Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in offering this amendment to help increase smart competition in the livestock sector. I think for a number of years we have observed changes that have taken place in agriculture. In my State, agriculture is largely livestock, beef, and we feel strongly about that. We have more producers and fewer processing. This can cause problems. Increasingly apparent is the difference between the cost the producers receive and the retail costs. There is a great differential. One wonders if some of the prices that go to producers from processors are where they ought to be. Additional regulation becomes necessary because of a loophole that has been there for some time. My colleagues and I have been concerned about that. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 does not clearly define or address packers owning livestock for slaughter. This amendment would prohibit packers, meatpacking companies, from owning and feeding livestock--with the exception of producer-owned cooperatives and small meatpacking companies. An exemption for cooperatives is included as recognition and reward to producers who have invested their resources to enhance their own market niche. I think we will see more of this--I hope that, indeed, we do--where producers are more involved in processing and moving their products on to the retail area. By placing a prohibition on meatpacking companies, our efforts today will be branded as anticompetitive, in support of big Government versus free market. The intentions are obviously just the opposite. Our goal is to restore competition in livestock markets. Reform, I believe, is long overdue. Livestock markets have become increasingly concentrated. Producers have fewer options for selling their products. Four top meatpacking firms control roughly 80 percent of today's slaughter market. Less than 20 years ago, four top firms controlled only 36 percent of the market. So times have changed. Some of the rules need to change. This is an opportunity to look at that. We saw examples where the on-farm price of commodities goes down at the same time retail prices go up or remain constant. The problem of price disparity, I believe, is somewhat, at least, attributable to market concentration and that is what this amendment addresses. This amendment should be our first step toward making fair markets for our producers. I certainly urge support for this amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Acreage Chargeability Act of 2001. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 restricts the interests a company can own in Federal oil and gas leases in any one State to 246,080 acres. This legislation alters the acreage cap for oil and gas leases on federal lands so that producing leases are not included in the existing Statewide acreage limitation. This provides an incentive for producers to keep domestic acreage in production or to turn the leases over to another operator who will. Historically, the acreage limitation in the Mineral Leasing Act responded to public concern over a few major integrated oil companies locking up potential supplies of crude oil from Federal lands in the West. As originally enacted, the Act forbade any person from owning more than three Federal oil and gas leases in any state and more than one lease in an oil and gas field. In 1926, the restriction was converted from leases into acres and the acreage limit was increased to 7,680 acres in any state. The Congress, on three other occasions, has further expanded the number of acres a lessee may hold to 15,360 acres in 1946, to 46,080 acres per state in 1954, and to its present 246,080 acres in 1960. Under present-day conditions increased acreage and more time are necessary to protect the huge investments now needed to maintain rates of discovery. Today, companies are able to administratively exempt Federal acreage from the 246,080-acre limit per state either through unitization or by the creation of a development contract. At this time, the BLM only allows development contracts in situations where the acreage is considered wildcat. The BLM has been extremely cooperative in working with companies that find themselves bumping up against or exceeding the acreage cap. However, the time has come to pass legislation that will encourage the sizeable capital investment that will be needed to promote orderly and environmentally responsible exploration, development, and production of natural gas and oil from the public lands of the United States. In our modern economy, the acreage limitations of the Mineral Leasing Act appear as historical relics, ill suited to their original task of promoting competition. The acreage limitations of the Act are once again inhibiting a company's ability to assemble sufficient blocks of acreage to efficiently explore promising natural gas and oil prospects. Companies are also unable to adequately finance the development of those prospects and related infrastructure such as pipelines. Exacerbating the acreage situation further, is the trend toward mergers and acquisitions taking place in the oil and gas industry. The Federal Acreage Chargeability Act of 2001 amends the acreage limitation provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 in such a manner that is truly reflective of today's exploration and production techniques and economics. Given the uncertain natural gas and oil supply situation that this country faces, it is even more critical to reform the outdated existing Federal acreage limitation provisions. The Federal Acreage Chargeability Act of 2001 amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 by exempting oil and natural gas producing acreage from being counted against the Federal acreage cap. Acreage limitations for other federal minerals such as coal and trona have also been revised upward over the years. Last Congress, I authored legislation that passed and was signed into law that raised the acreage limits for both Federal coal and trona leases due to industry consolidation and international competition. The domestic natural gas and oil industry is certainly facing these same concerns. In recognition of the economics and technological advances of exploring for and producing domestic natural gas and oil on our public lands, and the national goal of increasing both domestic production and environmental efficiency, make now the right time to enact the Federal Acreage Chargeability Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Idaho. It is an interesting issue. It affects much of the country, all the way from Wyoming to Hawaii cane sugar, Louisiana, down to Florida, back through our part of the world. We are talking about an industry that provides nearly 400,000 jobs. It has been said that this is a small, minute industry. It is not. In fact, in my State it is one of the few agricultural crops which are refined, ready for the market, ready for the shelf when they leave our State. So we have factories there that provide employment, of course. In many rural communities, sugar is a very important economic issue, not only to farmers but also to processors. Economically, it generates $26 million annually. The debate over sugar takes place nearly every year, and the same arguments come up year after year. The fact is, there is a solid reason to have an industry of this kind, and I hope it will continue in the future. By world standards, U.S. producers are highly efficient-- eighteenth lowest in the cost of production out of 96 producing countries and regions--despite, of course, having the highest labor and environmental standards. Some of the lowest cost is produced in the West. So we are interested and involved in that. As was pointed out, often there is talk about the world market. The fact is, the world market is a dump market. It is what remains after the other countries use all they can and put it on the market. It is not an economic cost. To compare that is simply not true. The current prices in all world export markets are dumped. Of course, as was mentioned, one of the things we have just gone through in terms of Canada is the unfair situation called stuffed molasses, where it is against the trade arrangements to bring in sugar. So they mix sugar and molasses, bring it across the line, take it back out of the molasses and market it as sugar. Fortunately, we were able to get a court decision on that. Hopefully that gimmick is closed. We will continue to work on it, of course. The fact is that consumers do benefit. The retail price of sugar is virtually unchanged since 1990. Our prices are 20 percent below developed market prices. And interestingly enough, as is the case with lots of agriculture, the product price to the producer is quite different than to the consumer. I think it points it out here. The producer price, since 1996, is down 23 percent. At the same time, the consumer price is up 6 percent. So the idea that this program is a handicap to consumers is simply not accurate. As I said, the price for sugar to the producer has fallen 23 percent, but grocery stores have not lowered their price. Cereal is up 6 percent. Cookies and cake are up 10 percent. Ice cream --my favorite thing--up 21 percent. So we have a program that affects many people, which has been good for consumers in this country. We have a program that has generated a good deal of money and since 1990 in market assessment tax. We have lots of good things in this program, and we need to continue to make sure it is there for consumers and it is there for producers. I want to mention a couple of other items. As an industry, the U.S. retail price is 20 percent below the average of developed countries. It is third from the lowest in the world in the retail price of sugar. That is interesting, and it is good for consumers. Certainly, in terms of the work required to buy a pound of sugar, the United States is third from the bottom, only above Switzerland and Singapore. So in terms of our economy, sugar is a bargain for the consumer. As I mentioned, these prices have gone up. So we have a program that has worked, a program that is very important to consumers, to producers and processors, and it will be changed some. We are going to have more within the industry an effort to control production so we don't have excessive production. That is going to be done. Not only have we had a good program, we are in the process of having an even stronger program. I will resist the amendment on the floor and urge my fellow Senators to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Acreage Chargeability Act of 2001. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 restricts the interests a company can own in Federal oil and gas leases in any one State to 246,080 acres. This legislation alters the acreage cap for oil and gas leases on federal lands so that producing leases are not included in the existing Statewide acreage limitation. This provides an incentive for producers to keep domestic acreage in production or to turn the leases over to another operator who will. Historically, the acreage limitation in the Mineral Leasing Act responded to public concern over a few major integrated oil companies locking up potential supplies of crude oil from Federal lands in the West. As originally enacted, the Act forbade any person from owning more than three Federal oil and gas leases in any state and more than one lease in an oil and gas field. In 1926, the restriction was converted from leases into acres and the acreage limit was increased to 7,680 acres in any state. The Congress, on three other occasions, has further expanded the number of acres a lessee may hold to 15,360 acres in 1946, to 46,080 acres per state in 1954, and to its present 246,080 acres in 1960. Under present-day conditions increased acreage and more time are necessary to protect the huge investments now needed to maintain rates of discovery. Today, companies are able to administratively exempt Federal acreage from the 246,080-acre limit per state either through unitization or by the creation of a development contract. At this time, the BLM only allows development contracts in situations where the acreage is considered wildcat. The BLM has been extremely cooperative in working with companies that find themselves bumping up against or exceeding the acreage cap. However, the time has come to pass legislation that will encourage the sizeable capital investment that will be needed to promote orderly and environmentally responsible exploration, development, and production of natural gas and oil from the public lands of the United States. In our modern economy, the acreage limitations of the Mineral Leasing Act appear as historical relics, ill suited to their original task of promoting competition. The acreage limitations of the Act are once again inhibiting a company's ability to assemble sufficient blocks of acreage to efficiently explore promising natural gas and oil prospects. Companies are also unable to adequately finance the development of those prospects and related infrastructure such as pipelines. Exacerbating the acreage situation further, is the trend toward mergers and acquisitions taking place in the oil and gas industry. The Federal Acreage Chargeability Act of 2001 amends the acreage limitation provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 in such a manner that is truly reflective of today's exploration and production techniques and economics. Given the uncertain natural gas and oil supply situation that this country faces, it is even more critical to reform the outdated existing Federal acreage limitation provisions. The Federal Acreage Chargeability Act of 2001 amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 by exempting oil and natural gas producing acreage from being counted against the Federal acreage cap. Acreage limitations for other federal minerals such as coal and trona have also been revised upward over the years. Last Congress, I authored legislation that passed and was signed into law that raised the acreage limits for both Federal coal and trona leases due to industry consolidation and international competition. The domestic natural gas and oil industry is certainly facing these same concerns. In recognition of the economics and technological advances of exploring for and producing domestic natural gas and oil on our public lands, and the national goal of increasing both domestic production and environmental efficiency, make now the right time to enact the Federal Acreage Chargeability Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I object. I am afraid there is not time for all amendments. I object.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to talk about a number of things. First, we are talking about the farm bill, but we have taken many different directions in terms of the economic stimulus. It needs to be extended. The President suggested a package. The Republicans did not have anything to say about the bill that came out of committee. It was totally Democrat. We need to make some changes in order to get this done. This isn't about the House. The only talk has been about what the House has done. They can do what they choose. We ought to do what we think is right. The President asked for an extension of unemployment benefits for 13 weeks for Americans who lost their jobs due to the terrorist attacks. I am sure some will agree with that. He asked for $11 billion for the States to help low-income workers obtain health insurance for a certain period of time. I suppose everyone would agree with that to maintain that sort of help, wouldn't they? Also, of course, in order to create some jobs, we have been talking about accelerated depreciation to encourage companies to go ahead and purchase material and purchase machinery to create jobs. That is really what it is all about. Partial expensing, tax relief for low- and moderate-income workers--these are things that are all in the package. It isn't as if everyone has a different idea, but we ought to have a chance to talk about them. We ought to have a chance to bring up those things and to decide what the majority of this body would like. I am sorry, I do not quite understand how we got off into this: If the Democrats do not agree, then nothing should happen; if the Republicans do not agree, then nothing should happen. That is not the way we should operate. So I am hopeful we can do this. I indeed think we should. We are going to have to make some decisions in terms of priorities. Obviously, there is not much time left, whether we get out this week or whether we stay until Christmas. In either case, there is not a lot of time. We have three more appropriations bills in conference that have to be resolved. Those have to be done. We got through a tough appropriations bill last Friday by staying here until 12:30 on Friday night. We will have a tough one with Health and Human Services, I am sure. But those need to be done. Then we need to make judgments whether we are going to have energy, whether we are going to have a farm bill, whether we are going to have the insurance package--a lot of things that people talk about having. The question is, What is the priority for us at this time? Quite frankly, I think the leadership has been a little slow in trying to set forth their priorities. There is no use listing 15 different things people would like to do. We are not going to do that, obviously. Indeed, in many cases we perhaps are better off to take a little more time on these tough bills to really decide where we want to be in 10 or 15 years, such as in agriculture, as to what we want agriculture to look like over a period of time. What we do on this bill is going to have a great deal of impact on agriculture. This bill will last for 6 years, but it will have an impact beyond that. Quite frankly, we have wrestled with this issue for quite some time. I have been involved in agriculture all my life in one way or another. We seem to kind of move in short spurts to take care of what the problem is here, what the problem is there; and, yes, you have to do that, of course. But the fact is, we ought to be looking at a policy that takes us down the road to where we want to be, where we have a safety net of some kind for agriculture, where agricultural production is needed in the marketplace, where there is a marketplace for agricultural production, where we do some of the kinds of things that will maintain open spaces and the conservation and land over time that we would like to have. Those are the kinds of long-term things that I think are very important. So as we undertake farm bills, they need to be given a lot of thought. That did not happen in the committee, as a matter of fact. We only had a very short time to deal with it. And it became an issue for the chairman, the leadership, to get that bill out in 10 days, or a week or so. So we were talking about various numbers of titles. We would get the title of the proposal one night and try to vote on it the next morning. That isn't the way to do it. We did not have time to digest it, let alone have an opportunity to talk with the people at home in terms of how it would impact agriculture. And that really is part of it. The bill that is before us now is, of course, the Harkin bill. I think we need to support a bill that will continue to move agriculture towards a market-oriented situation so that the emphasis and the incentives for agriculture are to produce those things the price would indicate are to be marketed. There are programs in the past we have used with certain very high price supports that encouraged production in which there was no marketability. Everyone wants to have this underpinning support, of course, but then you have to be very careful as to what you do with that. We need to place more emphasis on broader agriculture. Agriculture bills that started generally in the 1930s were oriented towards what are called the program crops. They are corn and soybeans and half a dozen crops, mostly in the Middle West. And now agriculture has changed to where you have all kinds of crops in all kinds of places. So I think in the future, as we look to where we want to go, we have to find a program that deals with more people in agriculture for some kind of safety net security. Some 40 percent of agricultural products goes into foreign trade. So we have to deal with the kind of trade arrangements that we have around the world, WTO particularly. We have to have a farm program that does not conflict there or allows other countries to put up obstacles to our foreign trade. So those are the kinds of issues that need to be considered. We need to keep working lands in production. The idea of having a program that sets aside acres and acres of land in some kind of conservation reserve, where they are no longer productive, is not an economically sound policy to have over time. What we need to do is have a conservation program that impacts all of these acres and lets them continue to be useful, whether it is grass, whether it is trees, or whatever it turns out to be. The bill before us generally takes us in the wrong direction, takes us back towards the agricultural programs of the 1930s during the Depression. It endorses higher loan rates which would encourage overproduction. Prices for U.S. products, that are almost out of reach for our markets around the world, will be even higher. It has a commodity title that puts, because of our arrangements in world trade, our producers and industry at risk of retaliation. It threatens to exceed our so-called ``amber box'' obligations in WTO. They are watching every move we make to see if that is or is not the case. And it can impede us with the kinds of difficulties it brings. The conservation title is really sort of a gimmick. It substantially boosts conservation spending in fiscal years 2002 to 2006 and then reduces it dramatically for the remainder of the time simply to make it fit into the budget. That isn't going to work over a period of time. That is a ballooning of expenditures early to make it acceptable, and then it does not continue until the bill expires. So these are some of the issues with which we are faced. We can change those if we have an opportunity to have amendments, if we have an opportunity to consider a bill that will be proposed as an alternative that has some different ideas in it. We should have an opportunity to vote on that. But with more and more environmental provisions that landowners and farmers and ranchers have to abide with--and, indeed, in some cases at least they should--then there needs to be assistance for that, assistance in the future to have the kind of technical help that is required, for instance, in nonpoint source water protection. There are lots of things that have to be done to comply with EPA regulations by landowners. They need help to do that. That is one of the things that ought to be done. We ought to be able to have a budget that goes out over time. The Cochran-Roberts amendment will be a substitute that takes a little different direction, gives us an option, gives us a chance to do some things. The payments are considered to be WTO ``green box'' payments, so you can have support for agriculture without running into conflicts in terms of trade. It will not place our producers at risk for a challenge from other countries. It gives an opportunity to producers to obtain support through a farm savings account so they can continue to save with the help of Government contributions. The conservation title has programs that keep working lands in production, and it extends it beyond the program crops. My State, of course, is largely a livestock State, so conservation that applies to grasslands, and those kinds of things, is equally as interesting. There is a program called the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, QUIP, which provides technical assistance. That is a program that is quite important, I believe. So we are going to have an opportunity to look at some of the options to see if we can do the things that I think are most important; that is, to have a plan over time that provides for the encouragement of production, production that will then be marketed, that provides for the conservation of all the lands, so when we are through with the land, we will see that we have open spaces and that we have an effort made through this program to develop more and more markets, whether they be overseas or whether they be domestic, and that it is fiscally responsible so that we have a budget for the entire length of the bill and one that is trade compliant. I am certainly in favor of us having a bill. I don't think it makes a world of difference whether it is done in the next week or whether it is done in the early part of next year. The Budget Committee chairman from North Dakota continues to say we won't have the money next year. I don't see any reason why we don't have as much money in February as we do in December. There won't be a new budget by that time. Things will not have changed. If we could do a better job by having a little more time to work on it, I favor that. If we can get the job done in the short while and have the opportunity to make the changes, have the opportunity to examine the contents of the bill--which, frankly, most of us have not even had, and we are on the committee--then that is the need that we must have. I look forward to us moving forward and accomplishing those things. I do hope that we do set our priorities on timing and do not move into this question of trying to do everything. That is always a problem at the end of a session. Everything that has not been done up to that time, regardless of the reason it has not been done, suddenly becomes the most important action that could ever occur and has to be done in the last few days. We have had enough experience of knowing that many times those things don't turn out as well as they should. I am hopeful we will deal with these things with as much time and knowledge and opportunity to participate as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Mow of the Senate Energy Committee be granted floor privileges during this debate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I am not certain of that. I only know this nomination has been waiting now for over 200 days.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask unanimous consent the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, proceed to executive session no later than December 14 to consider Calendar No. 471, the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor. I further ask consent that there be 3 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form. I ask consent, following the use and yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I object. All the agreements have not been made on both sides.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise today to make a few comments on a bill introduced earlier this week and about which I have not had a chance to talk. I introduced it along with Senator Lincoln of Arkansas. It is called the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2001. I am very happy to have had an opportunity to introduce this bill. It is important legislation, particularly for seniors living in rural areas. The bill is designed to provide more opportunities for seniors under Medicare to have professional assistance in areas where often there are shortages of providers, and this is designed to help that situation. It permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for their services, and it pays them at the rate of clinical social workers. It is particularly important in rural States, such as my State of Wyoming, where often there is a shortage of mental health providers, and so it requires a good deal of travel. On the other hand, there are trained social workers who are prepared to provide these services if they have an opportunity to do it under the Medicare Program. That is what this bill does. Currently, there are Medicare limitations on the types of mental health providers. Rural seniors are often forced to travel a good distance to take advantage of those services. Mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists are often the only mental health providers in a community. They have the same training and education as clinical social workers. Social workers have been recognized by Medicare for 10 years. Seniors, of course, do have higher rates of suicide and depression than other populations. Therefore, it is very evident that this change is needed. We need to recognize the qualifications of these providers and ensure that seniors do have access to them. The majority of Wyoming communities are mental health professional shortage areas and probably will continue to be that way for some time. Because Medicare recognizes a limited number of mental health providers, Wyoming seniors have access to 537 providers, 247 social workers, and 121 psychiatrists. This bill will double the number of available Medicare mental health providers. Seventy-five percent of 518 national designated mental health professional shortage areas are in rural areas. Again, not a surprise. One-fifth of rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties, of course, as they are designated in terms of mental health providers, are in even more dire straits. Ninety-five percent do not have psychiatrists, 68 percent do not have psychologists, and 78 percent do not have social workers. I am proud to be an author of this bill, along with Senator Lincoln. I hope we will make some progress as soon as possible. It will perhaps not be this year, I imagine, but it will be as we move on into Medicare reform, which I think we will certainly undertake next year.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to make a comment or two about the subject we are going to debate this morning. It seems to me certainly there is nothing more important for us to undertake than the matter of appropriations for defense. I think the Senate needs to be responsive to the President's request for defense funding in not adding non- defense spending to this Defense appropriations bill. Our men and women in the military are overseas defending this country, and we must support them. This appropriations bill, as other appropriations bills, obviously should have been passed back in August or September, the end of the fiscal year. We have gone 2 months now without increasing those dollars. So I hope we can move forward, and I hope we do not hold this bill hostage to some kind of fairly unrelated spending. We ought to get right to it and do what the President has asked us to do. He has indicated what we did in the $40 billion in September is available. He has indicated when they need more money, whether it be for defense or domestic terrorism, he will request more money. So I certainly hope we do not spend a great deal of time trying to add more dollars to Defense appropriations than what the President had asked. He has made it quite clear he intends to veto it if it is that way. I think that would be a real disadvantage to us all and to the people we are intending to assist. I look forward to being able to deal with that, to come up with something we can pass through the Senate and the House, get to the President, and that we can support the President in this area of defense. I think we find ourselves sometimes talking about spending money when there is not a plan yet to use it. Domestic security is one of those things. We have seen meetings where they are working together and Governor Ridge has said when we get the plan we will ask for the money that is necessary if it is not now in the $20 billion. So to go ahead and sort of put the money out there before those who are managing the program have had an opportunity to decide how that money can best be used is a mistake. I hope we do not do that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk about the farm bill for a moment. I have been listening to my friend from North Dakota talk in general terms of where we ought to be and what we want to do for the world, but we have not talked about how we get there. There ought to be some target, instead of talking about having food. That is great. The fact is, we are talking about a policy. Look at this bill. It was brought up to the Chamber this morning. There is a lot of detail in this legislation. What we need to be talking about and have been talking about but have not completed is a vision of where we want to go, what do we want agriculture and our food system to be in 10 or 15 years. My colleagues talk about the politics of it, of course, and that is great. They can talk about distributing funds to everyone, and that is great. All of us want some safety net in agriculture, and we will work to do that, but we have to go beyond that and take a look at how we get there and what is the best way to do that. Quite frankly, I have been involved in agriculture. My friend was talking about coming from a town of 300. I come from Wapiti, WY. That is not even a town; it is a post office. I know a little about agriculture. That has been my life as well, a different kind of agriculture to be sure, and that is one of the issues. There are all kinds of agriculture with which we have to deal. The Bush administration took a look at it and they had a statement I thought was good. They believe farm policy should ensure compatibility between domestic and trade objectives. Have we talked about that? No, we have not. Support open markets. Did we talk about markets? No, we did not. Provide market-oriented farm safety net? I think all of us want to do that, not create undue uncertainty. These are the principles we ought to have as we move forward. I am a member of the Agriculture Committee. I am a new member of the Agriculture Committee this year, as a matter of fact. The idea of finishing on Friday bothers me a little bit because this bill was jammed through the committee in time that most of us did not even have a chance to take a look at what was being proposed. It was brought up when we, quite frankly, ought to have been dealing with our economic stimulus package. We ought to be dealing with doing the appropriations and those matters that really have impact. The farm bill does not expire until next August. I am one who thinks, yes, we ought to go for it after we get back in January so farmers will have some idea, before planting time, as to what they look forward to in the future. But the idea that we take something like this that hardly anyone in this whole place has looked at and pass it in 2 days is criminal, and I hope that does not happen. I objected as we went through this bill a time or two simply because we have not had an opportunity to look at various complicated titles, and they are complicated. We were asked to deal with titles such as conservation, for example, in a markup in the morning when we did not even get the language until some of the staff got it at midnight the night before. I do not think that is a very responsible way to deal with a bill that is as important as this Agriculture bill. It is my opinion the committee moved much too quickly. We did not have an opportunity to find out what was in the particular title, whether it be marketing titles, competition titles, conservation titles, or commodity titles. Did we have a chance to talk a little bit about the projected ideas and the proposals with people at home in the business? No, we did not. We did not even receive the language until midnight the night before the markup. So I think we need to take a little time and look at all the aspects. Agriculture is a complicated industry everywhere. In every State, it is a little different. I am from Wyoming. Our largest activity, of course, is livestock, mostly cattle, some sheep, but we also have crops. Interestingly enough, our largest cash crop in Wyoming is sugar beets. So each of us is different. As we went through this in the committee, people were talking about cranberries, about cherries, about apples. That is okay, but it takes a little time to put together a responsible kind of policy to deal with those issues. During the time the committee was working on the bill, we never did get overall scoring. We never did get a real look at what it was going to cost. Indeed, after the committee was directly forced to deal with it before it was brought to the Senate, changes had to be made which we did not even have anything to do with. That is not the system I believe ought to be used in this place, especially when we are talking about something as complicated and far-reaching that impacts as many people as does a policy for farming. As we went through the bill, the chairman would talk about a reconciliation process, that after we have waded through the first part of it we could come back and do it. We did not even get a chance to look at the reconciliation until it is now being considered. So I have to say that as interested as I am--and as I said, my own background is in agriculture. I have always been involved with agriculture, so I am very much interested in it, not only because of whom I represent in Wyoming but because I am personally very interested in a successful agriculture that has some opportunity to be market-oriented so we are producing those commodities that the market requests, so that we can build new markets overseas, which we have to do in order to have a program of that kind. So it is a complicated matter, and we really need to move on with that. As I have said repeatedly, I asked for a little more time in the committee, but we did not get it so we will deal with it as we are, and there will be amendments we can take a look at. Quite frankly, we may be dealing with Defense appropriations before this is completed. We may be dealing with economic stimulus. In any event, we ought to be taking a look at where we want to be over time. We ought to promote the idea of family farms instead of the big corporate farms, of course, so that families can afford to stay on those farms and be effective. We need to find additional markets. We produce more than we are going to consume. So in order to be an effective industry, we have to find markets and move there. I think we have to be very careful, as we are in this trade business, that the things we do will fit into trade, the so-called green box, the WTO, or the amber box. If we find we do not have these payments that fit into the WTO rules, then we have some difficulties in being able to do that. I happen to think one of the most important issues we ought to look at is conservation. In my part of the world--and I think it may be even more important other places--people would like to see open space remain. One of the best ways to do that is to have successful agriculture, of course. We need to do that. There are a great many things we must do and I think we can do. I think there is more emphasis on conservation, whether it is grasslands or whether it is timber or whether it is crop lands itself. These are the kinds of things we need to think about. We need to have a thoughtful bill which we have time to discuss and not jam through because of the political expediency of getting it done before this year is over. I do not think that is the best reason to come up with something that has not had the kind of consideration and thought we look forward to having. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, are we on the farm bill?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2001 with my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2001 permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for their services. This will result in an increased choice of providers for seniors and enhance their ability to access mental health services in their communities. This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns a mental health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law, as it exists today, compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists are able to bill Medicare for their services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have disproportionally higher rates of depression and suicide than other populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering statistics. Providing mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key part of the solution. Virtually all of my State of Wyoming is a mental health professional shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming has 169 psychologists, 121 psychiatrists, and 247 social workers for a total of 537 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2001 will double the number of mental health providers available to seniors in my State with the addition of 517 mental health counselors and 55 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the State. In crafting this legislation Senator Lincoln and I worked with numerous outside organizations with an interest in this issue. As a result of this collaboration, the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2001'' is strongly supported by the American Counseling Association, the Wyoming Counseling Association, the American Mental Health Counselors Association, the Arkansas Mental Health Counselors Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the Wyoming and Arkansas Chapters of the Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, and the National Rural Health Association. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our Nation's Seniors and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of endorsement from supporting organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are hopefully working down to the end of this session. We have completed most of those things that we need to do. We need now to focus on those remaining items that I think are imperative for us to complete. Obviously, there are lots of things that could be done. The fact is, we have spent an extraordinary amount of money. We are going to exceed our budget with the budget activities and, of course, about $50 billion in addition to that. I agree that it should indeed be spent for those things. We are in an emergency situation with the terrorists. We are in an emergency situation with the economy. The two things I believe we have to do are, No. 1, finish our appropriations. We are moving along. The House passed one of the most difficult bills yesterday. We will now undertake to do Defense appropriations. There are about four more with which we need to deal. Then we need to finish a stimulus package. The President has called upon the Senate to pass a responsible economic stimulus bill. It is difficult to identify what will have a short-term impact on the economy. Our economy is much lower than we would like. Indeed, as has been said, we are in a recession. But we need to do something that will have some impact. The President has suggested a package that would extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks for Americans who lost their jobs as a result of the terrorist attacks; making $11 billion available to low-income people to obtain health insurance in a manner such that the system would not become mandatory in the future; $3 billion in special energy emergency grants to help displaced workers. That has to do with health care coverage. Then, of course, the other portion has to do with helping create jobs, which, after all, is really the result we would like. We would like to help people without jobs. Most importantly, we provide encouragement to companies and corporations by accelerating depreciation so they will invest in new material; partial expensing to encourage the purchasing of new equipment; and also have payments for low-income workers and get the money in their hands so we can see increased purchasing. Those are things on which I hope we focus. I know we are talking about agriculture. We are talking about railroad retirement. They need to be completed. But there is a question of whether they need to be completed now with this emergency. We really need to evaluate the money. We have already made available $12 billion in new spending for many of the things we talked about. The President and the administration determine where it will go. I am hopeful that we can focus in the relatively short time we have left. I am pleased that we seem to be making progress in terms of the economic stimulus. The bill that came out of the committee was not a bipartisan bill. We did not work on it from both sides. Now we have a House bill that is somewhat different. We have a Democratic bill that is somewhat different. The President's bill is somewhat different. Of course, we need to find a reasonable agreement among those groups to come up with something that works. I certainly encourage that we do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. But this is Social Security, not the private sector.

Mr. THOMAS. But under the private annuity programs, they can't fall back on the Government. They are private. This is a mixture, and it is sort of confusing for most of us. The Social Security, of course, has supplemented this substantially, largely because there are three beneficiaries to every earner, I understand.

Mr. THOMAS. What is the rationale for combining Social Security and a private annuity program?

Mr. THOMAS. Wouldn't it be simpler over time if you just separated Social Security from a private retirement annuity program? Then you would have the same Social Security benefits as everyone else, and then you could add to it in the private sector and do whatever you chose.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I object.