[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24586-24590]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 24586]]

AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the bill before the Senate now is the 
committee-reported farm bill, a 5-year farm bill. It is a comprehensive 
bill providing major improvements to the farm commodity and income 
protection programs, conservation, rural economic development, trade, 
research, nutrition assistance, renewable energy, credit, and forestry.
  The legislation is within our budget limitations for the new farm 
bill. We were allowed $7.35 billion for fiscal year 2002, and $73.5 
billion for 10 years above baseline spending. The bill is fully within 
those limitations. I hope we can move forward and work our way through 
this bill. We are, of course, ready to consider amendments tomorrow and 
debate the issues and pass the bill, go to conference, and send it to 
the President. The sooner we can get the amendments debated here and 
voted on, the sooner we can get to conference.
  There is a need to move ahead with this bill now. Farmers around the 
country need to know what the farm program will be for next year so 
they can make decisions, arrange their financing, their loans, line up 
their input and supplies for next year. It is important for farmers to 
get this legislation passed.
  It is important for all of America to get this bill passed because, 
as has often been said, it all really does start on the farm. With food 
being such a critical commodity for our own people but also in our 
trade relations, it is necessary that we send clear signals that we are 
going to have a meaningful farm program for next year and the year 
beyond.
  That is part of the reason. There is another reason why we have to 
move ahead. That is the area of conservation. Some of the critical 
conservation programs are out of money. The wetlands reserve program, 
the farmland protection program, and the wildlife habitat incentives 
program are out of money now. The longer we wait and delay on the farm 
bill in getting it to the President to get it signed, that means that 
more and more we will have a backlog of needs in all of those areas of 
conservation.
  The environmental quality incentives program is underfunded and far 
short of resources that are needed. The bill before us would 
substantially increase funding for all of these important conservation 
programs. However, if we don't pass it soon, the USDA will not be able 
to carry out effective programs during the present fiscal year.
  In addition, this bill will provide important and immediate help in 
the areas of rural economic development, trade, and research, as I 
mentioned. We need to move ahead without delay.
  I will take the time now to discuss some of the principal features of 
the bill. In order to proceed to the bill, tomorrow I will be offering 
a substitute amendment that will include modifications to the dairy and 
conservation provisions of the legislation reported from the committee. 
That will be an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Hopefully, 
there won't be any objections to that, and then we will move ahead with 
amendments to that as the underlying bill on the floor.
  First, title 1 on commodities, the bill continues direct payments but 
adds countercyclical contract payments to assure that in the years of 
low prices, producers will receive additional support. The bill 
establishes income protection prices for each of the contract 
commodities. If the price for the commodity plus the direct payment for 
the year falls below the income protection price, producers would 
receive a countercyclical payment to make up the difference. For the 
first 2 years, the direct payments would be generous enough that there 
will be no countercyclical payments. For the third, fourth, and fifth 
years, the direct payments will be lower but the difference would be 
made up by the countercyclical payments in those years.
  Quite frankly, this was really the goal of the Freedom to Farm bill 
that was passed in 1996. That would be direct payments; that those 
payments would phase down at some point. As we saw because of low 
prices, world conditions, other conditions, the Congress had to come in 
year after year after year and pass emergency funding legislation for 
direct payments and to add to those direct payments.
  What we should have had at the start was a countercyclical program so 
that in times when prices are good, you don't need all those direct 
payments. But when prices are low, that is when you need to come back 
in.
  When Freedom to Farm first passed, there were farmers who, quite 
frankly, had a pretty darn good year and prices were high, but they got 
a direct payment anyway. That didn't seem to make very good economic 
sense or policy sense. So I understand that we can't pull the plug 
right now. We continue the direct payments. They start to go down, but 
in place we have the countercyclical payments that come in in case 
prices are low; we all hope prices stay high. But in case they do go 
down, we do have the countercyclical program. We also attempt to have 
additional countercyclical support through the loan program.
  Our bill raises loans for every commodity with one exception, extra 
long staple cotton, which was held constant, and for soybeans, which we 
reduce from $5.26 a bushel to $5.20 a bushel. Again, all of this was an 
attempt to balance loan rates so that one would not be encouraged to 
plant one crop over another to plant for the loan benefits.
  For other crops, the loan programs have discouraged planting of some 
crops, such as barley, oats, dried peas, and lentils. Those crops 
received better treatment in this bill, including a loan rate boost for 
feed grains other than corn and a new loan program for dry peas, 
lentils, and chickpeas.
  The bill gives producers the option of retaining their current 
contract acres and adding oilseeds or updating their contract acres and 
payment yields.
  They will be given choice. Farmers can upgrade their base acres in 
yields or they can remain with the ones they have. Farmers who have 
taken advantage of flexibility to switch to other crops will not lose 
base acres. Those who are of fewer acres covered by the current 
production flexibility contract will be able to update those acres and 
their payment yields.
  In the area of dairy, the bill includes supplemental income 
assistance payments for dairy farmers. That is a system of payments 
designed to assist providers in the northeast part of the country that 
will help compensate for them getting out of and off of the Northeast 
Dairy Compact. In addition, there is a national dairy payment program 
for the remainder of the country. I might add that earlier on in the 
day the Senator from New Mexico was talking about a national tax and a 
payment by dairy farmers. That is not in the substitute bill that I 
will be offering tomorrow. I hope those who looked at the earlier 
version will look at the substitute because that taxing provision is 
not included.
  American sugar producers have been facing sugar prices at or near 22-
year lows for most of the past 2 years.
  Our committee bill reestablishes marketing allotments for sugar in an 
attempt to limit domestic production levels that, with imports, will 
not exceed the demand for sugar for human consumption. The bill also 
provides the Secretary with the tools she will need to bring sugar 
production in line with demand.
  The committee bill makes a dramatic change in the program for peanut 
producers to bring it more in line with other commodity programs. The 
bill abolishes marketing quotas. That has been a staple of peanuts ever 
since I have been here--for the last 27 years. It establishes a new 
system of peanut base acres and payment yields. The new program creates 
a safety net for producers in the form of marketing loans, direct 
payments, and countercyclical supports. So basically, the peanut 
program will be phased out and the new one will be phased in and it 
will be similar to other commodity programs.
  Finally, the commodity title provides for higher levels of purchases 
of fruits and vegetables for distribution through the important 
nutrition programs such as the National School

[[Page 24587]]

Lunch Program and the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
  Next, dealing with title II, conservation, in addition to producing 
food and fiber, America's farmers and ranchers are also our stewards, 
playing a critical role in protecting natural resources for future 
generations. This new farm bill recognizes that conservation is a 
cornerstone of sound farm policy. It will greatly increase our 
commitment to helping agricultural producers and landowners to protect 
and conserve soil, water, air, and wildlife--especially on land that is 
in production.
  Senator Lugar and I, and many members of the committee, share a 
longstanding view that the new farm bill should place a larger and much 
greater emphasis on conservation.
  Over the past months, we and our staffers have worked together to 
develop the conservation title reported out of committee.
  I point out that this title was reported unanimously out of committee 
because it reflects good policy that helps the full array of producers 
represented in the committee and in the Senate. The substitute I will 
be offering will build on the committee's conservation title and will 
add about $1 billion more in conservation funding to focus additional 
funding in the 5 years covered by the bill.
  The conservation title basically doubles our funding for conservation 
by adding $21.5 billion to baseline spending for conservation programs, 
for a total of $43 billion over 10 years. We basically double funding 
for conservation.
  Our bill also brings balance to spending on land retirement programs 
such as the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve 
Program, balancing that with programs for working lands such as the 
Conservation Security Program, EQIP, and the Wildlife Habitat 
Incentives Program.
  Our bill will establish a new incentive payment program and the 
Conservation Security Program, which will both improve farm income and 
increase agricultural conservation. This program adopts a 
comprehensive, inclusive national approach to conservation on working 
lands. It provides incentive payments to farmers and ranchers who 
voluntarily maintain and adopt conservation practices that are 
appropriate for the local areas and each individual operation. In this 
way, we not only retain the conservation achievements of the past, but 
we encourage increased conservation in the future.
  Again, I point out that the conservation and security program is not 
a top-down, one-size-fits-all. It is designed to be geared toward the 
individual farmers in different parts of the country. What may be good 
for conservation in West Virginia may not be good in Iowa. This bill 
recognizes that it has to come really from the bottom up, within 
certain guidelines, and protecting air, oil, water, and natural 
habitats. But that is basically what the conservation and security 
program is designed to do, to help farmers with their conservation on 
the land they have in production.
  The acreage cap for the Conservation Reserve Program has been 
increased from 36 million acres, the present limit, to 42 million 
acres. The legislation more than doubles the Wetlands Reserve Program. 
It increases the acreage cap by 1.25 million acres above the current 
1,075,000 acres. There is also an allowance for 25,000 acres annually 
to be enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Enhancement Program.
  The legislation increases funding for the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, which is important to our livestock producers, up 
to $1.5 billion a year, which is 7 times over the current figure. So in 
the critical area of helping livestock producers prevent soil runoff, 
water runoff, polluting rivers, streams, the Chesapeake Bay, and in 
other areas, we increase that program 7 times more than what it is 
right now. Contract amounts have been increased to $150,000, with a 
$50,000 maximum being earned in any year of the 3- to 10-year contract.
  Our bill provides for 10 times more funding over the next 5 years for 
the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program than was provided in the last 
farm bill. We go from $50 million to $500 million in that area.
  More funding will be provided over the next 5 years for the Farmland 
Protection Program. This program allows for farmland and the 
environmental benefits of this land use to be preserved for future 
generations. The last farm bill allocated $35 million for the Farmland 
Protection Program. Our bill increased that amount to $1.75 billion.
  A new Grassland Reserve Program to purchase permanent and long-term 
easements on 2 million acres of grasslands is also included in the 
legislation. This program will offer long-term easements, technical 
assistance, and restoration costs to restore or keep private lands in 
native grasses.
  The legislation provides additional new programs besides the 
Grassland Reserve Program. The Water Risk Reduction Program provides 
for purchase of flood plain easements that retard runoff, prevent soil 
erosion, and safeguards life and property from floods. The Great Lakes 
Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control will provide 
demonstration grants, technical assistance, and carry out information 
and education programs to improve water quality in the Great Lakes.
  As chairman, I am proud that we have developed a strong, balanced 
proposal that greatly strengthens our commitment to conservation as an 
integral part and cornerstone of our agricultural policy. The 
conservation title represents a real win for farmers, landowners, and 
for all Americans who have a vital interest in conserving and 
protecting our natural resources.
  The trade title was put together on a consensus basis in the 
committee. It was reported out, also, on a unanimous vote. This should 
go a long way toward improving existing export and food aid programs. 
We have seen that export markets do not serve as a reliable safety net 
in and of themselves. But trade is and will continue to be a key outlet 
for U.S. agricultural products.
  Over the last few decades, the U.S. agricultural economy has derived 
between 20 and 30 percent of its gross income from exports. United 
States agricultural exports have exceeded U.S. agricultural imports 
since the late 1950s, generating a surplus in U.S. agricultural trade--
I might add, helping our overall balance of trade. So our trade title 
provides about $2 billion above baseline over the 10-year period, 
roughly split between the commercial export programs and the food aid 
programs. The bill more than doubles existing funding for the Market 
Access Program, ramping up to $190 million annually by the end of the 
5-year bill. We also put additional resources into the Foreign Market 
Development Program, which helps our agricultural groups serve 
customers in overseas markets.
  The Supplier Credit Program allows short-term loans to be made 
directly to importers rather than through a bank intermediary. We allow 
the length of the loan to be extended from 6 to 12 months.
  There is also a strong demand for resources to help educate children 
in the developing world. The United Nations World Food Program believes 
that there are some 300 million children worldwide who are not 
receiving an education due to economic hardships faced by their 
families. With a desire to address that issue, our bill establishes and 
funds the International Food for Education and Nutrition Program, 
within or under the banner or heading of the Food for Progress Statute. 
This proposal was introduced last year by former Senators Dole and 
McGovern, long-time advocates of domestic and international feeding 
programs.
  The shorthand phrase for this really is the ``international school 
lunch program.'' We are trying to develop in emerging nations, in 
nations that have a need for this, the low-income places, a school 
lunch program so that families would see that as a benefit to send 
their kids to school. Right now, a lot of families in Third World 
countries send their children out to work as an additional income to 
the family. In the United States, giving a free meal to someone may not 
be that big a deal since we spend less than 10 percent of our income on 
food. But in poorer parts of the world, they are spending 60 to 70

[[Page 24588]]

percent or more of their disposable income on food. If we can give a 
free school lunch to a child and maybe give them something to take 
home, it will not take long for that family to figure out that is a big 
addition to the family income. It will serve to not only increase 
nutritional benefits of kids but also serve as a magnet to get them out 
of the workplace and into schools.
  The trade title also provides more resources for the Food for 
Progress program and reforms and streamlines the operations for all 
food aid programs run by USDA and the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. The bill makes it easier in a number of ways for groups 
such as Save the Children, CARE, and Catholic Relief Services, who run 
many food aid projects overseas, to do their jobs while still 
permitting USDA and USAID to monitor them effectively.
  Finally, this title also addresses the access of United States 
agricultural exports to Cuba. While Cuba remains a cash-poor economy, 
it imports a substantial share of its food, with an average value of 
$660 million annually over the last few years. In particular, it is a 
significant buyer of rice, and prior to imposition of sanctions in the 
1960s, Cuba was the single largest market for United States rice.
  A February 2001 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission 
estimates that if we did not have the sanctions on Cuba, Cuba could buy 
as much as 400,000 tons of wheat, 300,000 tons of rice, and 500,000 
tons of feed grains from the United States.
  The Commission estimates that U.S. exports to that country could 
reach about $400 million annually. By eliminating, as we do, the 
restriction on private financing of sales of food and medicine in 
current law, the bill permits U.S. exporters to begin to access this 
market. Again, there would be no U.S. Government funds involved. This 
would all be through the private sector. If the private sector wants to 
finance these sales, let them do it. It would be a heck of a good 
market for producers in this country.
  Next, title IV, our nutrition title. Again, in this title we are 
talking about something that affects all of America, rural and urban 
alike. In October, we lost 415,000 jobs in America. The unemployment 
rate jumped to 5.4 percent. It did that in September, the largest 1-
month jump in 21 years. We are facing a recession this winter. We do 
not know how long it is going to last. Of course, we hope it is not 
going to last long, but we do not know.
  One of the best underpinnings for families who are out of work in 
America, who are looking for employment, facing some tough times, is a 
program that has proven its worth year after year, and that is the Food 
Stamp Program. Along with unemployment insurance, it is the vital part 
of our front-line defense against recession.
  If we are talking about a stimulus package, which we talked about 
earlier today and about which we will be hearing more, this is 
stimulus, making sure that those who are out of work and are seeking 
employment have the nutrition they and their children need.
  It is a travesty that although we have the safest, most abundant food 
supply in the world--hunger in America has also been reduced in the 
last 30 years--still 10 percent of America's households face the 
possibility that they will worry about or actually not have enough food 
to eat.
  The people who are going hungry include the working poor, single 
working mothers with children, seniors forced to choose between paying 
for food and paying for prescription medicine, and families forced each 
winter to choose between heating and eating. With the current economic 
downturn, we can only expect the situation to worsen.
  At this time it is all the more critical that we strengthen our 
Nation's nutrition safety net. Part of that safety net, as I said, 
includes the Food Stamp Program, which is one of the most effective and 
efficient ways to help low-income families, the elderly, and the 
disabled. It is our Nation's largest child nutrition program since 50 
percent of Food Stamp Program participants are children. In addition, 
fully 9 out of every 10 food stamp households include a senior, a 
disabled person, or a child.
  Our bill provides $6.2 billion over 10 years for improvements in the 
Food Stamp Program. It includes several eligibility and benefit 
improvements, as well as important simplifications to improve the 
access of working families to the program.
  Provisions in the bill accomplish three key goals:
  First, to strengthen the program to help people more successfully 
transition from welfare to work and to help shield low-wage working 
families from the recession, this legislation extends the period of 
time that a former welfare recipient is able to participate in the Food 
Stamp Program without having to fill out any extra paperwork and 
reapply from 3 months to 6 months.
  Second, it extends the period of time that able-bodied adults without 
dependents may participate in the Food Stamp Program to allow time for 
them to find and keep a job.
  To simplify the program and to lighten the administrative burden and 
avoid excluding people who qualify for the program, the bill has a 
number of bipartisan provisions that would simplify the program in 
areas such as income and resource counting, assessment of expenses for 
deductions, and determination of ongoing eligibility.
  We cut the redtape in the program and increase coordination between 
other programs, such as Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families, the TANF program. This is so people do not have to apply for 
Medicaid, then apply for temporary assistance, and then apply for food 
stamps. We are trying to wrap it into a one-stop-shopping concept.
  A third key goal is to make a concerted effort to reach all children 
who are poor and for whom a proper diet is particularly crucial. It 
includes a provision that modestly increases benefits for larger size 
families with children and restores food stamp benefits to all poor 
legal immigrant children.
  The credit title reauthorizes all current direct and guaranteed USDA 
farm loan programs, and it focuses on providing more credit 
opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers.
  The title also includes other facets of the USDA farm lending 
programs, for example, by making the interest rate reduction program 
permanent and providing that reduced paperwork requirements be 
available to more farmers. To address the credit needs of farmers in 
this time of sustained low commodity prices, the title expands the time 
of eligibility for direct operating loans from 7 years to 9 years.
  In the area of rural development, title VI, this bill will make a 
real difference in economic and community development in rural America.
  Rural communities have many advantages, but a lot of the time they 
have not shared in our country's prosperity. For too long, they have 
lagged behind. Rural America needs facilities and services that meet 
the standards of 21st century America, from basic services, such as 
sewer and water, to the basic services we need to compete and live in 
the 21st century, such as broadband Internet access. Without them, the 
quality of life in rural communities will be impaired and businesses 
will not thrive.
  One of the largest problems facing rural businesses is the lack of 
adequate equity capital at competitive rates. While many rural 
businesses are not directly associated with agriculture, ventures to 
increase the value of agricultural commodities in rural areas are a 
great potential as an engine for growth. If these value-added 
enterprises are largely owned by agricultural producers or co-ops, 
there is a double benefit of economic growth and increased farm income.
  These are some of the key goals for rural development that our 
committee has been working toward. I will just mention a few of the key 
provisions.
  We fund a new program called the Rural Business Investment Program 
and a bold new program called the National Rural Cooperative and 
Business Equity Fund. We provide substantial funding for value-added 
agricultural product market development grants to help develop solid 
new enterprises owned by agricultural producers in rural areas.

[[Page 24589]]

  We improve the business and industry loan guarantee program and 
establish a new way to fund the Rural Economic Development Grant and 
Loan Program.
  To help smaller communities, the title applies $100 million a year 
for broadband Internet access.
  We also provide funding for firefighting and first responder training 
and include a program to clear the large backlog in the USDA sewer and 
water and community facility program.
  In title VII, the research title, the central purpose of the farm 
bill is to ensure the security and vitality of our food and 
agricultural system in rural communities. Research plays a vital but 
often unappreciated role in accomplishing this.
  The fact that resources devoted to agricultural research have been 
insufficient to keep pace with the increasing needs of farms and rural 
communities has been of great concern to many in the agricultural 
community.
  However, this private sector funding is mostly targeted toward 
addressing the needs of production agriculture, leaving the needs of 
many other sectors of the agricultural and rural sector unaddressed. 
The only way to meet these unfulfilled needs is through allocating a 
portion of the funds given to the committee to research programs. 
Therefore, we increase funding for the Initiative for Future 
Agricultural and Food Systems to $145 million a year.
  We also provide $15 million a year in funding for a competitive 
grants program focused on rural policy research. This program will 
provide research grants on topics such as rural sociology; effects of 
demographic change; needs of groups of rural citizens; rural community 
development; rural infrastructure; rural health; rural education; rural 
extension programs, all of these in a policy research program.
  The changing nature of agriculture has created a great need for 
farmers and ranchers to be able to utilize a wide range of tools such 
as risk management, precision farming, crop protection, and business 
planning. The bill provides $15 million a year for a competitive grants 
program focused on providing beginning farmers and ranchers the 
information and the support they need to acquire the kind of knowledge 
they may not heretofore have received.
  The end of the cold war, along with recent tragic terrorist attacks 
in America, have focused national attention on our vulnerability to 
biological and chemical terrorism. Agriculture is widely considered to 
be a vulnerable target for bioterrorism. The committee has therefore 
included in this title several new authorizations to bolster the 
Federal Government's biosecurity planning and response capabilities.
  Title VIII is the forestry title. We include a sustainable forest 
management program to provide forest landowners and States assistance 
to meet multiple resource objectives on private forest lands. Funds may 
also be used for conservation easements to maintain forest cover and 
protect important forest values. The title also contains an initiative 
to help establish private forest landowner sustainable forestry 
cooperatives.
  Title IX, the energy title, is a new title. This has never been in 
the farm bill before. It is not in the House bill, but I am hopeful the 
House will accept it. It was unanimously adopted by our committee. We 
create a number of initiatives to develop new uses and markets for 
agricultural products and renewable energy, including biofuels such as 
ethanol and biodiesel, biomass, wind, and solar energy.
  We include a grant and loan program to help establish farmer-owned 
renewable energy businesses to market electricity. There is also a 
grant and loan program to provide financing assistance to farmers so 
they can purchase renewable energy systems such as wind turbines, solar 
heat pumps, solar energy, solar electricity or solar water, methane 
digesters, and to make energy efficiency improvements.
  Another program bolsters the development of bio-refineries to convert 
biomass and agricultural wastes into fuels, chemicals, and power. I 
believe that renewable energy will become a major cash crop for 
farmers, ranchers, and rural communities across the country in the 
coming years. We can provide new income streams for our producers, 
enhance rural economic development, make environmental and public 
health gains by reducing pollution, and increase our Nation's energy 
security. Promoting renewable energy as part of this bill will also 
change the way we think about agriculture.
  I truly believe we can produce just about anything from corn, 
soybeans, and other agricultural products that we can produce from oil. 
The energy title will bring us a significant step closer to that end.
  I have in my office--the office I cannot get to right now, but 
hopefully we will get back to our offices sometime pretty soon--a 
picture that was taken in 1939, the year I was born. It is an original 
picture of Henry Ford. He has a baseball bat and he is hitting the 
trunk of a car, a 1939 Ford, with the baseball bat.
  This was a demonstration for the press on what Henry Ford considered 
to be the car of the future. He predicted at that time cars of the 
future would be made out of soybeans, and the trunk of the car was made 
from soybeans. So he was hitting the trunk with the baseball bat to 
show it would not dent, it would not crack, and the baseball bat just 
bounced right off. So Henry Ford had predicted all of the things that 
were in a car made from petroleum products would very shortly be made 
from soybeans.
  The war came, and we needed to ramp up our petrochemical industries. 
We needed petroleum for the war effort. The United States spent 
trillions of dollars in World War II. We spent a lot of taxpayer money 
developing the oil industry in this country and enhancing the 
petrochemical industry of this country.
  After it was developed after World War II, it was obviously then much 
cheaper to make all of these things from oil, to make plastics out of 
petrochemicals, than it was to make it from our agricultural produce.
  I think the time has come to start turning that corner back again, to 
recognize all of the things that go into an automobile today that are 
made from petroleum-based chemicals and plastics can indeed be made 
from--well, it does not have to be soybeans. It can be a lot of other 
different types of agricultural products. All the steering wheels, all 
the plastic, all of the stuff that goes in a car can, indeed, be made 
from soybeans.
  This title of this bill is to begin that process of ensuring we can 
start making more and more of our products for automobiles and for 
other items from agricultural-based entities rather than from 
petroleum.
  So this energy title is one of the most exciting efforts we have ever 
undertaken in the farm bill. There are a lot of initiatives: wind 
energy, for example. We can produce a lot of wind energy in this 
country, so we provide grants and loans to farmers and ranchers to buy 
and put up windmills.
  One might say, what does that have to do with agriculture? The fact 
is if we are going to build windmills to make electricity, we are not 
going to build them in the cities. They are going to have to be built 
in rural areas. They are going to have to be built where we have farms 
and ranches. I think this would be a source of income for farmers, plus 
it would add to the national grid the help from electricity. Biomass, 
methane production--there is an ethanol plant in Kansas right now that 
is producing ethanol and their entire heat source comes from good old 
methane. So there is a lot of it, it seems to me, we can begin doing. I 
think this is one of the most exciting parts of the farm bill.
  Those really are, in a nutshell, the different titles of the farm 
bill. As I said, every title of this farm bill was voted unanimously in 
our committee, with one exception, and that is the commodity title.
  I understand that people have different ideas on commodities, but 
what we tried to do in the commodity title was to provide a balance so 
that one part of the country was not getting an undue amount of money 
over another. We tried to keep the commodities in

[[Page 24590]]

balance so a farmer would not be encouraged to plant one crop over 
another; that they truly could plant for the market and not because one 
had a higher loan rate than another, that type of thing. So we spent a 
great deal of time working to balance it, and we did come out of the 
committee with a bipartisan vote. It was not unanimous. I admit it was 
not a unanimous vote on the commodities title, but it is a measure of 
how much work this committee did--I do not mean just this member but 
Democrats and Republicans did--on this bill. Every single title got a 
unanimous vote, as I said, with the exception of commodities, and I 
believe we will be able to work that out.
  I have not seen it yet, but I guess Senator Roberts and Senator 
Cochran will be offering an amendment on the commodities title to 
change it. We will have a debate on that. I have not seen it, so I 
cannot debate it. We will look at it. We will consider it.
  Now, Senator Roberts and Senator Cochran offered an amendment in 
committee. That approach was turned down. Whether or not this amendment 
will be the same, I don't know. I have heard it will be changed, but I 
have not seen it. We certainly will debate it. I hope we have a 
reasonable time limit on debate. I hope we don't drag this out longer 
than necessary. All who have been on the committee understand the 
different aspects of our commodity programs. I don't think it will take 
a huge amount of time to debate.
  I believe we have a good, sound farm bill that is in the interests of 
all Americans--not just one area, not just one group, but all of 
America. I believe some of the things we have done in conservation, 
which is the cornerstone of this bill, are charting a new path for our 
farmers, a way where they can actually receive income because they are 
being good stewards of the land. I believe the new energy title will go 
a long way to helping make the United States more energy independent in 
the future.
  The new rural equity fund we have set up is going to help bring 
business, provide the kind of venture capital we need. The money we 
provide for broadband access to our small towns and communities can be 
the highway to the new technologies so businesses can locate there.
  All in all, it is a good farm bill. Is everything in it exactly as I 
would like it? Probably not; I would probably make some things 
different. But everything of this nature represents compromise and 
consensus. It came out on a bipartisan vote. All titles except one were 
unanimously approved. It represents a good compromise, a good 
consensus, a good balance between interests. That is why we are here--
to work across party lines, to try to work together, knowing I can't 
have my way all the time and you can't have your way all the time, but 
together we work these things out. That is what we have done in the 
farm bill.
  I know we will not have votes today, but I hope tomorrow when we come 
in we can proceed on amendments. I hope we can have some time limits. I 
hope the other side will agree. We tried to get an agreement earlier 
today to say that at some point tomorrow afternoon all first-degree 
amendments would have to be filed. That was objected to. We will 
revisit that tomorrow and perhaps reach an agreement. With healthy 
debate and amendments tomorrow, and perhaps Wednesday, we should be 
able to finish this bill sometime on Wednesday. I see no reason at all 
to carry it any further than that, and that is with meaningful debate 
on amendments.
  I encourage all Senators who have amendments on the farm bill to 
please get them filed so we can look at how many there are and perhaps 
reach an agreement on time limits to get this bill out of here by 
sometime late Wednesday.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rockefeller). The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________