[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 149-150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           THE SENATE AGENDA

  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

[[Page 150]]

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 be 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________