Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for the work he has done in this area. His background--as a matter of fact his legal background--much of it is in the water rights area. So he certainly brings to this Chamber a good deal of not only interest but also knowledge and insight, and I thank him for that. I rise to support the Crapo amendment in this instance. I think it has a great deal to do with the West, a great deal to do with our traditional use of water. There are, I believe, major concerns behind this idea of the water conservation program. It could result in permanent acquisition of water rights. It preempts State water rights. It extends authority over endangered species to USDA which, of course, is a different operation than we have had. Endangered species is a very interesting and important aspect to land and water management in the West. It proposes a radical change to the CRP, the conservation reserve, without addressing reforms to ESA, the Endangered Species Act. Interestingly enough, the concept was never discussed in our committee, and I think it makes it more difficult and less practical to bring it up for debate that way. I am a member of the Agriculture Committee and can attest to the fact it was never debated there. I am quite sure had it been, there are several members of the committee who represent States that experience real problems with how this would impact our lands, and we would have vigorously fought to keep it out. The allocation of water in the West is done by the States. This is a real tradition and an important States rights issue to us. This is a precious commodity a producer has, and the States vigorously defend any effort that would reduce their rights to make the water allocation. This new water conservation idea is another example of the Federal Government treading on State water rights. For my constituents, the compromise reached allowing the Governors to opt in is certainly not enough. One of the real difficulties is the possibility that it could result in permanent acquisition of water rights. Program enrollment language does not mention what happens to water upon termination. That is very important. A provision claims it is not intended to preempt State water. However, if that is the intention, safeguards need to be made. They are not there. The involvement with the Endangered Species Act, without addressing reform of ESA is very important to those in the West. The jurisdiction over endangered species is under the Department of the Interior. Changing this, then, places a new provision under the Secretary of Agriculture. Obviously that is a conflict. Certainly those in the West--and I just returned from home over the weekend--have strong points of view about it. Many say if this Reid amendment is included, they do not want a farm bill. That would be a shame. I yield to my friend from Montana.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I worked on this proposition, of course, last week. Our purpose, and our goal, is to try to make the marketplace more responsive. Our cattlemen take their cattle into a marketplace, into an auction market, hopefully, to sell at the best price available. Yet we believe sometimes because packers can have their own cattle and their own feedlots prior to the time of the market, it affects that market, and they can adjust it. We only now have about three packers that have 80 percent of the control over this market. This is one of the areas that we believe ought to be remedied. We have it in the package now, and I certainly support Senator Grassley's amendment. I urge our Members to support it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I will be brief. I will come back on Monday or Tuesday and talk more about it. I rise, too, in support of the Crapo amendment. Certainly for those of us in the West there is nothing more important than water rights and how we handle those water rights, nothing more important to us than to maintain the concept of State allocation of water adjudication. And this threatens that, it preempts State water rights. It has the possibility of doing that. That could result in permanent acquisition of the water rights, which is not something that any of us want to see happen. It extends authority of the Endangered Species Act to USDA. Certainly we have enough difficulties with the way the Endangered Species Act is handled now. This is the last one of the issues. It proposes radical changes to CRP without addressing the reform of the Endangered Species Act. These two issues do not fit together and are very inconsistent. Furthermore, it never was discussed in the committee. I happen to be a member of the Agriculture Committee. This was never debated during consideration of the bill. There are a number of us on the committee who certainly would have fought vigorously to keep this language out of the bill. Madam President, I will not take any more time. Some of my colleagues want to speak. I will be back to talk more about some of the impacts I believe this amendment will have. Again, I support the Crapo amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think what we really have to do, as in the case of other kinds of issues, is look at what it is we are seeking to do. If the purpose of this EQIP program--which, by the way, is used thoroughly in my State with a lot of good success--is to limit the environmental impact, or if it is to help with the technical information necessary for operators to do something about the impact of the CAFO regulations or those kinds of things--if you want to try to find a way to limit the size of farms and redistribute income, those are two different things. The purpose here is to find the most efficient way we can to deal with the most livestock out there putting the environment at risk, so we can do something about it, and to then provide it to those people who can have the most impact on doing something about the environment. That is what it is all about. It is not about trying to keep farmers smaller or having to do with size. There is a limitation under the law on how much money can go to any operator during the period of the life of the farm bill, over the 6-year period. So I think we may want to, obviously, do something about payments, total payments. That is a different question. The question here is, how do you best utilize the resources in an effort to help farmers and ranchers deal with the question of environment and, more particularly, to deal with the regulations that have been put in place for nonpoint source pollution, and the idea of having lots and corrals and feedlots along water supply sources. I think it is very important that we look at it in a broader sense. If EQIP cost-sharing assistance is not made available to operations with a thousand animal units or more, EQIP would fail to meet the needs of the producers managing more than half the livestock in the country. If you are trying to do something about the pollution problems and give help to people who are seeking to limit the livestock's involvement in pollution of water and nonpoint source waters, then I think this kind of a limitation is not in keeping with that purpose and indeed hinders that purpose. Like my friend from Iowa, I joined with the Senator from Minnesota on several amendments, and I certainly want to continue to do that. I just don't believe this amendment helps to accomplish the goals out there for the EQIP program. So I hope people will vote against this amendment so we can move on to accomplishing environmental solutions. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, has the time for morning business expired?

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask we move forward with the vote.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, one of the things we are seeking to do, of course, in an economic stimulus package is to cause some jobs to be created. The amendment which I have offered increases the expenditure limitation on small issue bonds for manufacturing facilities. This is an amendment which would go back and readjust the limits that are in law which allow for issuing of bonds for manufacturing facilities. The amount of the bonds that can be issued in any one particular time were set in 1977 and 1978 so, obviously, things have changed since that time --in fact, many times over--as the equivalent has been changed. This amendment would make adjustments to industrial revenue bonds, the rules and regulations for manufacturing facilities. The amendment would not increase the amount of bonding capacity available to individual States. In other words, it would not be an increase of expenditures but, rather, would give more flexibility to those who are making grants to make them for a larger amount. Actually, the industrial revenue bonding capacity available to an individual State is the greater of an amount equal to $75 per State resident or $225 million. The formula is not affected by this amendment. Therefore, the amount of bonding available would not be affected. The maximum bond capital expenditure limitation on small issue bonds for manufacturing facilities has been $10 million. This amendment moves it to $20 million. It does not change the amount of money available. It simply makes more flexible the amount that could be offered for a particular facility. It provides for an inflation adjustment. This was established in 1978. The purchasing power of $10 million today is much higher, of course. This amendment provides that inflation adjuster we discussed. We have had some experience with this in our State where people seek to develop new facilities, new manufacturing facilities, which create new jobs. This allows the builder to issue bonds which are then guaranteed, which gives them a much lower rate, and encourages the development of new businesses and new bonds. It is designed primarily for software biotech manufacturing and production. It is something we ought to consider. It is not an expense but, rather, an adjustment to an existing program that makes it more consistent with today's change in the value of dollars. It addresses the financial problems caused by inflation. It amends the definition of manufacturing facilities to include a new economy, biotech and software. It allows companies to use industrial revenue bonds for research and development facilities which is a critical component. I think this can be accepted by both sides. It does not affect the cost of this bill. It does make what is available now much more flexible. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, one of the issues we are faced with, which will be most controversial, I suppose--and certainly very important--is that budget about which the Senator from Massachusetts has been talking. Obviously, there are different views as to how one deals with the budget. It is always that way. There are those who think there is a never-ending demand for more spending and, therefore, more taxes, and that the Federal Government ought to be involved in all of our activities in our lives. There are others who believe there are essential elements the Federal Government should address itself to; they change at different times, of course. So it seems to me, as we take a look at this year's budget and this year's spending and this year's taxes, we have to take a look at the situation we are in and seek to meet the goals of our time. And those goals change from time to time. America faces a unique moment in our history. Our Nation is at war, our homeland is threatened to be attacked, and our economy is in recession. If those are not factors that ought to be taken into account with respect to a budget, I don't know what would be. The President's budget has just come to Congress today, so we do not know a great deal about the details. We will be holding hearings starting tomorrow, and we will know more about it. But the outline of the budget, it seems to me, meets the requirements of victory in this war in which we are involved, as well as the tests of responsibility for those areas in which the Federal Government, indeed, has a responsibility. It holds the Government accountable for results that address the priorities of the American people: Winning the war on terrorism, strengthening the protection of our homeland, revitalizing the economy, and creating jobs. Defense spending is increased by 12 percent. His budget nearly doubles homeland security spending. So it provides for the kind of safety all of us certainly have put at the top of our priorities at this time. The growth for spending in programs outside of defense, then, are held to 2 percent. We have been having something around 6- and 7-percent growth when we have not had the terrorism threat. So growth in those areas is reduced. I think one of the interesting issues--and a little different than what we have just heard--is that the President's budget provides significant funding increases for health care, prescription drugs, education, the environment, agriculture, and retirement security, and returns to budget surpluses within 2 or 3 years if, indeed, we have the kind of economic return that we are talking about from the way we spend our dollars. The fact is we do not have the reserves that we did have; in relation to tax decreases it is a relatively small amount, about 14 percent. The remainder of the loss in revenues has been for increased spending in the war on terrorism and the recession. So if you are talking about surpluses, the way you get to deal with surpluses is to increase this economic movement forward, to increase the growth in the economy. That is where the surpluses came from, certainly not by increasing taxes at a time when we are in a recession. So the priorities, of course, will be winning the war on terrorism-- some $38 billion, a 12-percent increase, to increase the capacity of our military, to improve the living conditions of our military, and so on--and strengthening our homeland security, which, of course, whether it be boundary patrol or whether it be airline security or whether it be bioterrorism or whether it be the emergency improvement of intelligence, are things that clearly must be done. But, of course, if we are really to deal with this business of budgets and this business of surpluses, we have to deal with the economy. That is what we are going to be dealing with later this afternoon, tomorrow, and the next day in terms of an economic stimulus--to provide more push to those signs of an increased economy that we have before us. Hopefully, we can do that. The best way to guarantee surpluses in the future is to strengthen the economy. Education: This proposal builds on the successful passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, which the President and the Senator from Massachusetts had a great deal to do with and gave leadership. In fiscal year 2002, it dramatically increases to historic levels the funding for special education with $8.5 billion, boosts funding for low-income students $5 billion, funds important reading initiatives so that every child can read by the third grade, and provides $10 million for a new initiative to recruit librarians. So the idea that we are ignoring education simply is not the fact. Health care: It provides a refundable tax credit to subsidize up to 90 percent of the cost of health insurance for low- and middle-income Americans. It expands the number of community health centers by 1,200 to serve an additional 6.1 million patients. It doubles NIH medical research spending. That is this budget we are talking about. For prescription drugs, it provides $190 billion to strengthen Medicare with Medicare prescriptions over a period of the next 10 years. The environment: It provides record funding for EPA's operating budget. It fully funds the land and water conservation fund. It eliminates the park maintenance balance by 2006 if we continue to do it that way. Energy, of course, is one of the real issues. It provides $9.1 billion for incentives. At any rate, those are items in the budget. The point is that we really need to look at where we are and how we are going to best manage additional spending on our war on terrorism and providing for our safety and freedom and trying to get the economy moving so that we will have more and more revenue without increasing taxes. I cannot think of a worse time to increase taxes by eliminating tax reductions than at a time of recession. So these are the issues that each of us will have to deal with as time passes. I think we will be able to do this. Certainly, we have done it before. I think it is very important we have a budget agreed to by the Congress so we have some constraints in spending so we have a budget that says to the appropriators: Here is the amount that can be used for agriculture, and here is the amount that can be used for whatever. Otherwise, of course, there is no end to the amount of spending. There are a million things that we would like done, but we have to give some thought to what is the appropriate role of the Federal Government in terms of participation in these various programs? What is the State's role? What is the local government's role? We hear--when I am home, at least--that we have too much Federal Government in our lives, but, on the other hand, we ought to have more money for these things. You have to make decisions between items to decide if you like Government closer to the people, if you like the calls made by the bureaucracy from Washington. These are the kinds of things I believe ought to be decided. So budgets are quite more than the amount of money that is going to be spent, even though, of course, that is the discussion. Budgets are a matter of determining priorities, a matter of taking a look down the road as to where we want our country to be, what kind of programs we think are best for growth, for creating jobs, so people will be able to work in good jobs, and to be able to decide what the role of the Federal Government is vis-a-vis the other levels of government that are so important to us. These are all part of the budget. Obviously, it is very difficult to put together a budget for a massive operation such as the Federal Government. But I do believe, as we move to what have to be expenditures for the emergency that is before us, we ought to see if we can have some logical control over the remainder of the spending so this deficit, which hopefully will be a short-term deficit, does not get any larger than it has to be. These are the decisions, these are the judgments we will have to make. Different people have different ideas, but, hopefully, we will come out that way. I think the President has done a super job of putting together a budget. I think he has recognized our country's needs. I think he has also recognized the reality that we just can't keep endlessly spending and continue to grow the size of Government. It seem to me, asking for more accountability throughout the Federal Government is one of the important aspects of our future. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I will use the 10 minutes available in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Nevada in urging people to come to the floor with amendments. I am pleased we have had the opportunity to present amendments. I think the bill initially was not adequate. We do need to do that, and we are going to have an opportunity. I urge all Members to do that. We need also, of course, to give some thought to our spending. It looks as if it will be a real issue. We will be spending out of control if we are not careful. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we are all back, hopefully after a good recess and a good opportunity to visit with the folks at home and can now evaluate some of the things that have been done over the last year and, maybe more important, talk a bit about those things that are yet to come. There are many, and they are things that we must do. Certainly the stimulus package is one. I am delighted we are going to take that up and take a look at it. In some ways I think it would be well if we could hold our fire until after we hear the President's notions next Tuesday. I am sure he will talk a great deal about the stimulus package as well as the other domestic and terrorism needs. But, as we do that--as I guess in everything--I hope we take a real look, the best we can, as to what our expectations are on a stimulus package. It is easy to talk about it. It sounds good. On the other hand, in the Finance Committee, where last year we held a number of hearings and talked to quite a number of professional economists--the best in the country, as a matter of fact--as the Presiding Officer will recall, there was no real consensus as to what is best done to have the immediate impact that we would like to have on the economy. So I hope we give some thought, individually and collectively, to what it is that our goals are with respect to a stimulus package. It would be easy to begin to use that as a means for funding other kinds of things that may very well be justified as issues but not justified in this economic stimulus package. Further, I am pleased to hear, at least from some, that the prospects for the economy seem to be better even than they were when we left here back in November or December. I hope that is the case. Again, no one knows exactly what that will be. But I hope we do give this some thought and seek to move in a way that creates a better economy and creates jobs. There are people out there who need help, for various reasons. That is going to be part of it. But the real purpose is to create a better economy so there are jobs for people. It is not always easy. It is hard to get a feel for it. I was interested, a while back, to hear that in 1996, which was one of the good times for the economy, unemployment was 5.7 percent. We are never going to get rid of unemployment because obviously there is always some. I hope we do that. Second, of course, I am hopeful we can move on to agriculture, and to our farm bill. The current farm bill expires this year. Of course, we will have a new farm bill. I think all the work we have done on it over the last several months can now be picked up again and we can go forward. Again, I hope we can sort of give an image as to what we want agriculture to be over time so that we don't just deal with short-term issues. What do we want the image to be for agriculture? Do we want it to be market oriented so production is generally related to the potential of selling those goods? That is the economic system for most everything. At the same time, of course, because agriculture is unique and has unique problems, I think there needs to be a safeguard somewhere underneath. It is going to be difficult to do that. We don't want to doing something that is going to increase production for a product so that it then doesn't have market demand. At the same time, we want to protect farmers and ranchers from some of the things over which they certainly have no control. There has been quite a bit of discussion about AMTA payments that were made to the farmers over the last 6 years in the farm program. I think at least that is the perception. I think it is true the big payments have gone to relatively few. Even though we always talk about family farmers, it is also true that family farmers are getting large payments. But many are corporate farmers who get large amounts of money. We need to look at what we can do about that issue. There are a number of things I think are very important. I come from Wyoming where livestock is our largest agricultural issue, and we have lots of public land. The country of origin labeling is in our bill. It is very important. I think it is important for consumers to be able to look at a package of meat and see that it came from the United States, or, if it didn't, from where it came. That is fine. Let them have a choice. I just can't imagine why that is not labeled. Almost everything we buy has the country of origin on the label. I hope we also deal with this question of concentration of packaging. As I understand it, we have about three packers that control 80 percent of the kill. Under the marketing system, the producer goes to the auction market and gets what the livestock is worth that day. We also have an amendment on ownership of livestock. It has already been on the floor. I think that is very important. In this bill, there are provisions on conservation of land. I think that is excellent. As we talked about this bill last year, I traveled all over our State talking to people about what they wanted and what they believed the need was for their counties, their cities, and their families. One of the things they want is open space. We want to continue to have open space and some planning for those lands. CPP has been one thing, but now we are talking about something a little different--whether it is timber or grasslands--some protection for open space for family farmers and ranchers who can't really afford to set aside. Technical assistance to farmers and ranchers on waterfall is important, so they are able to continue to use water, and to protect water quality is important. That is in the bill as well, and it is increased substantially. I think that is a very good thing. There are some things in the bill about which we will differ on the floor. It will be difficult to come together on them. But I think we have an obligation to do that. One of the difficult issues is the drought issue. In the West, we are faced with many places in the third year of drought. In the West, again, where there is relatively low rainfall, one of the important issues is to have snow pack in the mountains so when it thaws out in the spring it runs into reservoirs and then it is used for irrigation. The reservoirs have been at unusually low levels--not only because of the drought this year but because of droughts in previous years. Those are some of the things with which we need to grapple. I look forward to the opportunity to do that. Another bill that will be coming up soon is the energy bill. We have heard a great deal about that. It is interesting that 6 months ago or so we had $2.50-a-gallon gasoline. We had problems. Now gas prices are down. California has apparently managed to overcome its difficulties to some extent. There has been some polling that shows many people understand that an energy policy over time is very important. I hear the accusations that all the administration wants to do is drill and produce. That is true. We worked with the bill. We have seen the drafts of policy that we put together with the administration. It has in it a number of items--production being one of them, of course, and another is alternative fuels. Another is research for alternative fuels, and another is transportation, such as electricity and transmission lines. There have to be generators to move it. I think there are some real opportunities for us to evaluate where we need to be. Clearly, the upheaval in the Middle East has something to do with our imports. We find ourselves being 60-percent dependent on imports of energy, which is more than we are comfortable with. We have some real challenges, and some real opportunities. I am hopeful. Certainly the reason we are here is because we have different views on some things. We have different views on needs, depending on where we are from and what our philosophies are. That is part of being here. There is nothing wrong with that. But we need to put those differences out there and come to some conclusions supported by the majority. I think it is going to be an exciting time. Hopefully, we can look back at the end of this year and say: Yes, we have been able to deal with the crisis of terrorism. We need to look back and be very proud of what this Congress has done in that regard. I think we need to be very proud of the American people. I have never seen such a reaction of commitment to do something about terrorism in my State, and I am sure in other places. I am very proud of America for that dedication. I certainly hope we can continue it because it is not going to be a short-term proposition. Also, because of that requirement, I think we will have to be more careful with how we spend money in the domestic area where there is additional emergency spending such as this. You can't necessarily keep spending without some consideration for emergencies. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to make a couple of general comments. As we move towards perhaps the final day, certainly very close to the final day of our time here, I hope we can move forward. We have three appropriations bills that we have been looking forward to discussing and have to finish before we end. There will probably be some discussion on particularly the Defense appropriations. Nevertheless, the bill and the issue that I suppose we will talk about the most, and seems to be one that is not agreed to, is that of economic stimulus. Certainly that will be coming forward. We have talked about it for a very long time. The President has talked about it. We have had meetings about it. The House obviously has worked out a separate proposal for us. I am hopeful that as we undertake this effort, we will decide, as we should on all of the topics that come before us, what do we want to see as the result. So often we get wrapped up entirely with the details of what is going on here, and the details obviously are important, but what is more important is what it is we want to accomplish and how will what we are talking about do that. Certainly, I hope we talk about what is the purpose of an economic stimulus package. Obviously, we are in a recession. No one seems to know exactly what the best techniques are to deal with stimulating the economy. We have listened to all kinds of economists, including our nationally celebrated economists. There are different ideas about that. Certainly, we want to see if we can't create more jobs, if we can't strengthen the economy. If it is called an economic stimulus, then certainly that has to be the purpose. How do you do that? You do it by creating jobs and investment. You do it by putting more money in the hands of the people in the countryside, particularly those who have suffered, of course. That is another alternative. The proposals we have had do both of those things in varying degrees. So I hope we can do that. There are those, of course, who believe that at this point an economic stimulus is not necessary. I don't agree with that, but it is a point of view. I was thinking this morning, listening to the TV, about politics. This is politics. Well, having different views is not unusual. Everyone in the country has different views. In many places, that is defined as standing up for what you believe. When we disagree here, it is suddenly called politics. I understand that. There are legitimate, different views. I hope we can keep in mind that certainly one of the major purposes of an economic stimulus is to stimulate the economy, to create jobs. We are not looking for a continuing assistance program. We are looking for something that will cause jobs to come back, so people can spend money. The other thing that, obviously, we want to do is assist those who have suffered as a result of the September 11 tragedy. I look forward to it. I hope we can do something that will have an impact. Frankly, we will be limited in time, but I hope we don't establish new entitlement programs through this kind of emergency program. We ought to really be serious about seeing what we can do that is effective in measuring against the results we would like to have. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I hope my colleagues will give great consideration to the amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Iowa for sharing some of his time. The Agriculture bill is a very complicated matter, of course. This is the first year I have served on the Agriculture Committee. I have been involved with agriculture all my life. In fact, of course, agriculture in different places means different things. But I am glad we are having this debate. I hope we take enough time to really have a look at all the things that are involved in a farm bill. First, I think in many cases this bill has been pushed a little too quickly. I think it was pushed too hard by the committee. I have never been on a committee with a complicated bill such as this which was brought to the Members at midnight one night and expected to be voted on at 9:30 the next morning. We did that consistently through all the titles of this bill. I have a sense that is what is happening. It is being pushed by our minority friends on the other side of the aisle with the political question. I think it is too important for that. It is something that is going to impact all of us a great deal over a good long time. I don't agree with the idea that if we don't get it done this week we will lose. I don't agree with that. I don't think that is the case at all. I think if we had a chance to be here and deal with it in January and February, we would have the same opportunity, plus the advantage of knowing more about what we are doing and having a chance to go home and talk to our folks about how it works. I continue to support a bill that moves more towards market-oriented policy, not one that is increasingly controlled by the Government, as has been the case over a period of time, but one that places more emphasis on all of agriculture as opposed to focusing on the so-called program crops as it has been in the past, one that recognizes the importance of our WTO obligations. We have, of course, a great percentage of agricultural products that go into foreign trade. If we are not careful about how we do this, we may run into the so-called amber box and find problems. I think we want to recognize the value of keeping working lands in production and not setting aside land for production only to increase the production on that land. In many cases, I believe the Harkin bill takes us in the wrong direction. It endorses higher rates. It encourages production of U.S. products that are already losing in the world market and which could even lose more. On the other hand, I think Cochran-Roberts is a really good option for us to consider. The commodity title provides substantial support for crop producers. But it provides support in a non-market-distorting manner. I think, as in most every issue--but maybe this one more than most-- we ought to take a look at where we want agriculture to be 10 years from now, what directions we want agriculture to take. Do we want farmers to become more and more dependent on Government subsidies? Do we want all those decisions to be based on what the Federal Government is going to provide or, indeed, do we want to have a safety net so that we can keep family farmers in business, and help do that, but also that that production is reflected in the marketplace, and that those things that are marketable are the ones that are sold? I think that is very important. That is what we try to do in the Cochran-Roberts amendment. The payments are considered to be WTO ``green box'' payments, so that important foreign trade will be there without being impeded or challenged by other countries. The Cochran-Roberts amendment allows producers who have never received Government assistance to obtain support through the farm savings account. Producers are able to be matched by Federal funds, but they are able to set aside for a rainy day. That is a market-oriented, private-property oriented type of approach. The conservation title boosts programs that keep our working lands in production. It recognizes the value of keeping people on the land in operation versus land retirement. Keeping working lands in production benefits open space and wildlife. Those are aspects that are terribly important to my State where much of agriculture, of course, is livestock, with the idea of keeping open space. The EQIP program helps give technical help to conservation programs and financial assistance for improving environmental quality. I think those are so important. It provides a bonus incentive for producers who have adopted long- term conservation programs. It creates a new program for the protection of Native grasslands. The loss of open space and crop land is a severe problem, particularly, I suppose, in the West. There are some important distinctions between the Harkin bill and the Cochran-Roberts substitute.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to commend the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization conferees, particularly Senator Levin and Senator Warner, for retaining the language adopted by the Senate with regard to reforming the Federal Prison Industries. During consideration of the Defense authorization bill, the Senate voted 74-24 to table an amendment that would have removed the Federal Prison Industries reform provision from the bill. Section 821 of the bill, which has now been endorsed by the conference and adopted overwhelmingly by both the House and the Senate, ends FPI's ``mandatory source'' status as a supplier of products to the Department of Defense, DOD. When this bill becomes law, FPI will be required to compete for future Department of Defense contracts that have been previously monopolized under FPI's ``mandatory source'' status dating back to 1934. Most importantly, this provision will enable the Department of Defense to determine, for itself, whether the FPI can best meet the Department's needs in terms of price, quality, and time of delivery. If the DOD determines that the FPI product is not the best one available, the Department can purchase a more competitive product to meet its needs. I would like to point out that by eliminating the Federal Prison Industries' mandatory source status, this reform affects another controversial marketing scheme that the FPI developed in recent years. As a result of this bill, the FPI will no longer be able to require Defense contractors to use their products. Let me give an example of what this means: when the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, NAVFAC, the Corps of Engineers, Air Force, or any other Defense agency issues a contract for architect-engineer, A/E, services, the A/E firm cannot be forced to specify FPI products, such as office furniture systems, in its designs and specifications. It is my view that architects and engineers should be free to specify products, such as modular office systems, interior design, and other products, that provide the highest quality design, best value, and greatest functionality to the Federal Government. Should the FPI continue to mandate that subcontractors use FPI products it would be in direct conflict with the underlying provisions of the Defense authorization language--in effect circumventing congressional intent. Mr. President, I also want my colleagues to know that there are still a number of issues related to the practices of the Federal Prison Industries that Congress must address in the near future. Senator Levin and I have introduced a broader initiative--S. 1295--that seeks to make a number of needed, government-wide reforms affecting the sales and services by FPI. We are also working with the bipartisan team of Representatives Hoekstra, Frank, Collins, Maloney, and Sensenbrenner of their companion bill, H.R. 1577. It is my hope that when we return in January, Congress will take up comprehensive Federal Prison Industry reform. It is also my strong desire that the Bush administration address this issue administratively. Many of the problems we are experiencing with the FPI have not been the result of legislative action, but rather administrative expansion. I look forward to working with Senator Levin and Senator Warner in oversight of the implementation of this provision in the Defense Department's acquisition regulations. I have a long record of interest in the issue of unfair government competition with the private sector. When the government needs commercially available products and services, the government should go to the competitive, private sector market to procure those services. Such full and open competition leads to the highest quality, the most fair and reasonable price, and the overall best value for the taxpayer. I am pleased the Congress is taking another step in that direction by enacting the FPI reforms in this bill. Once again, I commend Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their leadership, and I thank them for the cooperation they have extended to me in this matter.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I have been listening to the conversation and debate here. Although I am, frankly, not as familiar with the details of it as I might be, I am sympathetic to what the Senator from Missouri is seeking to do. I deal, of course, as most of us do, with agriculture at all time in my State, where agriculture, public lands, and grazing are very much an integral part of our economy and indeed our society. So regulations have a great deal to do with the opportunities we have, for instance, for multiple use of public lands. They have had a great deal of impact on what we have done with clean water and nonpoint source water propositions, and so on. Regulations are put out there, quite often, without a real evaluation of what impact they have. We have been dealing with one for a long time on the endangered species. I think this species was nominated, but if someone looked at it before it was implemented, I think the conclusion was that this was not a legitimate listing. But work as we try, we can't seem to do much about that. So it does seem to me that the congressional oversight is certainly there, but we don't get into the details of every application of every regulation. That is not the role of Congress but, rather, to deal more broadly with the authorities. I think it is so interesting sometimes to see how different people in different agencies, under the same statutes, can come up with quite different ideas. So it seems to me it would make sense to have some kind of oversight on agriculture and take a look at what is done and promoted by some of these other agencies. The lack of having that opportunity generally causes us to end up in a myriad of lawsuits. And we are more governed by lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits than we are by analysis of the impacts. The proposal by the Senator from Missouri has a great deal of value. I suggest my colleagues favorably support his amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.