Some are trying to say we are slowing down the process. We point out that all the other titles of the substitute proposal--Senator Cochran and I sat down and looked at each and every one of them--we put forth are very similar to those titles passed by the Agriculture Committee. We do not have a quarrel with those. We do not have any dispute. Except for shifting some money from mandatory to discretionary and eliminating the partisan use of crop insurance reform funding as an offset, we have largely left those titles intact. We agree with many of the principles that are contained within these titles. As I said, there is no dispute. We always try to pass the best possible bill when we are considering farm bills. I do not believe the underlying bill is the best we can do. It is not time to reinvent the wheel and go back to the policies of the past. We are at another one of those historical crossroads in agricultural program policy. We can look forward or we can look back. We can choose to return to the failed policies of the past and put our farmers and ranchers at a competitive disadvantage on the world market at the same time our dependence on the world market actually continues to increase, or we can take the necessary steps to provide our producers and trade negotiators with the tools necessary to open foreign markets and meet the demands of the world market. The critics of our proposal have in past years stated on the Senate floor that one day we will wake up and discover that we are no longer the leader in agricultural exports. I just mentioned that we are about 18 percent in all of the commodity exports globally. The EU is 17, and the trend is not good. It is just like we lost the market in regard to automobiles. It is interesting to note that many of the pitfalls suffered by the U.S. auto industry in the seventies and early eighties were based on an unwillingness to change policies and adapt to the desires of the consumer market. Could there be a similar effect for agriculture if we proceed with the proposal that is put forward by the committee and continue down the path of programs that will make us uncompetitive in world markets and hamper our bargaining power at the WTO negotiating table? My colleagues are correct. The choices we make today and in the next few months will affect the future of agriculture in the United States. My hope is that we will continue to look, with our producers, toward the future, as I have indicated, and not in the rear-view mirror and at the broken policies of the past. I have a letter that was addressed to the Honorable Tom Daschle, majority leader of the Senate, and the Honorable Trent Lott, the minority leader, from quite a few commodity groups and farm organizations urging progress on the farm bill so we can get it done this year. I emphasize again that I want the best possible bill we can get. Some producers in Kansas have been in touch with me and asked: Can we get this done? I said: I hope so. But would you support a bill that would provide you $1.3 billion less over 5 years in Kansas than the bill we have proposed? Would you support a bill that robs crop insurance reform to pay for higher loan rates which may depress the market? Would you support a bill that has a brand new conservation package that out on the high plains we really do not know that much about? And all of the additions that have actually been proposed? The answer to that is no. The answer to that is we want a better bill, and if you have a better bill that can be conferenced more quickly and supported by the administration, it seems to me that is the way to go. Which bill has better results for Kansas farmers? There is an outfit called the Agricultural Food Policy Center--the acronym is called AFPC--at Texas A and M University. They estimate our proposal will provide $1.3 billion more in Government assistance to wheat farmers from 2000 to 2006. It also shows sorghum producers will receive more funding, and according to analysis by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) Cochran-Roberts/Roberts-Cochran will result in higher market prices, i.e, overall returns from the marketplace, while the Daschle-Harkin bill will actually drive prices lower than what would occur if the current farm bill remains in place with no changes. It is the same in Montana and in other areas of the country, according to the FAPRI study, an independent study. Sure, I want a bill. I want to get it done. I want to get it done as fast as possible, but I do not want to support the worst possible bill of the two. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak at great length. I apologize to my colleagues for taking this much time. I have not had an opportunity to talk about this yet. I have amendments to offer, but I wanted to take this time to fully explain my personal view and the hard work that went into the alternative that I think certainly merits the support of the majority in regard to where we go with the next farm bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I actually thought it was 4; I was not quite sure. If it is 3, then my 3 minutes would be protected, as I understand it. If the distinguished Senator from Arizona would like to precede me, I am perfectly happy.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is absolutely correct. I had that conversation with the Air Force. As a matter of fact, the people who really initiated this discussion with me were actually members of the Air Force. The Senator from Arizona has asked me to point out that this letter I am reading from the Secretary addressed to Congressman Norman Dicks did not represent a formal request. But in the meetings with the Air Force and in writing to individual Members of Congress, which Mr. Dicks provided the members of the Armed Services Committee in the House, I think it speaks very clearly that the Air Force does want this program and does want the leasing program to start.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Alaska. I will address the three issues of concern raised by the Senator from Arizona. First, with regard to the fact that the Secretary of Defense, according to the Senator from Arizona, knows absolutely nothing about it, it seems to me when the Secretary of the Air Force and General Jumper have been paying personal calls not only to the Senator from North Dakota but to me, as well, and I have a letter here from the Secretary of the Air Force that says: ``I appreciate your interest in jump-starting the replacement program for our venerable KC-135 tanker fleet. These critical aircraft,'' and he goes into the fact this is absolutely essential to the expeditionary force of the United States, especially in Kosovo and Afghanistan--he says: I strongly endorse beginning to upgrade this critical war-fighting capability with new Boeing 767 aircraft; I very much appreciate your support; your interest and support are crucial; he indicates this whole effort is absolutely crucial--I cannot imagine that the Secretary of the Air Force, both he and General Jumper would be taking action and recommending this in an open letter to Congress without the knowledge of the Secretary of Defense. If that is the case, we have a real communication problem. I would like to say that in terms of the cost, the estimate by the Air Force, they save $3 billion. As to leasing or buying, we don't have money to buy them now, but we sure have the mission. That is like telling everybody in America: I am sorry, you can't lease a car. At the end of the 10 years, I am aware that Boeing could take back the airplanes, and I am aware of the fact that then the Air Force or the Department of Defense could actually purchase this aircraft at a much lesser price. Why will the Air Force say that the cost savings will be $3 billion? Look at maintenance. Look at the depot maintenance today. Fifteen percent of our flights are tied up in depot maintenance. If Boeing does this, then that is cut to something like 30 days every 8 years. So we are saving money there. In regard to competition with reference to Airbus and Boeing, I don't know where Airbus would do the maintenance. Boeing has a tremendous record with over 2,000 aircraft now serving nationwide. If we want to preserve the expeditionary capability that we must have in this new asymmetrical war in this new era in which we are fighting, it seems to me this represents a cost saving. It also represents something the Air Force wants, and it represents a way we can really upgrade their aircraft. I do not know how much time I have, but I think I made my point.

Mr. ROBERTS. Let me ask first, I thought I was granted 3 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. She only had 10 minutes to begin with.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bio- Security in Agriculture Act of 2001. I refer to the security of agriculture, our crops, our livestock production. In the wake of September 11, we increased security of the Capitol, our government buildings, airports, sports venues, and businesses. We should do the same for our agriculture and our nation's food supply. I served 2 years as chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, and now as ranking member of the subcommittee. I'm also on the Intelligence Committee and a member of the Agriculture Committee. In numerous hearings on terrorism, we repeatedly asked top scientists and biowarfare experts to assess the greatest threats to our nation. One of their greatest concerns has been the susceptibility of U.S. agriculture and the impact an attack on it could have on the agriculture economy and the Nation's food supply. It would not be difficult to take a disease such as foot-and-mouth so prevalent in Europe and introduce it into the U.S. livestock herd. With the large number of cattle and livestock operations in close proximity to each other in our feedlots and hog facilities it could quickly become an epidemic. I consider this threat to be real. I know of no specific threat, but I can tell you 2 years ago, when we asked the FBI where is the probability and where is the risk, the probability was rather low. Since the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic overseas and since the events of September 11, I can assure my colleagues the probability is rated much higher. I am not going to get into classified information, but the risk would cause utter chaos in our country. Such an attack would be devastating. One estimate for California is a loss of $14 billion should foot and mouth disease break out in that state. We know that the former Soviet Union developed ``tons'' of biowarfare agents aimed at North American agriculture. These include FMD, glanders, rust diseases for wheat and rice, and Karnal Bunt in wheat. There are other diseases that could be introduced as well. The threat is real. Yet, our federal facilities to test and do research on both containment and prevention of these diseases are outdated and in need of repair. We have approximately $700 million in the pipeline to upgrade these facilities over the next 6 to 10 years. But we cannot wait for 6 to 10 years. We need to make the investment in these facilities and the research dollars now. Why is protecting agriculture from terrorist attack important? There are several reasons: Agriculture is one of the few sectors of the economy with a trade surplus; using numbers from 1999; agriculture and agribusiness related industries accounted for approximately 22 million jobs and 16.4 percent of GDP; The overall contribution to the Nation's GDP in 1999 was $1.5 trillion; and the cheap U.S. food supply kept the total portion of individual income spent on food to 10.4 percent, or 10 and one half cents of every dollar, on food in 1999. The lowest percent of income spent on food of any country in the world. The loss of export markets resulting from the intentional introduction of these pathogens would be dramatic. The introduction of FMD or Karmal Bunt on a widespread basis could mean the total collapse of U.S. export markets. This would be devastating for a commodity such as wheat where 32 percent of total production was exported in 1999 and to agriculture in general which is one of the few sectors of the economy that operates in a trade surplus. Also, when an outbreak of FMD occurs, many of the animals are often killed to control the spread of the disease. If a massive herd reduction occurred, it could take several years to replace the lost numbers. Again the ripple effects are enormous. Individual producers will be impacted, feedlots and hog operations could be devastated, meat packers and their employees could be put out of business due to reduced slaughter numbers, and the grain markets would take enormous hits as there would be no where for the excess feed usage to go. The impact on our Nation of a widespread attack on agriculture could dwarf the airline and travel industry's loss from September 11. To keep this nightmare scenario from occurring, legislation is necessary to complete the facility upgrades needed to deal with this threat and to provide funding for the additional research to develop risk control methods, first responder response mechanisms, and development of vaccines and plant resistant varieties that are immune to these threats. The need is real, the timing is crucial, and it needs to be done now. The legislation I am introducing today will provide approximately $3.5 billion to improve and invest on a ``crash course'' to do the building upgrades and research we should have been doing for years. In fiscal year 2002, the bill calls for $1.1 billion, including: $101 million to allow USDA to meet the security levels required under Presidential Decision Directive, PDD-67, for the animal and plant disease facilities at: Plum Island, NY; the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA; the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, Athens, GA; the Arthropod-Borne Animal Disease Research Laboratory, Laramie, WY; and the Foreign Disease Weed Science Laboratory, Fort Detrick, MD. We also provide $722.8 million in fiscal year 2002 to accelerate the planning, upgrading, and construction of four of the above named facilities, including: $234 million for the Plum Island facility; $129 million to renovate the existing Biolevel 3 facilities and $105 million for planning and construction of a Biosafety level 4 facility; $381 million for modernization of the facilities in Ames, IA; $78 million for the planning and design of the biocontainment laboratory for poultry research in Athens, GA; and $29.8 million for the Arthropod- Born Animal Disease Laboratory, Laramie, WY. The bill provides $10 million in fiscal year 2002 for USDA to purchase, and distribute to each of the states, rapid diagnostic field tests that can give a definitive answer on suspected cases of FMD, Karnal bunt, anthrax, etc., in only 45 minutes. These test would represent a strengthened line of security replacing the current process where the sample is trucked to an airport, flown to one of the disease labs, tested, and then results are released anywhere from a day to 4 or 5 days later. We also make a significant investment in research with $2.71 billion provided over the next 10 years to continue work ARS is already doing with state universities and private industry, provide competitive grants for USDA to award to qualified universities and private organizations, and general funding for USDA to use in those areas where it determines we have the most pressing need. We have worked to keep from tying USDA's hands on this in order to allow them to respond to future needs or threats that may arise, but generally the research could include: Expanding on-the-spot diagnostic capabilities; conducting mapping of microorganisms and pests to pinpoint their geographical origins; genetically engineer diseases that will be effective against agents of bioterrorism concerns; improve plant resistance to potential introduced pathogens; create mass vaccine delivery systems for animals, poultry, and fish; conduct research with foreign countries to help reduce disease threats at the source and remove the natural sources of infectious agents and pests that terrorists or nations might easily access to threaten the United States; develop counter toxins; and develop economic models to assist in risk assessment and prioritization of efforts. Currently, it is difficult to determine the exact economic effect of an attack on the United States because the proper economic models do not exist. Finally, the bill provides $12 million each year for USDA to work in collaboration with the Oklahoma City counter-terrorism Institute. This is a significant amount of money. But it is an investment that requires our immediate attention. I do not want us to ignore this issue until it is too late. Nearly 2\1/2\ years ago, as chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, I warned at our first hearing that the World Trade Center was at risk of terrorist attack because of its symbolism of U.S. economic strength and indulgence. At the time, no one wanted to listen to the warning. I take no please in my prediction and the events of September 11. But I do not want us to ignore similar warnings and threats on agroterrorism until it is too late. If we do our 10.5 percent of disposable income spent on food in this country could well be a thing of the past. I urge my colleagues to support me in enacting the Biosecurity for Agriculture Act of 2001.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Bio- Security in Agriculture Act of 2001. I refer to the security of agriculture, our crops, our livestock production. In the wake of September 11, we increased security of the Capitol, our government buildings, airports, sports venues, and businesses. We should do the same for our agriculture and our nation's food supply. I served 2 years as chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, and now as ranking member of the subcommittee. I'm also on the Intelligence Committee and a member of the Agriculture Committee. In numerous hearings on terrorism, we repeatedly asked top scientists and biowarfare experts to assess the greatest threats to our nation. One of their greatest concerns has been the susceptibility of U.S. agriculture and the impact an attack on it could have on the agriculture economy and the Nation's food supply. It would not be difficult to take a disease such as foot-and-mouth so prevalent in Europe and introduce it into the U.S. livestock herd. With the large number of cattle and livestock operations in close proximity to each other in our feedlots and hog facilities it could quickly become an epidemic. I consider this threat to be real. I know of no specific threat, but I can tell you 2 years ago, when we asked the FBI where is the probability and where is the risk, the probability was rather low. Since the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic overseas and since the events of September 11, I can assure my colleagues the probability is rated much higher. I am not going to get into classified information, but the risk would cause utter chaos in our country. Such an attack would be devastating. One estimate for California is a loss of $14 billion should foot and mouth disease break out in that state. We know that the former Soviet Union developed ``tons'' of biowarfare agents aimed at North American agriculture. These include FMD, glanders, rust diseases for wheat and rice, and Karnal Bunt in wheat. There are other diseases that could be introduced as well. The threat is real. Yet, our federal facilities to test and do research on both containment and prevention of these diseases are outdated and in need of repair. We have approximately $700 million in the pipeline to upgrade these facilities over the next 6 to 10 years. But we cannot wait for 6 to 10 years. We need to make the investment in these facilities and the research dollars now. Why is protecting agriculture from terrorist attack important? There are several reasons: Agriculture is one of the few sectors of the economy with a trade surplus; using numbers from 1999; agriculture and agribusiness related industries accounted for approximately 22 million jobs and 16.4 percent of GDP; The overall contribution to the Nation's GDP in 1999 was $1.5 trillion; and the cheap U.S. food supply kept the total portion of individual income spent on food to 10.4 percent, or 10 and one half cents of every dollar, on food in 1999. The lowest percent of income spent on food of any country in the world. The loss of export markets resulting from the intentional introduction of these pathogens would be dramatic. The introduction of FMD or Karmal Bunt on a widespread basis could mean the total collapse of U.S. export markets. This would be devastating for a commodity such as wheat where 32 percent of total production was exported in 1999 and to agriculture in general which is one of the few sectors of the economy that operates in a trade surplus. Also, when an outbreak of FMD occurs, many of the animals are often killed to control the spread of the disease. If a massive herd reduction occurred, it could take several years to replace the lost numbers. Again the ripple effects are enormous. Individual producers will be impacted, feedlots and hog operations could be devastated, meat packers and their employees could be put out of business due to reduced slaughter numbers, and the grain markets would take enormous hits as there would be no where for the excess feed usage to go. The impact on our Nation of a widespread attack on agriculture could dwarf the airline and travel industry's loss from September 11. To keep this nightmare scenario from occurring, legislation is necessary to complete the facility upgrades needed to deal with this threat and to provide funding for the additional research to develop risk control methods, first responder response mechanisms, and development of vaccines and plant resistant varieties that are immune to these threats. The need is real, the timing is crucial, and it needs to be done now. The legislation I am introducing today will provide approximately $3.5 billion to improve and invest on a ``crash course'' to do the building upgrades and research we should have been doing for years. In fiscal year 2002, the bill calls for $1.1 billion, including: $101 million to allow USDA to meet the security levels required under Presidential Decision Directive, PDD-67, for the animal and plant disease facilities at: Plum Island, NY; the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA; the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory, Athens, GA; the Arthropod-Borne Animal Disease Research Laboratory, Laramie, WY; and the Foreign Disease Weed Science Laboratory, Fort Detrick, MD. We also provide $722.8 million in fiscal year 2002 to accelerate the planning, upgrading, and construction of four of the above named facilities, including: $234 million for the Plum Island facility; $129 million to renovate the existing Biolevel 3 facilities and $105 million for planning and construction of a Biosafety level 4 facility; $381 million for modernization of the facilities in Ames, IA; $78 million for the planning and design of the biocontainment laboratory for poultry research in Athens, GA; and $29.8 million for the Arthropod- Born Animal Disease Laboratory, Laramie, WY. The bill provides $10 million in fiscal year 2002 for USDA to purchase, and distribute to each of the states, rapid diagnostic field tests that can give a definitive answer on suspected cases of FMD, Karnal bunt, anthrax, etc., in only 45 minutes. These test would represent a strengthened line of security replacing the current process where the sample is trucked to an airport, flown to one of the disease labs, tested, and then results are released anywhere from a day to 4 or 5 days later. We also make a significant investment in research with $2.71 billion provided over the next 10 years to continue work ARS is already doing with state universities and private industry, provide competitive grants for USDA to award to qualified universities and private organizations, and general funding for USDA to use in those areas where it determines we have the most pressing need. We have worked to keep from tying USDA's hands on this in order to allow them to respond to future needs or threats that may arise, but generally the research could include: Expanding on-the-spot diagnostic capabilities; conducting mapping of microorganisms and pests to pinpoint their geographical origins; genetically engineer diseases that will be effective against agents of bioterrorism concerns; improve plant resistance to potential introduced pathogens; create mass vaccine delivery systems for animals, poultry, and fish; conduct research with foreign countries to help reduce disease threats at the source and remove the natural sources of infectious agents and pests that terrorists or nations might easily access to threaten the United States; develop counter toxins; and develop economic models to assist in risk assessment and prioritization of efforts. Currently, it is difficult to determine the exact economic effect of an attack on the United States because the proper economic models do not exist. Finally, the bill provides $12 million each year for USDA to work in collaboration with the Oklahoma City counter-terrorism Institute. This is a significant amount of money. But it is an investment that requires our immediate attention. I do not want us to ignore this issue until it is too late. Nearly 2\1/2\ years ago, as chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, I warned at our first hearing that the World Trade Center was at risk of terrorist attack because of its symbolism of U.S. economic strength and indulgence. At the time, no one wanted to listen to the warning. I take no please in my prediction and the events of September 11. But I do not want us to ignore similar warnings and threats on agroterrorism until it is too late. If we do our 10.5 percent of disposable income spent on food in this country could well be a thing of the past. I urge my colleagues to support me in enacting the Biosecurity for Agriculture Act of 2001.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my friend and colleague.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield again, I will try to do this one more time. We had plans A, B, C. The first plan was to create a task force. Then we thought after September 11 that yet another task force was not the thing to do. The task force was to be a clearinghouse of all the major committees that had that jurisdiction. The task force was to at least let everybody know that the left hand knew what the right hand was doing. We have had meetings like that. Members come once, staff members come later, and simply protect the turf of the subcommittee or the committees. We said: We will hold a hearing on that. Why would you want to hold a hearing when we already held one? With whom are you working downtown in terms of the agencies? And round and round and round. So we decided the task force would not fit the bill. Then we had another plan. This plan I call the Bennett plan, although I am not sure the distinguished Senator from Utah would take credit for it, or even should. But it was based on the committee that he chaired in regard to the Y2K challenge we had. In this particular case, you had the majority leader, the minority leader designating two designees to be vice chairmen, which we do. He called it the worker bees, so they could get that done. They basically were in charge of that particular effort. It didn't mean that the Commerce Committee--I do not remember the other main committee involved; perhaps it was the Governmental Affairs Committee; I may be misspeaking--could not introduce legislation and have budget authority, which they did. It was an effort to make sure that the Senate of the United States was on top of this issue and everybody knew what was occurring. When the leadership would come to Senator Bennett or Senator Dodd, the other participant, they would say: This is our best recommendation. I will say any senior committee chair who has a strong feeling, I understand that, but in the end it will have to be a decision by the executive, by our leadership, hopefully by a single committee that can serve as a clearinghouse to prioritize. I don't think we get into the budgets that much. Plan C is the one I have introduced to make sure your senior committee chairmen, or at least part of the action, are not ex officio. Plan C was put in. First, this is flexible; this is not ``the'' plan. I am trying to prompt action. Frankly, what I am trying to do when we have a problem in Dodge City, and you have to use a cattle prod and start to push a little bit, that is what we are doing. I think it is a pretty good bill, but it may not be the best bill, and there may be another way to approach this. The distinguished Senator knows what has happened. We have been talking about this now for 6 months.

Mr. ROBERTS. The same way we resolved the problems with Y2K. The leadership would have to make a decision in regard to the prioritization of what the distinguished Senator is talking about. I point out No. 8 in the summary of the bill. The select committee is to complement--complement, by coordination and prioritization--the work of other committees in the Senate on homeland security and terrorism. Other committee jurisdiction is not removed by this proposal. I cannot imagine that the Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism would not adhere to the recommendations of the Armed Services Committee, more especially the subcommittee on which I serve, and also the budget as submitted by the administration. The budget authority is more of a notification authority to this select committee. It is not ``triplication''--if there is such a word--in terms of the Budget Committee. I do not want in any way to tread on the expertise and the knowledge of the distinguished chairman and all the members of the committees that have jurisdiction. The Senator might remember we had a chart that we showed weeks ago, before September 11. The Senator may remember he was an active participant when we had the 40 agencies that came in. We asked: What is your mission? Who do you report to? Who is in charge? As a matter of fact, I think you were the Senator who showed up with the chart that showed it was a hodgepodge. It would be impossible for anyone to figure it out. I held up a much smaller chart of ``stovepipes,'' if you will. At that time, I thought there were five major committees that had jurisdiction that somehow could recommend or at least be part of this select committee, either ex officio or official. We had decided now to make them members because I didn't want to scratch that term. I have since found out there are eight, and there may be nine, and it may be growing more than that. It did affect our budget.

Mr. ROBERTS. Senator Mikulski was very active, Senator Hollings was very active, Senator Stevens was there, as I have indicated, and Senator Shelby on the Intelligence Committee. We had the Armed Services Committee, Intelligence, and the appropriators.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in the interest of germaneness and to move this bill along, I am acceding to the request by the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, and Senator Warner, our distinguished ranking member, in that I had intended on introducing an amendment. I am going to speak to the amendment. I think my decision will be to simply lay down the amendment as a freestanding bill. Having said that, I rise this morning to warn my Senate colleagues about an urgent issue facing the Senate and this Nation. This issue has been identified many times now by various respected commissions, by leaders within the military, the academic, political, and national security communities. Whether we admit it or not, the need for action is instinctively understood by most Members of this body. However, despite months and years of hearings, testimony, and warnings, until September 11 there was little sense of urgency or desire to make changes to the structure of the Senate required to address the problems of homeland security and terrorism. I know the distinguished majority leader and our Republican leader and a few other Senators and staff have certainly given this recognition serious and careful consideration. As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities within the Armed Services Committee, now the ranking member--the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu is now the chairman--I come to this issue after 3 years of hearings and testimony from virtually all the experts and more than 40 agencies of the Government. It gives me little solace and a great deal of frustration to find the fine members of the subcommittee and our excellent staff in the role of Paul Revere, but unable to awaken the Federal Government, our colleagues, and the American people. Let me share two paragraphs from the very first report our subcommittee issued to the Congress, to the press, and to the public: The terrorist threat to our citizens, both military personnel and civilians at home and abroad is real and growing. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and individual acts of terrorism have dramatically raised the stakes and increased the potential of massive casualties in the event of the terrorist attack. I further quote from the first report of the subcommittee: Further, the serious prospect that known terrorist Osama bin Laden or other terrorists might use biological and chemical weapons as well as individual acts of terrorism is of great concern. His organization is just one of approximately a dozen terrorist groups. bin Laden, for example, has called the acquisition of these weapons ``a religious duty'' and noted that how to use them is up to us. My colleagues, that was 3 years ago. We also stressed in our report that to confront this continuing and growing threat, it was critical that our governmentwide efforts to combat terrorism be coordinated and clearly focused. We noted at that time there were approximately 40 Federal departments and agencies with jurisdiction in the fight against terrorism. Last spring, members of the Intelligence, Armed Services, and Appropriations Committees for the first time joined together and asked these same agencies to testify. All claimed jurisdiction. Many claimed they were in charge. We asked them three things: What is your mission? What do you really do? Who do you report to? The bottom line: The hearings demonstrated that too many Federal agencies do not have a firm grasp of their roles and responsibilities for preventing and preparing for and responding to acts of domestic terrorism. This patchwork quilt approach is not a substitute for a national strategy, the purpose of which would be to coordinate our Federal agencies into an effective force. It seems to me the administration is now working overtime to get that job done. Obviously, the administration has the attention of all Members of the House and Senate and the American people. Along with that summation, the three committee chairmen and two subcommittee chairmen sent a list of recommendations to the Bush administration. We responded after those hearings. Now that situation has dramatically changed. The attack on the United States, the deaths of more than 6,000 Americans, and the very real probability that other attacks on the United States by terrorists are not only possible but probable require--require--that the Senate take action now to create a single entity to focus the action of the Senate--not the Federal agencies, not the House, but the Senate--on homeland security and terrorism. I remind my colleagues that as tragic as September 11 was, it was not the first act of terrorism in this regard: The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole --the Intelligence Committee, by the way, is still progressing on an investigation in regard to the U.S.S. Cole--and the bombing of our embassies. These earlier attacks and the promises and threats that prefaced them should have been the clarion call to prepare adequately for homeland security. They were not. If we now fail to properly organize and coordinate our actions in the Senate as the Nation fights a war against terrorism, we will be part of the problem, not the solution. We do not now speak with one voice. As a body and as individual Members, we do not know all of the actions being taken within the various committees and subcommittees with jurisdiction or self-declared jurisdiction over homeland security and terrorism. I know this for sure in regard to reading about hearings that were held 2 weeks before, hearings we held in the Emerging Threats Subcommittee with the same witnesses, or that there were hearings planned 2 weeks down the road from hearings we had planned, not that we had the exact answer to the problem by any means. Bluntly put, the Senate cannot be a contributing partner with the Executive to win the war against terrorism unless we are properly organized. On the other hand, we have done some good work. Last year, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, in an attempt to reduce confusion and focus action, required the Department of Defense to establish a single Assistant Secretary to speak for the Department. Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee have worked hard to require a similar single point of responsibility in the Department of Justice. Last Thursday, the President of the United States designated Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, a former colleague of ours in the House, to head up a new Cabinet-level organization to focus attention and to speak for the administration on homeland security. Last week, the House of Representatives of the United States established a subcommittee to be the single voice for the House. The Senate leadership knows, I am sure--I have talked with them at length-- that we must create a single committee in some form to coordinate and to prioritize initiatives and programs concerning homeland security and terrorism. Mr. President, we have not done so. I say to my colleagues, it is our turn to act. The select committee I am recommending with this legislation will allow us to speak with one voice and be a key partner with the administration and the House of Representatives in the war on terrorism. Before I outline my proposed legislation, let me give some background regarding this urgent need. First, there is precedent for creating a select committee to address a very significant problem. The Truman committee: Convinced that waste and corruption were strangling the Nation's efforts to mobilize itself for war in Europe, President Truman conceived the idea for a special Senate committee to investigate the national defense program. Many consider this to be one of the most productive committees in the Senate's history. The Arms Control Observer Group provided a way for Senate leaders to observe arms reduction talks and anticipate issues that might block eventual ratification. Y2K was created to examine the year 2000 problem in the executive and judicial branches of the Federal Government, State governments, and the private sector operations in the United States and abroad. Everybody owes a debt of thanks to the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, for his leadership in that regard. Each of these organizations was created to solve a particular problem in extraordinary times, and they proved to be invaluable. This is an extraordinary time. To combat terrorism and protect our homeland is an issue demanding unity of effort in the Senate. Several studies and commissions have been conducted on the threat of terrorism and the preparedness of America to cope with an attack. We all know what they are. There is the Bremer commission, the Hart-Rudman commission, the Gilmore commission, and a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies; the acronym is CSIS. Each had elements of agreement. They all recommended the following: No. 1, the threat to our homeland is real. It is not a matter of if but when. Sadly, we know the answer to when. The people who planned the terrorist attack and killed 19 of our service men and women on the U.S.S. Cole are the same kind of people who planned the attack in New York and Washington and the same kind of people who are planning the next attack. Point No. 2, from all of these commissions, all of these experts: The executive branch is fragmented and poorly organized to prepare or deal with such an attack. The President is stepping up to that issue. So is Tom Ridge. Point No. 3, the Nation needs a strategy to address the problems in international terrorism. I think the President is doing a good job on that respect with the help of his Cabinet, with the help also of the international community. Point No. 4--and this is the point I want to make as of today--the Congress is as poorly organized and fragmented as the executive branch. Finally, if we need another example of why we must coordinate our actions on this issue, we need only look at the various legislative proposals moving through the Senate to direct the administration to reorganize the executive branch to face this war on terrorism. These actions are certainly well meaning. I do not oppose each or any of them, and I do not perjure their intent or the intent of the distinguished Senators who have introduced the bills. But, I say to my colleagues, could we not better serve the Nation in this critical time if there were a single select committee to coordinate and prioritize our efforts? Could not a single committee serve the Nation better and work more closely with the President than all of the various committees we have now with some measure of jurisdiction over homeland security and terrorism? How many committees and subcommittees must the administration meet with to take action now, to put politics second and America first? How many chairmen and ranking members must Governor Ridge meet with and convince before he can take action? Could not a single coordinating and prioritizing committee better serve the Nation during this war on terrorism and serve the Senate as well? During the hearings of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, we asked all the witnesses to state what keeps them up at night, what was their biggest worry, and to prioritize homeland security threats. Their suggestions mirror the threats now receiving national press attention and the priority challenges that now face Governor Ridge as he comes to the Senate asking for immediate consideration and expedited action. The first concern mentioned by our witnesses was the danger of an attack using bioterrorism. Goodness knows, we have seen headlines about that. The probability is low or perhaps medium, but the risk is severe, if not chaotic. Were I to be asked by Governor Ridge and his staff, I would recount that concern and recommend immediate funding and policy reforms. I see the distinguished former chairman of the full Armed Services Committee, the ranking member, the gentleman I like to refer to as the ``chairman emeritus,'' the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who is very much aware of an exercise that was just taken at Andrews Air Force Base called ``Dark Winter,'' the use of biological weaponry. The results were very grim. I think both Senator Warner and this Senator would meet with Governor Ridge and say: Tom, this is something that must be addressed and is being addressed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Thompson. But on whose door will the Governor knock? Certainly, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; certainly the Armed Services Committee; perhaps our subcommittee; the Intelligence Committee; and the Government oversight committee, and, of course, the Appropriations Committee and the appropriate subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee. And let's not ever forget the growing danger of agriterrorism. So, obviously, he better knock on the door of the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee. The second priority concern stressed by the experts was the danger of a cyber-attack, or information warfare. So Director Ridge doubtlessly would knock on the door of the Commerce Committee again, as well as the Armed Services Committee, the Judiciary Committee, doubtlessly the Banking Committee and others. Now I could go on, but I think my point has been made. The third priority concern was the danger of a chemical attack, and the fourth, the danger of any possible use by a state organization or a nonstate organization of terrorists using a weapon of mass destruction. As the September 11 tragedy demonstrated, there were few threats that were not discussed or that will be as Governor and now Director Ridge comes to the Senate to brief Senators to ask for our advice, our expertise, and our support, and we have that. We have had many hearings. We have many staff experts, and we have good judgments as evidenced by the Senator from Virginia and others who have worked so hard on this issue. That is how it should be. We have a great many Senators, as I have indicated, who have considerable expertise and experience. They can, and we will, be part of the answer, but we do not have time to introduce bill after bill and hold hearing after hearing and request Governor Ridge to knock on virtually every committee and subcommittee door of the Senate in a merry-go-round of turf contests. I know that senior committee chairmen and senior ranking members and even subcommittee members and ranking subcommittee members care about turfs. Scratch their turf, and it is like Ferdinand the bull. He does not smell flowers; he gets upset. I say again, the House has acted. The administration has acted. We have not. It is time. Last Sunday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld issued the long awaited Quadrennial Defense Review. In his forward he states: The vast array of complex policy operational and even constitutional issues concerning how we organize and prepare to defend the American people are now receiving unprecedented action throughout the United States Government. Importantly, since the scope of homeland defense security responsibilities span an array of Federal, State, and local organizations, it will also require enhanced interagency processes and capabilities to effectively defend the United States against attacks. Then he went on to say: The recent establishment of the Office of Homeland Security will galvanize this vital effort. That is the word, ``galvanize.'' ``Galvanize,'' that is the word, to be sure. Various dictionaries define ``galvanize'' as follows, and I quote: To arouse to awareness and action; to spur; to startle. Erskine Childers of dictionary fame said: A blast in my ear like the voice of 50 trombones galvanized me into full consciousness and action. Mr. President, the Senate of the United States will not be able to galvanize or even play a significant part in winning the war against terrorism if in coming to the Senate the President, Tom Ridge, and the American people have to knock on 100 doors and listen to 100 different trombones. That is not galvanizing anything. My proposed legislation would do the following: First, establish a Select Committee on Homeland Security and Terrorism. It would be cochaired by the majority and the minority leaders. It would have membership designated by the leadership from committees with preeminent and primary jurisdiction. Note I said preeminent and primary jurisdiction over homeland security and terrorism. And it would be responsible to coordinate and prioritize initiatives and programs of the U.S. Government concerning homeland security and terrorism. It would submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such activities and programs. This is a modest proposal. It is not written in stone. This proposal is not perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect bill. It is one that does not take authority away from committees, despite a lot of discussion that that might be the thing to do; the committees that certainly currently have the jurisdiction over these matters. It does allow the Senate to have a single voice and a single point of contact the administration can deal with as we fight this war on terrorism. It is the right thing to do. It must be done now if the Senate is to be a key player and a meaningful partner in this Nation's war on terrorism. I have a more detailed summary of the bill. I ask unanimous consent that the summary be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I was not planning to, unless the distinguished Senator would ask me to do so. I have worked with him at great length on the Ethics Committee. Is the amendment ethical?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished chairman and my good friend and colleague for his very kind remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I will be happy to respond. The second point, which will be inserted in the Record following my remarks, the select committee would coordinate and prioritize the Federal initiatives toward genuine homeland security and preventing incidents of terrorism. It would have a legislative jurisdiction and have referred to it all legislation substantially connected to addressing homeland security and terrorism challenges, but the budget authority, of course, stemming from the Budget Committee and all the work they do and all the work the appropriators do would still remain in the Armed Services Committee. It is more of a clearinghouse. I suspect Director Ridge would come to the select committee, indicate his advice and counsel from the National Security Council, all that he has talked to, that we have the top five priorities and that, as a result, would go to our committee. We would recommend to the committees of jurisdiction, which I would think would be no more than four or five. They would not lose their jurisdiction. There was a great deal of concern, when I talked to various ranking members and chairmen of these committees, that they did not want to lose jurisdiction. Some thought about making them ex officio, but in terms of the budget authority, obviously the Senator from Kansas and the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee would have a direct say in terms of the authorization. It would be like everything else we do that is subject to our work with the appropriators.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call attention to the death, August 26, 2001, of a good friend and distinguished Kansan, Dane Gray Bales of Logan, KS. Mr. Bales was born in 1918 to a pioneer Kansas family. He served in the Army Air Corps in WWII and returned home to Kansas to work for the Hansen Oil Company. Throughout his life he was a community builder and civic leader known across the State. Fort Hays State University gave him its Distinguished Service Award in 1985. Mr. Bales is best known for his untiring support for higher education in Kansas. With his wife, Polly, he was life member of the University of Kansas Chancellor's Club, the School of Business Dean's Club, the School of Fine Arts Dean's Club, the Williams Fund, Jayhawks for higher education, the Mt. Oread Fund and other organizations. They were major contributors for the Dane and Polly Bales Organ Recital Hall and the Wolff Organ and they established the first organ professorship at the University of Kansas. I submit for the record a recent article from the Hays Daily News that comments on Mr. Bales' outstanding life of service to Kansas and the eulogy delivered by Kenneth Tidball, superintendent of schools in Logan. I ask that the article and eulogy be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Hays Daily News, Sept. 2, 2001] Logan Legacy Flags flew at half-staff. Downtown businesses closed early. For at least an hour on Wednesday afternoon, this small Phillips County community closed up shop to pay its respect to a man who was more than just a lifelong resident. Dane Bales embodied the tradition of small-town Kansas. While he carried the portfolio of an accomplished businessman, political activist and world traveler, Bales' appreciation and love for his hometown was one of his greatest attributes. It was something he had learned at an early age. His uncle, Dane G. Hansen, the namesake of a multimillion- dollar trust fund and not-for-profit foundation in downtown Logan, exemplified the same characteristics. Hansen never married, and at the time of his death in 1965, his estate, valued at between $9 million and $16 million, was left to a foundation bearing his name. Those funds were to be used explicitly for the betterment of area residents. That money had grown first from a simple general store, handed down to Hansen by his parents, Danish immigrants who were part of Logan's original settlement in the late 19th century. His business dealings later developed into a lumberyard, then road construction and finally the oil business. Ultimately, Hansen's success developed into exactly what he wanted, innumerable opportunities for Kansas residents. For 36 years, it all overseen by his nephew, the lone descendant of the Hansen family. At the time of Hansen's death, Bales was named to head the family trust and also was one of seven men handpicked by his uncle to head the Hansen Foundation. Now, Bales' widow, Polly, said the family legacy will continue, just without a family patriarch heading the board. The couple's only son, Dane G. Bales Jr., died of leukemia in May 1998. His widow, Carol, now of Atchison, still serves as a trustee for the trust and foundation. Polly Bales said legal documents stipulate that the trust will continue for 20 years after the death of the Hansen family's final descendant. That now ensures it will continue through 2021. Although his life was surrounded by great experiences and people of all walks of life, this week Bales was remembered as a man who loved a few simple things. The Rev. Ron Lowry told the hundreds of people who packed into the Logan United Methodist Church for Bales' funeral that he frequently tries to ``find the unique'' things in a person. That was a simple task this week, he said. ``There were so many unique things about Dane.'' Neighbor Kenneth Tidball talked about Bales' passion for golf. And while he loved Kansas football and basketball, golf had been his game for a number of years. He played his last round of 18 holes less than a month ago. Following a lifelong admiration for airplanes, at age 46 he learned to fly and bought his first plane. Also an accomplished ham radio operator, Lowry said he shared that hobby with Bales. As he talked to Polly Bales about it, she joked with Lowry that if he's ever able to send a message to Bales' signal, he was to notify Bales that she also expected to hear from him. ``I appreciated the kind of love they had for each other,'' Lowry said. ``They were such a complement to each other.'' The two met while students at the University of Kansas. Polly Bales said her husband of nearly 60 years was dating her roommate while they were in school. ``I was trying to get the two of them together,'' she recalled. Then one night, Bales called and asked if she wanted to go to Kansas City to attend an Ella Fitzgerald concert. ``I said, `Oh I sure did.' That's how it started. We dated for at least a year and a half. I wasn't trying to get him. I didn't really notice him, but that's how it worked out,'' she said. Their love of the Jayhawks was a shared passion. They were members of countless school-related organizations and activities, all dedicated to the promotion of higher education. For 21 years they have hosted the area KU Honors Program, and in recent years have welcomed KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway's Wheat State Whirlwind Tour to the Dane G. Hansen Memorial Museum and Hansen Plaza. They were among the first to tour with the KU Flying Jayhawks and traveled with the group on 30 international trips. They were major contributors for the Dane and Polly Bales Organ Recital Hall, adjacent to KU's performing arts center in Lawrence, and the couple since have established the university's first organ professorship. Although Polly Bales said at first they ``protested a little bit'' the name of the recital hall, school officials told them that the Board of Regents already had decided on its name. ``So much of what we have is because of the Hansens. We thought that would be the name attached to it, but they said it was done. That was what they had decided,'' said Polly Bales, a former organ student at KU. ``What an honor.'' In 1985, the couple were awarded the Fort Hays State University Distinguished Service Award. Two years later, they were included in the KU Gallery of Outstanding Kansans, and both have received the Fred Ellsworth Medallion from the university. ``We were in pretty heady company,'' Polly Bales said with a smile. Earlier this year, the couple received the Volunteers of the Year award from a 10-state district of the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. All of those recognitions, which Polly Bales said they both cherished, hang in the hallway of the couple's home, built on the same stretch of land where Bales was born and where he died, and just across the street from Hansen Plaza. ``I always told him he didn't go too far,'' Polly Bales said of her husband, joking that he was born, worked and even died in an area equivalent to the size of a couple of city blocks. His steadfast commitment to his hometown has not gone unnoticed. His death in fact brought an end to a long- standing record in Logan, 130 continuous years of business by a member of the Hansen family. This week's issue of the Logan Republican, the weekly newspaper, refers to Bales on its front page as ``a legend.'' ``The love he had for our community was extraordinary. He could have chosen to make his home anywhere in the world but he chose to stay in Logan, Kansas, where his family roots had long been a part of our community. The recognition and prestige he gave our little town will forever be remembered.'' Even among all of their success and fortune, Polly Bales said she knows her husband would be floored by all the attention showered on him this week. Floral shops delivered more than 80 arrangements in his name, and just one day's mail, full of sympathy cards and condolences, filled a couple of shoeboxes. ``He would be so thankful. I know he would,'' she said as tears filled the corners of her eyes. ``I'm so lucky that I fell into this family. They're so loving, and they've always taken care of me. But I'm going to miss him.''