The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT OF 1996” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S584-S586 on Jan. 31, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT OF 1996
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. CRAIG. May I inquire of the Chair what is the current order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 1541, the farm bill.
Mr. CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, I spoke on the floor of the importance of this Senate dealing with farm policy in a timely manner that sends the appropriate signals to American agriculture of what they can expect in the reform policy that the 104th Congress is proposing.
This afternoon, I earlier spoke of the commodity programs and how they would be affected as we move with production agriculture much closer to the market and away from a Government program with which to farm.
There is a good deal more that Government can do for agriculture and still stay out of the business of telling them what to grow and how to grow it, because I think that is the responsibility of the family farmer, and I think that family farmer, or anybody in agriculture today, ought to be attuned to the market and ought to be farming to the market and deciding what his or her business may be, to what the world needs and what our consuming public needs than what a Government program will provide them or not provide them in telling them what to do.
In other words, what I am saying, Mr. President, is there are legitimate roles for the Federal Government in its association with agriculture. I think some of those obvious areas are in the area of research, trade and conservation. I say that because where Government should involve itself is where the individual farmer or family farmer really cannot help themselves or cannot help themselves in an individual way.
American farmers, without question, lead the world in productivity. One American farmer today, and we have all heard it said, produces enough for himself or herself and 120 other citizens. It was not very long ago, at least it was not very long ago in this Senator's mind, when I was traveling as a national officer for the Future Farmers of America in the 1960's, the midsixties.
I remember well giving speech after speech where I spoke of the productivity of the American farmer. I oftentimes said that the American farmer produces enough for himself and 52 other Americans or 52 other citizens of the world. I just got through saying in 1996 that the American farmer produces enough for himself or herself and 120 other Americans or world citizens. Is it possible that productivity has more than doubled in 30-plus years? That is absolutely right, Mr. President, and the reason it has is because of research, the kind of research long term that has been done in direct association with the Federal Government where we, as taxpayers and as policymakers, can recognize the importance of long-term investment in the research area and that is, of course, where our land grant colleges and universities and our ag research stations have worked so very well over the years.
That is a legitimate role. That is the right kind of role that Government can play an important part in doing and, of course, that is where we ought to continue to work so closely together.
The different varieties, the E. coli bacteria problem that has cost lives in this country, can be dealt with and solved by the simple application of some research and by the proper education that can be a part and should be a part of a Government's role in participating with production agriculture.
In my State of Idaho, there are some extraordinary things being done. Just recently, I was part of an announcement between USDA and the Department of Energy working cooperatively in a new research program. You scratch your head and say, ``Well, what is the Department of Energy doing in agriculture?'' Because of the kind of technology that has been developed in DOE, in sensors, in the ability to use satellite and satellite technology, USDA and DOE are coming together in a project out in Idaho that literally links the farmer and his or her tractor and applicator on the ground with a satellite back to a computer to tell them exactly where they are in the field, how much fertilizer to apply or not to apply. Phenomenal efficiencies come from the application, a greater sense of environmental control comes from the application and, as a result, cost savings and extremely high levels of productivity.
Could that be done by the individual farmer? No, it certainly cannot be done. Can it be done by industry? Not very well. When the kind of research and turnaround time is measured in decades, that is where Government can play a role, and that is where this Congress recognizes Government should play a role. It is a much better place for Government to be associated with agriculture than telling the farmer what to farm, telling them how to farm it, and oftentimes then saying, ``And we'll provide you a safety net at the end.''
While we recognize the importance of those kinds of commodity programs, what our bill says and what we are clearly saying in the 104th Congress, as we have said over the last decade to production agriculture, learn to farm to the market and not to the program.
The other area that I mention this afternoon is in the area of trade. Obviously, if we are as highly productive as I mentioned we are, then we have to have a market for our crops. That kind of productivity, absent the market, says that we are not going to get the kind of price for the product that deserves to be had and certainly provide that kind of profitability. Therefore, it is important that we have a strong domestic trade policy and, as we know, trade means you have to involve governments, you have to cross political boundaries, and that cannot be accomplished very well oftentimes by the individual farmer unless it is the Government working with their farmers to accomplish that.
In my State of Idaho, almost three-fourths of our annual wheat crop is exported. It has to move in world markets to maintain levels of profitability. In addition, we send large amounts of meat, peas, lentils, dairy products, and potato products to other countries around the world. Since the passage of NAFTA, we have seen some positive and some negative results. Cattle producers in my State are increasingly worried about the slaughter cattle moving in across the boundary, both from Mexico and from Canada.
Now and in the future, we must be assured that our trade negotiations and our trade policy fairly represents American agriculture, and if we are to walk away from and work with agriculture to move away from the kind of direct Federal payment and safety net to productivity in the marketplace, we have to make sure that they have full access to foreign markets. That is a legitimate role of Government associated with agriculture.
We also must continue our effort to develop and maintain the foreign market by investing in those markets, by working with production agriculture to teach foreign consumers how to consume the agricultural products of this country. That is an important and successful partnership that has worked time and time again over the years, whether it is actually the development of wheat products in China that my State has been involved in with the Federal Government and our wheat growers, to the marketing of lentils somewhere in the Middle East and to a market use and expanded diversity in their use in the recipes of the Mideasterners. That is all a role, once again, that Government plays very successfully.
So let me urge my colleagues to support all of these approaches. It is one thing to say we are going to simply provide for agriculture, and historically that is some of what we did to what we have been saying for the last decade: American agriculture, farm to the market, be productive, do what you know how to do and do it well, and then we will help you break down the foreign barriers which will access you to the world so that you can be productive.
The third area that I believe Government can play a cooperative partnership role in is in the area of conservation. For example, the CRP program, while originally quite controversial in its introduction, has proved to be a highly successful program in the saving of topsoil and the improving of water quality and wildlife habitat.
In my State of Idaho, almost 850,000 acres went into CRP. The record is now very, very clear of the tremendously positive effect, converting those acreages into sod bases, and what allowing them to rest undisturbed has done for all of the areas I have mentioned, including wildlife habitat. Upland game bird population increases in my State have been very dramatic as a result of these programs.
So that, again, is the kind of partnership that the Government can associate itself with, and I think oftentimes should. Targeting truly erodible lands, we can continue a successful program under a voluntary participation. I believe, Mr. President, voluntary is the key when we discuss agricultural conservation. We have made some changes over the years that I have not liked and that American agriculture has not liked.
We, historically, did allow Government to work in a voluntary, cooperative way with production agriculture, except in the mid 1980's, when we started making some changes and making conservation policy mandatory, and dictating. We started saying to the USDA, ``You are going to be the cop out in the field saying, `You are doing it wrong, and you have to do it differently or suffer the consequences.' '' When that kind of news hit the ground--and we saw it in the late 1980's--
relationships and partnerships began to change. There was no longer the voluntary aspect that had caused the conservation program to be as successful as it was. And we heard about it, very loudly and clearly, this year as we held hearings on this issue in the subcommittee, which I chair.
Conservation, partnership, cooperation, and voluntary relationships have proven very successful over the years. Any other form and our resource base suffers, and it should not have to suffer. Farmers and ranchers, in my opinion, always have been, and must always be, the original environmentalists. We are the groundskeepers, the stewards of the private land, and the private land is the largest base in this country. If we are going to have a positive environment, that private property base must recognize the responsibility it has, and it has successfully done so over the years, whether it is erodible lands or whether it is the wetlands that we dealt with in the sod buster provisions of the farm bill of a few years ago and now, working with that again, to not make it so punitive, to make it cooperative, to include wetlands in the CRP base, so that you reward the farmer for moving that land out of production and into a protected type of classification, is what we ought to be doing, because we all recognize the value of wetlands to our Nation as a habitat and as a filtering system to the aquifers and to the productive sector of our country. That is cooperation, partnership, and that is the way it ought to be.
I am certainly pleased that the kind of legislation that I have helped craft this year in revamping and bringing forth the new farm bill fits these criteria and moves us in a direction that I think most of production agriculture wants to move in. It puts Government in a relationship that it ought to be in.
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
