[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1782-S1808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ENSIGN (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
        Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 525. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for 
the appointment of additional Federal circuit judges, to divide the 
Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into 2 circuits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senators Ensign, Stevens, Kyl, Craig, Crapo, and Inhofe, in 
introducing the Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and 
Modernization Act of 2007.
  Our legislation will create a new Twelfth Circuit comprised of 
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Arizona and will 
go far in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the current 
Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
  One need only look at the sheer geographic size of the Ninth Circuit 
to find reasons for reorganization. The Ninth Circuit extends from the 
Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, spans the tropics of Hawaii and 
crosses the International Dateline to Guam and the Northern Mariana 
Islands. Encompassing nine States and some 1.4 million square miles, 
the Ninth Circuit, by any means of measure, is the largest of all U.S. 
circuit courts of appeal. In fact, it is larger than the First, Second, 
Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits combined.
  The Ninth Circuit serves a population of nearly 60 million, almost 
twice as many as the next largest Circuit. It contains the States that 
experience the fastest growth rate in the Nation. By 2010, the Census 
Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population will be more than 
63 million--an increase which will inevitably create an even more 
daunting caseload.
  The only factor more disturbing than the geographic magnitude of the 
circuit is the magnitude of its ever-expanding docket. The Ninth 
Circuit has more cases than any other circuit. Based on figures from 
March, 2006, the Ninth Circuit had 71 percent more cases than the next 
largest circuit--that is equivalent to the caseload of the Third, 
Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits combined.
  Moreover, because of the sheer magnitude of cases brought before the 
courts, citizens within the court's jurisdiction face intolerable 
delays in getting their cases heard. The median time to get a final 
disposition of an appellate case in the Ninth Circuit takes nearly 4 
months longer than the national average. Former Chief Justice Warren E. 
Burger called the Ninth Circuit's docket an ``unmanageable 
administrative monstrosity.''
  The massive size and daunting caseload of the Ninth Circuit result in 
a decrease in the ability of judges to keep abreast of legal 
developments within the circuit. The large number of judges scattered 
over the 1.4 million square miles of the circuit inevitably results in 
difficulty in reaching consistent circuit decisions. This lack of 
judicial consistency discourages settlements and leads to unnecessary 
litigation. Reversal rates by the Supreme Court remain astonishingly 
high. In 2005, 87.5 percent of the Ninth Circuit cases brought before 
the Supreme Court were reversed or vacated. In 2006, 96 percent were 
reversed or vacated.
  Another problem with the Ninth Circuit is that it is never able to 
speak with one voice. Because of its size, the Ninth Circuit is the 
only circuit where all judges do not sit in en banc, or full court, 
review of panel decisions. Rather than splitting the Ninth Circuit at 
the time the Fifth Circuit was split, Congress decided to permit the 
Ninth Circuit to test a ``limited'' en banc procedure. The limited en 
banc allows a full court to be comprised of 11 members, rather than 28. 
Therefore, 6 members of the 28 are all that is necessary for a majority 
opinion.
  Former Chief Justice Burger strongly opposed the limited en banc 
procedure:

       Six judges can now bind more than 100 Article III and 
     Article I judges, and this is simply contrary to how a court 
     should function I strongly believe the Ninth Circuit should 
     be divided.

  The legislation that I and my colleagues introduce today is the 
sensible reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. No one court can 
effectively exercise its power in an area that extends from the Arctic 
Circle to the tropics. Our legislation creates a circuit which is more 
geographically manageable, thereby significantly reducing wasted time 
and money spent on judicial travel.
  Additionally, caseloads will be much more manageable. Whatever 
circuit that contains California will always be the giant of the 
circuits, but as you can see from this chart, caseloads before the new 
Ninth Circuit and the new Twelfth Circuit are much more in line with 
other circuits. Such reductions in caseload will clearly improve 
uniformity, consistency and dependency in legal decisions.
  Additionally, this legislation is not novel. Since the day the 
circuit was established, over a century ago, there have been 
discussions to divide it. Over the last several decades, Congress has 
held hearings and debated a split and even mandated two congressional 
commissions to study the issue each of which recommended dividing the 
circuit. In fact, the scholarly White Commission, which reported to 
Congress in 1998, concluded that restructuring the Ninth Circuit would 
``increase the consistency and coherence of the law, maximize the 
likelihood of genuine collegiality, establish an effective procedure 
for maintaining uniform decisional law within the circuit, and relate 
the appellate forum more closely to the region it serves.''
  Furthermore, splitting a circuit to respond to caseload and 
population

[[Page S1783]]

growth is by no means unprecedented. Congress divided the original 
Eighth Circuit to create the Tenth Circuit in 1929 and divided the 
former Fifth Circuit to create the Eleventh Circuit in 1980.
  We have waited long enough. The 60 million residents of the Ninth 
Circuit are the persons who suffer. Many wait years before cases are 
heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire appellate 
process. In brief, the Ninth Circuit has become a circuit where justice 
is not swift and not always served.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 526. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the 
scope of programs of education for which accelerated payments of 
educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill may be used, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with Senator 
Chambliss and Senator Mikulski to introduce legislation that is 
important to my constituents and young veterans all across America.
  Many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines coming back from 
Iraq and Afghanistan are having a difficult time finding work. I find 
this troubling, and I feel that we have a responsibility to support our 
returning veterans who are looking for work. Currently, unemployment 
among veterans between the ages of 20 and 24 is over 15 percent--nearly 
double the unemployment for non-veterans in the same age group.
  At the same time, many of the fastest growing sectors of our economy 
are in vast need of an additional skilled labor source. The Department 
of Labor has identified industry sectors that are expected to 
experience high growth over the next several years, including trucking, 
construction, hospitality, and financial services. In fact, the 
trucking industry, which is very important to my State, currently has a 
driver shortage of 20,000 drivers. That shortage is expected to grow to 
110,000 by 2014.
  We have industries in need of skilled employees and we have many 
young men and women in need of good, high-paying jobs. Our legislation 
is intended to help match those with needs through increased training 
benefits in the Montgomery GI Bill. The GI Bill, established after 
World War II, was a commitment that Congress made to veterans of that 
war. We would like to extend that commitment to reflect the job 
opportunities of our modern economy.
  To accomplish this task, I join Senators Chambliss and Mikulski in 
re-
introducing the Veterans Employment and Training Act--the VET Act. 
During the 109th Congress, Senator Burns and I worked very hard on 
moving this legislation, and we made a lot of progress. Late last year, 
the language was approved by the Committee on Veterans Affairs and even 
passed the full Senate. Unfortunately, the clock ran out on the 109th 
Congress and the bill never became law. We were very close last 
Congress, and I'm hopeful that this Congress will continue moving the 
VET Act forward and make it law.
  The VET Act would expand for veterans the Accelerated Payment Program 
under the Montgomery GI bill to include job training education in five 
high-growth sectors of the economy--high technology, transportation, 
energy, construction, and hospitality--for the next 4 years to help 
veterans returning from the war on terror transition to the civilian 
workforce.
  Many of the training programs for employment in the identified 
sectors are short but they are often more costly at the beginning. The 
current structure of the GI Bill only provides veterans with the option 
of a smaller monthly stipend. This arrangement works well for 
traditional education institutions, such as 2 and 4-year institutions. 
However, this same arrangement is not conducive to the nature of our 
changing economy and the nature of high growth occupations.
  A reconfigured and expanded Accelerated Payment Program has the 
potential to pay big dividends for our veterans and our economy. The 
Arkansas Employment Security Department estimates that between one-
third and one-half of all nonfarm jobs in Arkansas are in sectors that 
would benefit from this legislation.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, let me briefly review a few reasons 
why I think this legislation is a wise policy decision.
  First, I believe the VET Act will help veterans returning from Iraq 
and the war on terror. Accelerating GI Bill benefits for training in 
high-growth occupations will help place veterans faster in good-paying 
jobs.
  Second, passing the VET Act will encourage returning veterans to 
pursue careers in occupations that will contribute most to the U.S. 
economy. These sectors identified by the Department of Labor are 
expected to add large numbers of jobs to our economy over the next 
several years. This legislation will assist in matching the available 
workforce with our needs to keep our economy growing.
  Third, the VET Act will help make short-term, high-cost training 
programs more affordable to veterans. GI bill benefits are paid monthly 
with a maximum monthly stipend of $1,000. Many of the training programs 
for occupations identified by the Department of Labor as high-growth 
are short term and high cost in nature. Truck driver training courses 
typically last 4 to 6 weeks, but can cost up to $6,000. Without this 
legislation, GI bill benefits will only cover between $1,000 and $1,500 
of the cost. Such a low offset discourages veterans from using GI bill 
benefits from these types of training programs. Accelerated benefits 
would cover 60 percent the cost, and benefits would be paid in a lump 
sum.
  Last, the VET Act will help place veterans in good-paying jobs at a 
very low additional cost to the Federal Government. This bill merely 
enhances benefits already available--the total cost of the accelerated 
benefits program for high-tech occupations is only $5.7 million. This 
is a very small percentage of total benefits available to veterans 
already. Any additional cost will be small and incremental compared to 
the immediate payoff of reducing unemployment among young veterans and 
enhancing employment opportunities in high-growth occupations.
  To date, 10 veterans and industry organizations have endorsed our 
legislation, including the American Legion, AMVETS, American Trucking 
Associations, Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association, 
Associated General Contractors, and the National Restaurant 
Association, among others.
  Distinguished colleagues, I believe this is good legislation that 
will benefit our veterans and our economy. I look forward to working 
with all of you to enact the VET Act and stand ready to assist you in 
your mission of helping our veterans succeed in civilian life. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the Veterans 
Employment Act of 2007, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 526

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Employment and 
     Training Act of 2007'' or the ``VET Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF PROGRAMS OF EDUCATION ELIGIBLE FOR 
                   ACCELERATED PAYMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 
                   UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 3014A of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) 
     and inserting the following new paragraph (1):
       ``(1) enrolled in--
       ``(A) an approved program of education that leads to 
     employment in a high technology occupation in a high 
     technology industry (as determined pursuant to regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary); or
       ``(B) during the period beginning on October 1, 2007, and 
     ending on September 30, 2011, an approved program of 
     education lasting less than two years that (as so determined) 
     leads to employment in--
       ``(i) the transportation sector of the economy;
       ``(ii) the construction sector of the economy;
       ``(iii) the hospitality sector of the economy; or
       ``(iv) the energy sector of the economy; and''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Heading amendment.--The heading of such section is 
     amended to read as follows:

[[Page S1784]]

     ``Sec. 3014A. Accelerated payment of basic educational 
       assistance''.

       (2) Clerical amendment.--The item relating to such section 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 30 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:
``3014A. Accelerated payment of basic educational assistance.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 528. A bill to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit 
the Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices for Class I 
milk on the distance or transportation costs from any location that is 
not within a marketing area, except under certain circumstances, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which 
could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by 
the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal 
Milk Marketing Order system.
  The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, 
establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout 
various marketing areas in the U.S. For 60 years, this system has 
discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a 
higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their 
farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been 
the region around Eau Claire, WI.
  My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful 
and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the 
current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher 
the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. 
This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh 
milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of 
difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation 
has long since changed and the provision persists to the detriment of 
the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not 
receive any milk from Wisconsin.
  The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of 
Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any 
location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities 
of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient 
market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory 
requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified 
in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in 
marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing 
simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in 
local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk 
production.
  This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on 
specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the 
Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by 
the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition 
on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.
  This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, 
because the current system has penalized them for many years. The 
current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it 
both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the 
country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. 
As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and 
milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid 
milk, the prices often lead to excess production.
  The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to 
ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an 
increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those 
manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed 
products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.
  The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact 
that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central States 
and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually 
shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk 
prices have generated so much excess production that these markets 
distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our 
manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further 
eroding prices in Wisconsin.
  The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in 
Federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office 
analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 
million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, 
because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and 
there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions 
that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination 
inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm 
revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually 
increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing 
regions.
  While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing 
fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was 
formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the 
primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to 
encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did 
not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.
  That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the 
primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices 
didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift 
of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the 
Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the Nation in 
milk production.
  The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper 
Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can 
compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates 
against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at 
a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid 
milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly 
climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices 
are growing rapidly.
  While the distance provision is a longstanding inequity, a recent 
proposal threatens to heap additional inequities on top of the current 
distance provision. A new proposal has been made asking the USDA to 
change the pricing formulas by decoupling fluid milk, Class I and II, 
price and the price for milk used in dairy products, Class III and IV, 
along with increasing the support for fluid milk. This would advantage 
areas with high fluid milk utilization by providing them a relatively 
higher price and disadvantage areas like Wisconsin where cheese-making 
is also a major use for milk. This price signal would likely then cause 
over-production in these regions, eventually driving down the price for 
milk used in dairy products and the price received by Wisconsin's dairy 
farmers.
  On top of this double-threat is a third negative impact. Decoupling 
the fluid milk price will undercut the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) 
safety net in Wisconsin because the trigger price for counter-cyclical 
support is based on Class I price in Boston. A higher fluid milk price 
will mean the MILC safety net is less effective, especially for regions 
that depend on the now decoupled class II and IV price like Wisconsin. 
It is very conceivable that this new proposal would allow the Class III 
and IV price to plummet while the Class I price remains above the 
trigger, eliminating the MILC safety net's usefulness for Wisconsin 
family dairy farmers.
  I joined with Senator Kohl and Representative Obey in sending a 
letter expressing these concerns to Secretary Johanns last month. In 
this letter we urge the USDA to reject this proposal which would amount 
to further unfair treatment in the federal regulations for Wisconsin's 
hard-working dairy farmers.
  In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in 
production might be acceptable. But in a market where the government is 
setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions 
outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this 
outdated

[[Page S1785]]

system, eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order 
pricing system and reject proposals to add further inequity into the 
system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 528

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Milk Marketing 
     Reform Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR MINIMUM PRICES FOR CLASS I 
                   MILK.

       Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
     608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (A)--
       (A) in clause (3) of the second sentence, by inserting 
     after ``the locations'' the following: ``within a marketing 
     area subject to the order''; and
       (B) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting the 
     following: ``Notwithstanding subsection (18) or any other 
     provision of law, when fixing minimum prices for milk of the 
     highest use classification in a marketing area subject to an 
     order under this subsection, the Secretary may not, directly 
     or indirectly, base the prices on the distance from, or all 
     or part of the costs incurred to transport milk to or from, 
     any location that is not within the marketing area subject to 
     the order, unless milk from the location constitutes at least 
     50 percent of the total supply of milk of the highest use 
     classification in the marketing area. The Secretary shall 
     report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate on the criteria that are used as 
     the basis for the minimum prices referred to in the preceding 
     sentence, including a certification that the minimum prices 
     are made in accordance with the preceding sentence.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (B)(ii)(c), by inserting after ``the 
     locations'' the following: ``within a marketing area subject 
     to the order''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD.
  S. 529. A bill to allow the modified bloc voting by cooperative 
associations of milk producers in connection with a referendum on 
Federal Milk Marketing Order reform; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a measure that 
will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the 
Nation.
  When dairy farmers across the country supposedly voted on a 
referendum eight years ago to consolidate and modernize the order 
system, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty 
years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing 
cooperatives cast their votes for them.
  This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. 
Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the 
interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular 
vote. It may serve the interest of time, but it doesn't always serve 
the interests of their producer owner-members.
  While I think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some 
circumstances, I have serious concerns about its use in every 
circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other States tell me that 
they do not agree with their cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, 
they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote 
count.
  I have learned from farmers and officials at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) that if a cooperative bloc votes, individual members 
have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair 
when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. Coops and 
their individual members do not always have identical interests. 
Considering our Nation's longstanding commitment to freedom of 
expression, our Federal rules should allow farmers to express a 
differing opinion from their coops, if they choose to.
  The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2007 is simple and fair. It 
provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot to 
opt to vote separately from the coop.
  This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of 
any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect 
that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Coops 
could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their 
right to vote individually. And to the extent that coops represent 
farmers' interests, in the majority of cases farmers are likely to vote 
the same as their coops. But whether they join the coops or not in 
voting for or against a measure, farmers deserve the right to vote 
according to their own views.
  I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's 
farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 529

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       The Act may be cited as the ``Democracy for Dairy Producers 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFIED BLOC VOTING.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding paragraph (12) of section 
     8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), 
     reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
     Agreement Act of 1937, in the case of the referendum 
     conducted as part of the consolidation of Federal milk 
     marketing orders and related reforms under section 143 of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7253), if a 
     cooperative association of milk producers elects to hold a 
     vote on behalf of its members as authorized by that 
     paragraph, the cooperative association shall provide to each 
     producer, on behalf of which the cooperative association is 
     expressing approval or disapproval, written notice 
     containing--
       (1) a description of the questions presented in the 
     referendum;
       (2) a statement of the manner in which the cooperative 
     association intends to cast its vote on behalf of the 
     membership; and
       (3) information regarding the procedures by which a 
     producer may cast an individual ballot.
       (b) Tabulation of Ballots.--At the time at which ballots 
     from a vote under subsection (a) are tabulated by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary shall adjust the vote 
     of a cooperative association to reflect individual votes 
     submitted by producers that are members of, stockholders in, 
     or under contract with, the cooperative association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 530. A bill to prohibit products that contain dry ultra-filtered 
milk products, milk protein concentrate, or casein from being labeled 
as domestic natural cheese, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Quality 
Cheese Act of 2005. This legislation will protect the consumer, save 
taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who 
have experienced a roller-coaster in prices over the past few years.
  When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural 
Wisconsin cheese. But in the past some in the food industry have pushed 
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change current law, which 
would leave consumers not knowing whether cheese is really all natural 
or not.
  If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese 
ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying 
``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate.
  If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, milk substitutes 
such as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra filtered milk 
could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk 
produced by cows in Wisconsin or other parts of the U.S.
  I was deeply concerned by these efforts a few years ago to change 
America's natural cheese standard. Efforts to allow milk protein 
concentrate and casein into natural cheese products fly in the face of 
logic and could create a loophole that would allow unlimited amounts of 
imported milk proteins of unknown quality to enter U.S. cheese vats.
  While the industry proposal was withdrawn, my legislation would 
permanently prevent a similar back-door attempt to allow imitation milk 
as a cheese ingredient and ensure that consumers could be confident 
that they were buying natural cheese when they saw the natural label.
  Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace 
due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by

[[Page S1786]]

dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese 
consumption has risen at a steady rate.
  These proposals to change our natural cheese standards, however, 
could decrease consumption of natural cheese by raising concerns about 
the origin of casein and milk protein concentrate. Use of such products 
could significantly tarnish the wholesome reputation of natural cheese 
in the eyes of the consumer and have unknown effects on quality and 
flavor.
  This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's 
dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is 
simply not fair to America's farmers or to consumers. After all, 
consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is 
unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into 
supposedly natural cheese, we would be denying consumers the entire 
picture.
  The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm 
the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will 
effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into 
the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these 
ingredients, these heavily subsidized products would quickly displace 
natural domestic dairy ingredients.
  These unnatural foreign dairy products would enter our domestic 
cheese market and could depress dairy prices paid to American dairy 
producers. Low dairy prices, in turn, could result in increased costs 
to the dairy price support program as the federal government is forced 
to buy domestic milk products when they are displaced in the market by 
cheap imports. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers would 
receive lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer would pay more for the dairy 
price support program--and in effect be subsidizing foreign dairy 
farmers and processors.
  This change does not benefit dairy farmers, consumers or taxpayers. 
Who then is it good for?
  It would benefit only the subsidized foreign MPC producers out to 
make a fast buck by exploiting a system put in place to support our 
dairy farmers.
  This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and 
taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk, casein, and MPCs from 
being included in America's natural cheese standard.
  Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to undermine 
America's dairy farmers. I urge my colleagues to pass my legislation 
and prevent a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, 
taxpayer, and dairy farmer.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 530

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Quality Cheese Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. NATURAL CHEESE STANDARD.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1)(A) any change in domestic natural cheese standards to 
     allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, milk protein 
     concentrate, or casein to be labeled as domestic natural 
     cheese would result in increased costs to the dairy price 
     support program; and
       (B) that change would be unfair to taxpayers, who would be 
     forced to pay more program costs;
       (2) any change in domestic natural cheese standards to 
     allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, milk protein 
     concentrate, or casein to be labeled as domestic natural 
     cheese would result in lower revenues for dairy farmers;
       (3) any change in domestic natural cheese standards to 
     allow dry ultra-filtered milk products, milk protein 
     concentrate, or casein to be labeled as domestic natural 
     cheese would cause dairy products containing dry ultra-
     filtered milk, milk protein concentrate, or casein to become 
     vulnerable to contamination and would compromise the 
     sanitation, hydrosanitary, and phytosanitary standards of the 
     United States dairy industry; and
       (4) changing the labeling standard for domestic natural 
     cheese would be misleading to the consumer.
       (b) Prohibition.--Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Whenever''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The Commissioner may not use any Federal funds to 
     amend section 133.3 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling), to 
     include dry ultra-filtered milk, milk protein concentrate, or 
     casein in the definition of the term `milk' or `nonfat milk', 
     as defined in the standards of identity for cheese and cheese 
     products published at part 133 of title 21, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or 
     ruling).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 531. A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly 
known as the ``Bennett Freeze''; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that 
would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the 
``Bennett Freeze.'' Passage of this legislation would officially mark 
the end of roughly 40 years of litigation and land-lock between the 
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. Congressman Rick Renzi has introduced 
an identical version today in the House of Representatives.
  For decades the Navajo and the Hopi have been engrossed in a bitter 
dispute over land rights in the Black Mesa area just south of Kayenta, 
AZ. The conflict extends as far back as 1882 when the boundaries of the 
Hopi and Navajo reservations were initially defined, resulting in a 
tragic saga of litigation and damaging Federal Indian policy. By 1966, 
relations between the tribes became so strained over development and 
access to sacred religious sites in the disputed area that the Federal 
Government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed reservation 
land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing development in the 
Black Mesa area and restricted repairs on existing dwellings. This 
injunction became known as the ``Bennett Freeze,'' named after former 
BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed the ban.
  The Bennett Freeze was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent 
one tribe taking advantage of another until the land dispute could be 
settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere near resolution, and 
the construction freeze ultimately devastated economic development in 
northern Arizona for years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 
people currently living in the Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions 
that haven't changed in half a century. While the population of the 
area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced 
to live together in homes that have been declared unfit for human 
habitation. Only 3 percent of the families affected by the Bennett 
Freeze have electricity. Only 10 percent have running water. Almost 
none have natural gas.
  In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi peoples' desire to live 
together in mutual respect prevailed when both tribes approved 
intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in 
the Bennett Freeze area. This landmark agreement also clarifies the 
boundaries of the Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures 
that access to religious sites of both tribes is protected. As such, 
the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Department of Interior all 
support congressional legislation to lift the freeze.
  The bill I'm introducing today would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The 
intergovernmental compact approved last year by both tribes, the 
Department of Interior, and signed by the U.S. District Court for 
Arizona, marks a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. Lifting the Bennett 
Freeze gives us an opportunity to put decades of conflict between the 
Navajo and Hopi behind us. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 532. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain Bureau of Land Management land to Park City, Utah, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Utah Public Land 
Conveyance Act of 2007, S. 532. This legislation is designed to improve 
the management of public lands and open space for the benefit of the 
citizens of Park City, UT.
  Park City has an existing lease on an 88-acre parcel of Bureau of 
Land Management land known as Gambel Oak and on a 20-acre parcel of BLM 
land known as White Acre. The leases for these properties have been for 
recreational and public open space purposes. This legislation would 
convey

[[Page S1787]]

these two parcels to Park City, so that they can be better managed for 
recreation and open space. The BLM has limited resources and is not 
able to manage these lands for the full benefit of the public.
  It's important to note that although these parcels of lands would be 
conveyed to Park City, they would continue to be protected from 
development and could be used only for recreational and public open 
space purposes. Moreover, this bill would require Park City to pay fair 
market value for the land.
  I believe having public lands interspersed with private lands within 
a city's boundary creates unnecessary management headaches, and the 
land conveyance to Park City will help bring cohesion to Park City's 
overall effort to manage their city's growth for the benefit of its 
citizens.
  Along those lines, the legislation also would allow two small parcels 
of BLM land in Park City to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, 
thus allowing these lands to be brought under the city's zoning scheme. 
Proceeds of these sales would go to the Department of the Interior to 
pay for the costs of administering this legislation. The remaining 
proceeds would be given to the BLM and dedicated toward restoration 
projects on BLM lands in Utah.
  As you can see, this legislation goes a long way to simplify and 
consolidate the management of lands in Park City, UT. The legislation 
allows the BLM to focus to a greater extent on the public lands which 
lay outside of city limits while raising revenue to facilitate that 
effort.
  I appreciate the efforts of Congressman Rob Bishop who has worked 
hard to put this legislation together and has introduced a companion 
bill in the House, H.R. 838. I look forward to working with him to get 
this legislation passed for the good people of Park City.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 533. A bill to amend the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to 
prohibit the issuance of permits for marine aquaculture facilities 
until requirements for the permits are enacted into law; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing an important 
bill on a subject that was not resolved last year, and which continues 
to be an outstanding issue for those of us who are dependent on healthy 
and productive natural populations of ocean fish and shellfish.
  Simply put, this bill prohibits further movement toward the 
development of aquaculture facilities in Federal waters until Congress 
has had an opportunity to review all of the serious implications, and 
make decisions on how such development should proceed.
  For years, some members of the Federal bureaucracy have advocated 
going forward with offshore aquaculture development without that 
debate. While the administration has entertained some level of public 
input, the role of Congress must not be undermined. Doing so, would be 
an extraordinarily bad idea.
  The Administration is in the final stages of preparing a bill to 
allow offshore aquaculture development to occur, and it plans to send 
the bill to Congress in the very near future. In the last Congress, the 
Administration proposed legislation to provide a regulatory framework 
for the development of off-shore aquaculture. While their draft bill is 
an improvement, it still does not establish clear mandatory 
environmental standards for the aquaculture industry.
  I remain steadfast that any proposal should meet the standards of the 
National Environmental Policy Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act and the Jones Act. Why should this 
industry be exempt from the same laws that our commercial fisheries are 
subject to? Why should this industry not go through the same rigorous 
environmental review as any other activity that will have impacts on 
the environment?
  Scientists, the media and the public are awakening to the serious 
disadvantages of fish raised in fish farming operations compared to 
naturally healthy wild fish species such as Alaska salmon, halibut, 
sablefish, crab and many other species.
  It has become common to see news reports that cite not only the 
general health advantages of eating fish at least once or twice a week, 
but the specific advantages of fish such as wild salmon, which contains 
essential Omega-3 fatty acids that may help reduce the risk of heart 
disease and possibly have similar beneficial effects on other diseases.

  Educated and watchful consumers have also seen recent stories citing 
research that not only demonstrates that farmed salmon fed vegetable-
based food does not have the same beneficial impact on cardio-vascular 
health, but also that the demand for other fish that we use as feed in 
those fish farms may lead to the decimation of those stocks. Yet the 
Administration's bill does not address feed in a meaningful way.
  Those same alert consumers may also have seen stories indicating that 
fish farms may create serious pollution problems from the concentration 
of fish feces and uneaten food, that fish farms may harbor diseases 
that can be transmitted to previously healthy wild fish stocks, and 
that fish farming has had a devastating effect on communities that 
depend on traditional fisheries.
  It is by no means certain that all those problems would be duplicated 
if we begin to develop fish farms that are farther offshore, but 
neither is there any evidence that they would not be . . . I certainly 
don't believe it is prudent to extend the site permits to 20 years, as 
in the draft bill, given all of the questions and uncertainties of the 
environmental risks.
  Not only do the proponents want to encourage such development, they 
also want to change the way decisions are made so that all the 
authority rests in the hands of just one Federal agency. I believe that 
would be a serious mistake. There are simply too many factors that 
should be evaluated--from hydraulic engineering, to environmental 
impacts, transportation and shipping issues, fish biology, management 
of disease, to the nutritional character of farmed fish, and so on--for 
any existing agency.
  We cannot afford a rush to judgment on this issue--it is far too 
dangerous if we make a mistake. In my view, such a serious matter 
deserves the same level of scrutiny by Congress as the recommendations 
of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for other sweeping changes in 
ocean governance.
  The ``Natural Stock Conservation Act'' I am introducing today lays 
down a marker for where the debate on offshore aquaculture needs to go. 
It would prohibit the development of new offshore aquaculture 
operations until Congress has acted to ensure that every Federal agency 
involved does the necessary analyses in areas such as disease control, 
engineering, pollution prevention, biological and genetic impacts, 
economic and social effects, and other critical issues, none of which 
are specifically required under existing law.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to understand that this is not a 
parochial issue, but a very real threat to the literal viability of 
natural fish and shellfish stocks, as well as the economic viability of 
many coastal communities. We must retain the oversight necessary to 
ensure that if we move forward on the development of off-shore 
aquaculture.
  I sincerely hope that Congress will give this issue the attention it 
deserves. We all want to make sure we enjoy abundant supplies of 
healthy foods in the future, but not if it means unnecessary and 
avoidable damage to wild species, to the environment generally, and to 
the economies of America's coastal fishing communities.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 533

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Natural Stock Conservation 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PERMITS FOR AQUACULTURE.

       The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2801 et 
     seq.) is amended--

[[Page S1788]]

       (1) by redesignating sections 10 and 11 (16 U.S.C. 2809, 
     2810) as sections 11 and 12 respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 9 (16 U.S.C. 2808) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON PERMITS FOR AQUACULTURE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture.--
     The term `agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture' 
     means--
       ``(A) the Department of Agriculture;
       ``(B) the Coast Guard;
       ``(C) the Department of Commerce;
       ``(D) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       ``(E) the Department of the Interior; and
       ``(F) the Army Corps of Engineers.
       ``(2) Exclusive economic zone.--The term `exclusive 
     economic zone' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of 
     the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1802).
       ``(3) Regional fishery management council.--The term 
     `regional fishery management council' means a regional 
     fishery management council established under section 302(a) 
     of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)).
       ``(b) Prohibition on Permits for Aquaculture.--The head of 
     an agency with jurisdiction to regulate aquaculture may not 
     issue a permit or license to permit an aquaculture facility 
     located in the exclusive economic zone to operate until after 
     the effective date of a bill enacted into law that--
       ``(1) sets out the type and specificity of the analyses 
     that the head of an agency with jurisdiction to regulate 
     aquaculture shall carry out prior to issuing any such permit 
     or license, including analyses related to--
       ``(A) disease control;
       ``(B) structural engineering;
       ``(C) pollution;
       ``(D) biological and genetic impacts;
       ``(E) access and transportation;
       ``(F) food safety; and
       ``(G) social and economic impacts of the facility on other 
     marine activities, including commercial and recreational 
     fishing; and
       ``(2) requires that a decision to issue such a permit or 
     license be--
       ``(A) made only after the head of the agency that issues 
     the license or permit consults with the Governor of each 
     State located within a 200-mile radius of the aquaculture 
     facility; and
       ``(B) approved by the regional fishery management council 
     that is granted authority under title III of the Magnuson-
     Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1851 et seq.) over a fishery in the region where the 
     aquaculture facility will be located.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 535. A bill to establish an Unsolved Crimes Section in the Civil 
Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and an Unsolved Civil 
Rights Crime Investigative Office in the Civil Rights Unit of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Emmett Till 
Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, legislation to provide for the 
investigation and prosecution of unsolved civil rights crimes. In this 
effort, I am proud to be joined by Senator Leahy.
  There are those who would say this bill is a case of ``too little, 
too late.'' In some ways they would be right. Where is the justice, I 
suppose, when a monster such as Edgar Ray Killen roamed free for 
literally decades after killing young civil rights workers in this 
country? That fact alone speaks to the inexcusable failures of our 
legal system to bring to justice those who committed brutal crimes 
based solely on racial prejudice.
  Not that many years ago, crimes of this type were rarely investigated 
in parts of our country. There was often little or no effort made 
whatsoever to determine who engaged in these brutal violent acts. In 
more recent history, of course, we have seen much stronger efforts and 
I applaud this work. However, I believe there remains good 
justification for dedicating an adequate amount of resources to go back 
and reopen the books on those tragic unsolved crimes. Those who engaged 
in these activities, who think they never have to worry another day in 
their lives about being pursued, take note--take note that you may 
never and should never have a sleep-filled night again, that we will 
pursue you as long as you live, that we will do everything in our power 
to apprehend you and bring you to the bar of justice.
  That is the message we want to convey to the families, the friends, 
and others who lost loved ones, who put their lives on the line by 
advocating for greater justice, helping our Nation achieve that ``more 
perfect union'' that our Founders spoke about, that Abraham Lincoln 
articulated brilliantly more than a century and a half ago.
  That is at the heart of this effort--to try to level this field. We 
will never be a perfect union, but each generation bears the 
responsibility for getting us closer to that ideal.
  America stands for the principle of equal justice for all. Yet for 
far too long, many Americans have been denied that equal justice, and 
many despicable criminals have not been held accountable for what they 
have done to deprive people of those equal opportunities. This is a 
failure we can never forget.
  So this Senate, in this Congress, on this date, early in the 21st 
century, is saying that we will not forget. This bill is on record. 
This bill seeks to right the wrongs of the past and to bring justice to 
people who perpetrated these heinous crimes because of racial hatred. 
We are saying that we want to create the mechanism to allow us to 
pursue these wrongdoers in the coming years. It cannot bring back and 
make whole those who have suffered and were murdered by a racist 
criminal hand. But it can reaffirm our Nation's commitment to seek the 
truth and to make equal justice a reality.
  To do this, we propose the creation of two new offices. The Unsolved 
Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office will be a division of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation devoted to the aggressive investigation 
of pre-1970 cases in coordination with local law enforcement officials. 
The Unsolved Crimes Section will be an office within the Civil Rights 
Division of the Department of Justice and will focus specifically on 
prosecuting those cases investigated by the new FBI office.
  The hour is, obviously, very late. Memories are dimming. Those who 
can bring some important information to the legal authorities are 
passing away. This bill may be the last and best chance we have as a 
nation to write a hopeful postscript in the struggle for racial 
equality in our Nation.
  We are pleased to be working with our friends in the House to help 
right these wrongs done in our past, especially Representative John 
Lewis, who has worked throughout his distinguished life to make sure 
that the promise of America can be realized for all our citizens.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 535

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emmett Till Unsolved Civil 
     Rights Crime Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that all authorities with 
     jurisdiction, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     and other entities within the Department of Justice, should--
       (1) expeditiously investigate unsolved civil rights 
     murders, due to the amount of time that has passed since the 
     murders and the age of potential witnesses; and
       (2) provide all the resources necessary to ensure timely 
     and thorough investigations in the cases involved.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Chief investigator.--The term ``Chief Investigator'' 
     means the Chief Investigator of the Unit.
       (2) Criminal civil rights statutes.--The term ``criminal 
     civil rights statutes'' means--
       (A) section 241 of title 18, United States Code (relating 
     to conspiracy against rights);
       (B) section 242 of title 18, United States Code (relating 
     to deprivation of rights under color of law);
       (C) section 245 of title 18, United States Code (relating 
     to federally protected activities);
       (D) sections 1581 and 1584 of title 18, United States Code 
     (relating to involuntary servitude and peonage);
       (E) section 901 of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3631); 
     and
       (F) any other Federal law that--
       (i) was in effect on or before December 31, 1969; and
       (ii) the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division of 
     the Department of Justice enforced, prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Unsolved Civil 
     Rights Crime Investigative Office established under section 
     5.
       (4) Deputy.--The term ``Deputy'' means the Deputy for the 
     Unsolved Civil Rights Era Crimes Unit
       (5) Unit.--The term ``Unit'' (except when used as part of 
     the term ``Criminal Section'')

[[Page S1789]]

     means the Unsolved Civil Rights Era Crimes Unit established 
     under section 4.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF SECTION IN CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION.

       (a) In General.--There is established in the Criminal 
     Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 
     Justice an Unsolved Civil Rights Era Crimes Unit. The Unit 
     shall be headed by a Deputy for the Unsolved Civil Rights Era 
     Crimes Unit.
       (b) Responsibility.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     Federal law, and except as provided in section 5, the Deputy 
     shall be responsible for investigating and prosecuting 
     violations of criminal civil rights statutes, in cases in 
     which a complaint alleges that such a violation--
       (A) occurred not later than December 31, 1969; and
       (B) resulted in a death.
       (2) Coordination.--
       (A) Investigative activities.--In investigating a complaint 
     under paragraph (1), the Deputy shall coordinate 
     investigative activities with State and local law enforcement 
     officials.
       (B) Venue.--After investigating a complaint under paragraph 
     (1), or receiving a report of an investigation conducted 
     under section 5, if the Deputy determines that an alleged 
     practice that is a violation of a criminal civil rights 
     statute occurred in a State, or political subdivision of a 
     State, that has a State or local law prohibiting the practice 
     alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local law 
     enforcement official to grant or seek relief from such 
     practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect to 
     the practice on receiving notice of the practice, the Deputy 
     shall consult with the official regarding the appropriate 
     venue for the case involved.
       (3) Referral.--After investigating a complaint under 
     paragraph (1), or receiving a report of an investigation 
     conducted under section 5, the Deputy shall refer the 
     complaint to the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights 
     Division, if the Deputy determines that the subject of the 
     complaint has violated a criminal civil rights statute in the 
     case involved but the violation does not meet the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
       (c) Study and Report.--
       (1) Study.--The Deputy shall annually conduct a study of 
     the cases under the jurisdiction of the Deputy or under the 
     jurisdiction of the Chief Investigator and, in conducting the 
     study, shall determine the cases--
       (A) for which the Deputy has sufficient evidence to 
     prosecute violations of criminal civil rights statutes; and
       (B) for which the Deputy has insufficient evidence to 
     prosecute those violations.
       (2) Report.--Not later than September 30 of 2007 and of 
     each subsequent year, the Deputy shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress a report containing the results of the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1), including a description of the 
     cases described in paragraph (1)(B).

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE IN FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
                   INVESTIGATION.

       (a) In General.--There is established in the Civil Rights 
     Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department 
     of Justice an Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative 
     Office. The Office shall be headed by a Deputy Investigator.
       (b) Responsibility.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with an agreement 
     established between the Deputy Investigator and the Deputy, 
     the Deputy Investigator shall be responsible for 
     investigating violations of criminal civil rights statutes, 
     in cases described in section 4(b).
       (2) Coordination.--
       (A) Investigative activities.--In investigating a complaint 
     under paragraph (1), the Deputy Investigator shall coordinate 
     the investigative activities with State and local law 
     enforcement officials.
       (B) Referral.--After investigating a complaint under 
     paragraph (1), the Deputy Investigator shall--
       (i) determine whether the subject of the complaint has 
     violated a criminal rights statute in the case involved; and
       (ii) refer the complaint to the Deputy, together with a 
     report containing the determination and the results of the 
     investigation.
       (C) Resources.--The Federal Bureau of Investigation, in 
     coordination with the Department of Justice, Civil Rights 
     Division, shall have discretion to re-allocate investigative 
     personnel to jurisdictions to carry out the goals of this 
     section.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and each 
     subsequent fiscal year through 2017. These funds shall be 
     allocated by the Attorney General to the Unsolved Civil 
     Rights Era Crime Unit of the Department of Justice and the 
     Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 
     order to advance the purposes set forth in this Act.
       (b) Additional Appropriations.--Any funds appropriated 
     under this section shall consist of additional appropriations 
     for the activities described in this Act, rather than funds 
     made available through reductions in the appropriations 
     authorized for other enforcement activities of the Department 
     of Justice.
       (c) Community Relations Service of the Department of 
     Justice.--In addition to any amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under title XI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000h et seq.), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Community Relations Service of the 
     Department of Justice $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2008 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year, to enable the Service (in 
     carrying out the functions described in title X of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000g et seq.)) to provide technical assistance by 
     bringing together law enforcement agencies and communities in 
     the investigation of violations of criminal civil rights 
     statutes, in cases described in section 4(b).

     SEC. 7. SUNSET.

       Sections 1 through 6 of this Act shall expire at the end of 
     fiscal year 2017.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

       Title XXXVII of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     5779 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 3703. AUTHORITY OF INSPECTORS GENERAL.

       ``(a) In General.--An Inspector General appointed under 
     section 3 or 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App.) may authorize staff to assist the National 
     Center for Missing and Exploited Children--
       ``(1) by conducting reviews of inactive case files to 
     develop recommendations for further investigations; and
       ``(2) by engaging in similar activities.
       ``(b) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Priority.--An Inspector General may not permit staff 
     to engage in activities described in subsection (a) if such 
     activities will interfere with the duties of the Inspector 
     General under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
     App.).
       ``(2) Funding.--No additional funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this section.''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd in 
reintroducing the Dodd-Leahy Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime 
Act. This bill strengthens the ability of our federal government to 
investigate and prosecute unsolved murders from the civil rights era.
  I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership and commitment to enacting 
this meaningful civil rights bill. And I look forward to working with 
other Senators as this bill moves forward.
  I am also very pleased that the Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act once 
again includes the Missing Child Cold Case Review Act, which I 
sponsored in the last Congress to provide the investigative expertise 
of our Inspectors General in reviewing the cold cases of missing 
children.
  Under current law, an inspector general's duties are limited to 
activities related to the programs and operations of an agency. My bill 
would allow inspectors general to assign criminal investigators to 
assist in the review of cold case files at National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children. NCMEC, so long as doing so would not interfere 
with normal duties. I understand that our inspectors general are eager 
to provide this assistance, and this measure allows them legal 
authorization to do that. These cases need resolution. As parents and 
grandparents we all know that and, where our Government can provide its 
resources, it should.
  The primary thrust of this bill targets murders from the civil rights 
era.
  Nearly 52 years ago, the brutal murder of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old 
African-American teenager, stirred the concience of our country. Young 
Emmett Till walked into a local country store in Money, MS, to buy some 
candy and allegedly whistled at the white store clerk. That night, two 
white half-brothers, J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant, kidnapped Emmett Till 
from his great uncle's home. Several days later, his brutally beaten 
and unrecognizable body was fished out of the nearby Tallahatchie 
River. No one was ever punished for this tragic and brutal murder.
  Emmett Till's death served as momentum for change. It inspired a 
generation of Americans to demand justice and freedom in a way America 
had never seen before. During the civil rights movement, the road to 
Mississippi became the highway of change for an entire country.
  Yet the movement had a darker side. Fifty-two years after Emmett 
Till's murder, the families of many Americans who lost their lives 
during the civil rights era are still awaiting justice. We must not 
forget their sacrifice. And one way to honor that sacrifice is acting 
before the window of time closes. New evidence of cold cases trickles 
in while older evidence continues to fade and witnesses age. We must 
have a sense of urgency to ensure that justice is rendered. We cannot 
afford to wait.
  The Emmett Till Unsolved Crime Act would provide the Federal 
Government

[[Page S1790]]

with much needed tools to expeditiously investigate and prosecute 
unsolved civil rights era cold cases. To accomplish this goal, the 
legislation calls for the creation of new cold case units in the 
Justice Department and FBI solely dedicated to investigating and 
prosecuting unsolved cases that involved violations of criminal civil 
rights statutes, resulting in death, and occurring before January 1, 
1970. This measure also seeks to provide proper coordination between 
federal officials and state and local government officials on these 
cases.
  This bill ensures that the Federal Government is held accountable by 
requiring the Justice Department and FBI cold case units to submit 
annual reports to Congress describing which cold cases were selected 
for further investigation and prosecution and which were not.
  By shedding light on unsolved civil rights era murders, I hope this 
bill will end our Nation's ``quiet game'' on civil rights murders. 
Justice is better served by allowing our entire nation to acknowledge 
past wrongs, including wrongs aided by lax law enforcement. Just this 
week, The Washington Post reported that the briefcase of slain Florida 
civil rights leader Harry T. Moore, which mysteriously disappeared 55 
years ago from a local courthouse, was found in a barn. We must hold 
our .government officials more accountable.
  Progress has been made. According to a February 4, 2007, article in 
USA Today, entitled ``Civil rights-era killers escape justice,'' since 
1989, authorities in seven States have reexamined 29 killings from the 
civil rights era and made 28 arrests that led to 22 convictions, 
including this month's arrest of former Klansman James Seale for the 
May 2, 1964, abduction and killings of Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles 
Eddie Moore.
  Despite some progress, much remains to be done. Just how many people 
died during that period is uncertain. At the National Civil Rights 
Memorial in Birmingham, AL, is the Civil Rights Memorial Center, where 
86 additional names appear on a wall dedicated to the ``forgotten 
others.'' This bill ensures that no sacrifice in the pursuit of freedom 
goes unnoticed.
  Even today, violence or the threat of violence serves as a barrier to 
full and equal participation in our society. On January 11, 2007, the 
NAACP asked the FBI to investigate three recent acts of violence and 
intimidation against against African-American mayors, including shots 
fired into the home of Greenwood, LA's first black mayor and the 
mysterious shooting death of Westlake, LA's, first black mayor two days 
before he was scheduled to take office. And two days ago the Anti-
Defamation League, which monitors racist hate groups, released a report 
showing that ``Klan groups have witnessed a surprising and troubling 
resurgence by exploiting fears of an immigration explosion.''
  There is no place for racial violence or political terrorism in a 
democracy. We must rededicate ourselves, as a Nation and as 
individuals, to protecting the full human equality of all Americans. We 
start today by ensuring that the guilty do not go unpunished, or that 
justice--even if delayed--is denied. By passing this bill and enacting 
it into law, we continue our march toward building a more fair and just 
society.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 536. A bill to amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to 
prohibit the labeling of cloned livestock and products derived from 
cloned livestock as organic; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill to provide further 
clarity that cloned animals and the products of cloned animals may not 
be considered organic under the National Organic Program.
  A recent article in the Washington Post suggested that there has been 
some confusion over this point at USDA. I would hope that the 
Department's advisory board on these matters would utilize existing law 
to protect the integrity of organic standards without Congressional 
intervention. I believe they have more than adequate authority to do 
so. But if they fail to do so, Congress may be left with no option but 
to intervene.
  This bill has one purpose and one purpose only; to protect the 
integrity of organic standards. The conditions under which cloned 
animal products enter our general food systems will be much debated in 
the months and years to come. But I would hope that we can begin that 
discussion with general consensus that it is not acceptable for cloned 
food products to enter the marketplace under the organic label.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
        Lieberman):
  S. 537. A bill to address ongoing small business and homeowner needs 
in the Gulf Coast States impacted by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane 
Rita; to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 538. A bill to reduce income tax withholding deposits to reflect a 
FICA payroll tax credit for certain employers located in specified 
portions of the GO Zone, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Lott, and Mr. Kerry)
  S. 539. A bill to address ongoing economic injury in Gulf Coast 
States impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by reviving tourist 
travel to the region; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I again come to the floor today to 
highlight the ongoing needs of our small businesses in the gulf coast 
who were devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In Louisiana alone, 
these disasters claimed 1,464 lives, destroyed more than 200,000 homes 
and 18,000 businesses and inflicted $25 billion in uninsured losses. 
Many of my colleagues here in the Senate have been down to Louisiana 
and have seen firsthand the size and scope of the destruction.
  The Congress has been very generous in providing billions of Federal 
recovery dollars as well as valuable Gulf Opportunity--GO--Zone tax 
incentives to help spur recovery in the region. These resources will be 
key in the recovery of the region but there are additional needs on the 
ground that still must be addressed. That is why I am proud to 
introduce a comprehensive package of three bills today--the Gulf Coast 
Back to Business Act of 2007, the Helping Our States Through Tourism 
Act of 2007, and the Work, Hope, and Opportunity for the Disaster Area 
Today Act of 2007. I believe these three bills provide substantive, 
commonsense solutions for addressing needs on the ground in the gulf 
coast. I am pleased that my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, 
as well as Senator Kerry, chairman of the Senate Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee, joined me in cosponsoring both the Gulf 
Coast Back to Business Act and the Helping Our States through Tourism 
Act. My friend Senator Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, also joined me by 
cosponsoring the Gulf Coast Back to Business Act. I appreciate my 
colleagues' support on these bills and hope that we continue to work in 
this bipartisan manner to provide real solutions for the gulf coast.
  As you know, Katrina was the most destructive hurricane ever to hit 
the United States. The next month, in September, Hurricane Rita hit the 
Louisiana and Texas coast. It was the second most powerful hurricane 
ever to hit the United States, wreaking havoc on the southwestern part 
of my State and the east Texas coast. This one-two punch devastated 
Louisiana lives, communities and jobs, stretching from Cameron Parish 
in the west to Plaquemines Parish in the east.
  We are now rebuilding our State and the wide variety of communities 
that were devastated by Rita and Katrina, areas representing a diverse 
mix of population, income and cultures. We hope to restore the region's 
uniqueness and its greatness. To do that, we need to rebuild our local 
economies now and far into the future.
  My State estimates that there were 81,000 businesses in the Katrina 
and Rita disaster zones. As I mentioned, a total of 18,752 of these 
businesses were catastrophically destroyed. However, on a wider scale, 
according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 125,000 small- and 
medium-sized businesses in the gulf region were disrupted by Katrina 
and Rita. Many of these businesses have yet to resume operations

[[Page S1791]]

and others are struggling to survive. We will never succeed without 
these small businesses. They will be the key to the revitalization of 
the gulf coast.
  After talking to the business leaders and small businesses in my 
State, there are three things that they need right now: immediate 
capital and their fair share of Federal recovery contracts, help in 
attracting more travel and tourism to the area, and tax relief, 
especially on some of the Gulf Opportunity--GO--Zone provisions which 
are set to expire.
  For example, under current law, the SBA cannot disburse more than 
$10,000 for an approved disaster loan without showing collateral. This 
is to limit the loss to the SBA in the event that a loan defaults. 
However, this disbursement amount has not been increased since 1998 and 
these days, $10,000 is not enough to get a business up and running or 
to allow a homeowner to start making repairs. The Gulf Coast Back to 
Business Act increases this collateral requirement for Katrina and Rita 
disaster loans from $10,000 to $35,000.
  To address the lack of access to capital for our businesses, this 
bill includes a provision to provide funds to Louisiana and Mississippi 
to help small businesses now. Not 3 months from now, but as quickly as 
possible. We are asking for $100 million so that businesses can have 
money they need for to repair, rebuild, and pay their employees until 
they get back up and running again. The States know what the needs of 
their affected businesses are and we want to provide them with this 
money so they can start helping businesses now. These funds would 
bolster existing State grant/loan programs and would help Louisiana and 
Mississippi reach out to more impacted businesses.
  Many businesses and homeowners are also coming up on the end of their 
standard 1-year deferment of payment on principal and interest on their 
SBA disaster loans. For most disasters, 1 year is more than enough time 
for borrowers to get back on their feet. But for disasters on the scale 
of Katrina and Rita, 1 year came and went, with communities just now 
seeing gas stations open and some homeowners are just now returning to 
rebuild their homes. This is a unique situation and for French Quarter 
businesses, where tourism is down at least 60 percent from pre-Katrina 
levels, to require them to start making payments on a $50,000 loan is 
virtually impossible if there are no customers. Homeowners, too, are 
experiencing widespread uncertainty and I believe this current 1-year 
deferment requires serious reconsideration. That is why this bill gives 
borrowers an additional year to get their lives in order--allow 
residents to begin fixing their homes and allow businesses the time for 
economic activity to pick back up.
  The Gulf Coast Back to Business Act also addresses the problem in 
which many of our local small businesses have been unable to obtain 
Federal recovery contracts. I understand that this is due to many 
reasons ranging from a lack of sufficient bonding to a lack of 
experience with contracts of these sizes and scope. That said, I know 
of countless local businesses with the right experience and personnel, 
yet they have had to settle for being a subcontractor on a contract 
some out-of-State company won. We appreciate out-of-State firms wanting 
to help our region recover, but if our local firms can do the work, 
they should get their fair share of these contracts. It is a no-brainer 
to let local firms rebuild their own communities but this has not 
happened on a wide scale in my State or across the impacted areas. This 
bill would fix that by designating the entire Katrina and Rita disaster 
area as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone. The expansion of 
this program to the devastated areas would help give our local small 
businesses a preference when they bid on Federal contracts. I should 
note that this proposal had bipartisan support in the 109th Congress 
and actually passed the Senate as part of the Fourth Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations bill. However, despite the fact that this 
provision had widespread, bipartisan support from the gulf coast Senate 
delegation, it was stripped out in conference with the House of 
Representatives. So for the 110th Congress, I am pleased to re-
introduce this provision in the Senate and to work closely with my 
colleagues to get our small businesses this vital help.

  As I mentioned, following these disasters, about 18,000 businesses 
were catastrophically destroyed, many more economically impacted, and 
most still are struggling with the ongoing slowdown in travel and 
tourism to Louisiana. In terms of ongoing needs on the ground, the lack 
of tourism is stifling our full economic recovery, particularly the 
recovery of our small businesses in New Orleans. I do not think that 
people outside Louisiana know how vital tourism is to our economy. In 
2004, tourism was the State of Louisiana's second largest industry--
employing 175,000 workers. The tourism industry also had a $9.9 billion 
economic impact in the State in 2004 and generated $600 million in 
State/local taxes. That is huge for our State and, by all indications, 
2004 was a record year for tourism to the State and 2005 was on course 
to beat that. But then came Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the 
subsequent levee breaks, and tourism literally came to a grinding halt 
for the rest of the year. Travel and tourism picked up somewhat in 2006 
but it has remained slow and has economically impacted our small 
businesses, many of which are dependent on the steady stream of revenue 
coming in from out-of-State tourists.
  For example, according to the New Orleans Conventions and Visitors 
Bureau, Mardi Gras brings in about 700,000 tourists each year. Jazz 
Fest, which is a world-renowned music festival in New Orleans that 
happens each summer, usually draws half that--350,000 tourists. These 
tourists not only spend their time and money in New Orleans, but 
oftentimes travel around South Louisiana or even visit our friends next 
door in Mississippi. So in this respect, New Orleans is the gateway to 
tourism elsewhere in Louisiana and the rest of the gulf coast. For this 
reason, I believe it is important to not only spur travel/tourism to 
New Orleans but also to the rest of Louisiana and Mississippi as our 
smaller communities in these areas depend on tourism for their economic 
well-being.
  Take Natchez, MS, for example. This historic town is full of 
beautiful antebellum homes and had a thriving business district pre-
Katrina. It suffered minimal damage during the storm but now is 
struggling to get the word out that it is open for business. New 
Orleans is in much the same situation. Many parts of New Orleans, such 
as the Lower Ninth Ward and New Orleans East, do indeed have damaged 
houses and vacant businesses--as seen on television. But there are also 
parts of these communities which are slowly recovering and many parts 
of New Orleans, particularly the historic French Quarter, which 
survived Katrina are relatively unscathed. Despite that they are 
open and desperately need the revenue, businesses in the French Quarter 
are struggling to attract visitors.

  With this mind, the Help Our States through Tourism Act, or HOST Act, 
which I am introducing as part of this legislative package, will 
provide significant assets to help our tourism sectors recover. In 
particular, this bill provides a total of $175 million for tourism 
marketing for the States of Louisiana and Mississippi. This pool of 
money would not only be used for the promotion of the States, but also 
to help communities rebuild their tourism and cultural assets, such as 
arts and music, which makes them a unique attraction for visitors.
  The $175 million is also a wise investment for the Federal Government 
and not without precedent. In 2004, for every dollar spent on tourism 
in Mississippi, the State generated $12 in revenue. Louisiana was even 
better, generating $14 for every dollar spent on tourism that year. 
Also, when we talk about small business recovery, nothing helps our 
impacted small businesses more than having tourists return and spend 
money in these communities. In effect it works just as good as a grant 
but also helps the airline industry, our local restaurants and hotels, 
as well as the small businesses themselves. Furthermore, following 
September 11, Lower Manhattan was able to use supplemental Community 
Development Block Grant--CDBG--funds for tourism marketing. The State 
of Louisiana also recently used $28.5 million of supplemental CDBG 
funds for the ``Come Fall in Love With Louisiana All Over Again'' 
campaign. Given that Katrina and Rita were the first and third most-

[[Page S1792]]

costliest disasters in U.S. history, as well as the unprecedented media 
coverage on the destruction, these funds are badly needed to spread the 
word that our impacted communities are ready for our friends from 
around the country, and the world, to return and enjoy our unique 
culture, cuisine, and entertainment.
  This bill also authorizes the U.S. Small Business Administration to 
provide Economic Injury Disaster Loans to tourism-dependent businesses 
in Mississippi and Louisiana that can demonstrate direct economic 
impacts from the post-Katrina and Rita tourism/travel slowdown. In 
talking to Federal agencies as well as our local small businesses, it 
is clear to me that no one believed that the economic impact would 
continue this long. Businesses also expected Federal/State assistance 
much sooner so many were left in a position of lacking revenue but 
waiting, and waiting, for the promised recovery funds to get into their 
hands. It has slowly come in the past year but now many businesses who 
waited months for Federal financial assistance, are now struggling to 
stay in business with little/no customer base. These Economic Injury 
Disaster Loans would help our tourism-dependent businesses stay afloat 
since the economic injury, as well as the tourism slowdown, has lasted 
much longer than most experts expected.
  The HOST Act also would establish a $2.5 million fund in the Federal 
Treasury for Government agencies to hold conventions, workshops, and 
other events in the Katrina/Rita Disaster Area. Federal workers, like 
other convention visitors, bring in valuable revenue to our communities 
and pre-Katrina, New Orleans was one of the top convention destinations 
in the country. Post-Katrina, Federal agencies are already conducting 
activities and holding events in the disaster areas, but this fund 
would be separate of the normal administrative funds normally used for 
these purposes. Since this would be a separate pool of money that 
agencies could access, it would encourage more Federal agencies to hold 
their big conventions/events in the gulf coast. In the scheme of the 
billions allocated for recovery in the gulf coast, $2.5 million is not 
a large sum of money, but for Federal agencies looking to hold large 
events, it would serve as incentive to choose New Orleans or Mobile or 
Natchez for their next event. This amount of money is also not large 
enough to severely impact other destinations such as Las Vegas or San 
Francisco, but would be just enough funds to, hopefully, steer a couple 
of large conventions in our direction.

  I am also pleased to introduce the Work, Hope, and Opportunity for 
the Disaster Area Today Act of 2007 to help small businesses in the 
hardest hit areas of the Gulf Opportunity--GO--Zone as they work to 
succeed in a very challenging environment. We have made great progress 
in rebuilding our communities and our local economies in the gulf 
coast. The Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 has produced needed 
investment in housing and provided businesses with important tax 
incentives to invest in new plant and equipment as part of their 
rebuilding. The Federal Government has made funding available to 
rebuild our levees. At the end of the last Congress, we passed the 
Domenici-Landrieu Outer Continental Shelf Revenue sharing bill that 
Louisiana will use to restore our wetlands as an additional barrier of 
hurricane protection.
  However, we still face many challenges that are making it difficult 
for our small businesses. In Louisiana, as I mentioned, tourism--one of 
our most important industries--is down. We have had 22 percent fewer 
visitors and those that are visiting are spending 35 percent less money 
than before the storm. The city of New Orleans has lost more than half 
of its population. On top of this, labor costs and insurance premiums 
have skyrocketed, making it more expensive for businesses to keep 
paying the workers they have.
  The combination of these various factors have hit our small 
businesses hard. They used the tax benefits of the Gulf Opportunity 
Zone Act to invest and rebuild, and they are open for business. But 
they are losing money because of downturn in tourism and they cannot 
afford to do that for much longer. I am hopeful that the HOST Act will 
address many of these needs but additional assistance is needed.
  The Work, Hope, and Opportunity for the Disaster Area Today Act is a 
package of short-term tax breaks that will help put money in the hands 
of small businesses immediately, as well as extend tax breaks that 
already exist in the GO Zone. The main tax provision is a wage tax cut 
for employers. Small employers in the most heavily hit areas of the GO 
Zone--defined as those parishes and counties that experienced 60 
percent or higher housing damage--will be eligible for a tax credit in 
the amount of FICA taxes they paid on up to $15,000 in salary per 
employee. This would lower employer tax burdens immediately, leaving 
them more money in hand as an offset to the losses that they are 
experiencing.
  My bill also contains a bonus business meals and entertainment 
deduction to encourage business travel to the GO Zone. Under current 
law, businesses can only deduct up to 50 percent of meals and 
entertainment expenses. The Work, Hope, and Opportunity Act would allow 
a full deduction for these expenses if they are incurred in the areas 
of the GO Zone that need it the most. This will bring more conventions, 
meetings and conferences to the Gulf.
  We must also extend some of the expiring provisions in the GO Zone 
Act. For example, my legislation will extend the special small business 
Section 179 expensing that is available in the gulf coast. Small 
businesses in the rest of the country can deduct up to $112,000 in 2007 
of the cost of investments they make in their businesses such as 
computers and software, or new equipment and machinery. GO Zone small 
businesses can deduct an additional $100,000 for these investments. 
This special GO Zone benefit, however, will expire at the end of this 
year. The Work, Hope, and Opportunity bill will extend this much needed 
assistance until 2010. It will also extend the availability of the Work 
Opportunity Tax Credit for Katrina employees and the special 15-year 
depreciation schedule for restaurants, retail, and other leasehold 
property for the GO Zone.
  In introducing this comprehensive legislative package today, I am 
hopeful that it sends the signal to gulf coast residents and businesses 
that Congress has not forgotten about them. Congress made great strides 
during the 109th Congress to help disaster victims, but that does not 
mean we should just write off recurring problems to the responsibility 
of States or disaster victims themselves. There are still ongoing needs 
in the gulf coast and I believe the 110th Congress should address these 
needs. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to provide substantive and lasting solutions for our 
small businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to support these important pieces of legislation 
and ask unanimous consent that the text of the three bills be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bills were ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 537

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gulf Coast Back to Business 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) 43 percent of businesses that close following a natural 
     disaster never reopen;
       (2) an additional 29 percent of businesses close down 
     permanently within 2 years of a natural disaster;
       (3) Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United 
     States on August 29, 2005, negatively impacting small 
     business concerns and disrupting commerce in the States of 
     Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama;
       (4) Hurricane Rita struck the Gulf Coast of the United 
     States on September 24, 2005, negatively impacting small 
     business concerns and disrupting commerce in the States of 
     Texas and Louisiana;
       (5) according to the United States Chamber of Commerce, 
     more than 125,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in the 
     Gulf Coast were disrupted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane 
     Rita;
       (6) due to a slow initial Federal response and the 
     widespread devastation in the affected States, businesses 
     impacted by Hurricane Katrina are in dire need of increased 
     access to capital and technical assistance to recover and 
     prosper; and
       (7) without the full recovery and prosperity of affected 
     businesses, the Gulf Coast, and the rest of the United 
     States, will be negatively impacted.

[[Page S1793]]

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``Disaster Area'' means an area in which the 
     President has declared a major disaster in response to 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005;
       (2) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122); and
       (3) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632).

     SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN RECOVERY GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Commerce $100,000,000 for the Economic 
     Development Administration of the Department of Commerce to 
     make grants to the appropriate State government agencies in 
     Louisiana and Mississippi, to carry out this section.
       (b) Disbursement of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall disburse the funds authorized under subsection 
     (a) as follows:
       (A) $75,000,000 to the State of Louisiana.
       (B) $25,000,000 to the State of Mississippi.
       (2) Proportionate allocation.--Regardless of the amount 
     appropriated under subsection (a), the amount appropriated 
     shall be allocated among the States listed in paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection in direct proportion to the allocation 
     under that paragraph.
       (c) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Grants awarded to a State under subsection 
     (a) shall be used by the State to provide grants, which may 
     be made to any small business concern located in a Disaster 
     Area that was negatively impacted by Hurricane Katrina of 
     2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, to assist such small business 
     concern for the purposes of--
       (A) paying employees;
       (B) paying bills, insurance costs, and other existing 
     financial obligations;
       (C) making repairs;
       (D) purchasing inventory;
       (E) restarting or operating that business in the community 
     in which it was conducting operations prior to Hurricane 
     Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, or to a 
     neighboring area or county or parish in a Disaster Area;
       (F) compensating such small business concerns for direct 
     economic injury suffered as a result of Hurricane Katrina of 
     2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005; or
       (G) covering additional costs until that small business 
     concern is able to obtain funding through insurance claims, 
     Federal assistance programs, or other sources.
       (2) Criteria.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, in making grants under paragraph (1), a State may use 
     such criteria as the State determines appropriate, and shall 
     not be required to apply eligibility criteria for programs 
     administered by the Federal Government, including the 
     Department of Commerce.
       (B) Exclusion.--In making grants under paragraph (1), a 
     State may not exclude a small business concern based on any 
     increase in the revenue of that small business concern during 
     the 12-month period beginning on October 1, 2005.
       (3) Administrative expenses.--The Department of Commerce 
     may use not more than $1,500,000 of the funds authorized 
     under subsection (a) to administer the provision of grants to 
     the designated States under this subsection.

     SEC. 5. DISASTER LOANS AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA OR HURRICANE 
                   RITA.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b)) is amended by inserting immediately after 
     paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Disaster loans after hurricane katrina or hurricane 
     rita in a disaster area.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `Disaster Area' means an area in which the 
     President has declared a major disaster in response to 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005; and
       ``(ii) the term `qualified borrower' means a person to whom 
     the Administrator made a loan under this section because of 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005.
       ``(B) Deferment of disaster loan payments.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, payments of principal and interest on a loan to a 
     qualified borrower made before December 31, 2006, shall be 
     deferred, and no interest shall accrue with respect to such 
     loan, during the time period described in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Time period.--The time period for purposes of clause 
     (i) shall be 1 year from the later of the date of enactment 
     of this paragraph or the date on which funds are distributed 
     under a loan described in clause (i), but may be extended to 
     2 years from such date, at the discretion of the 
     Administrator.
       ``(iii) Resumption of payments.--At the end of the time 
     period described in clause (ii), the payment of periodic 
     installments of principal and interest shall be required with 
     respect to such loan, in the same manner and subject to the 
     same terms and conditions as would otherwise be applicable to 
     any other loan made under this subsection.''.
       (b) Increasing Collateral Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, including section 7(c)(6) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(c)(6)), the Administrator may not require 
     collateral for any covered loan made by the Administrator.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered 
     loan'' means a loan in an amount of not more than $35,000 
     made--
       (A) under section 7(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(b)(1));
       (B) as a result of Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane 
     Rita of 2005; and
       (C) after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. OTHER PROGRAMS.

       (a) HUBZones.--Section 3(p) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632(p)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'';
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) an area in which the President has declared a major 
     disaster (as that term is defined in section 102 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) as a result of Hurricane Katrina of 
     August 2005 or Hurricane Rita of September 2005, during the 
     time period described in paragraph (8).''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Time period.--The time period for the purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(F)--
       ``(A) shall be the 2-year period beginning on the later of 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph and August 29, 2007; 
     and
       ``(B) may, at the discretion of the Administrator, be 
     extended to be the 3-year period beginning on the later of 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph and August 29, 
     2007.''.
       (b) Relief From Test Program.--Section 711(d) of the Small 
     Business Competitive Demonstration Program Act of 1988 (15 
     U.S.C. 644 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Program'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Program''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Exception.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Program shall not apply to any 
     contract related to relief or reconstruction from Hurricane 
     Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 during the time 
     period described in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Time period.--The time period for the purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) shall be the 2-year period beginning on the later of 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph and August 29, 2007; 
     and
       ``(ii) may, at the discretion of the Administrator, be 
     extended to be the 3-year period beginning on the later of 
     the date of enactment of this paragraph and August 29, 
     2007.''.
                                  ____


                                 S. 538

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Work, 
     Hope, and Opportunity for the Disaster Area Today Act''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING DEPOSITS TO 
                   REFLECT FICA PAYROLL TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN 
                   EMPLOYERS LOCATED IN SPECIFIED PORTIONS OF THE 
                   GO ZONE DURING 2007.

       (a) General Rule.--In the case of any applicable calendar 
     quarter--
       (1) the aggregate amount of required income tax deposits of 
     an eligible employer for the calendar quarter following the 
     applicable calendar quarter shall be reduced by the payroll 
     tax credit equivalent amount for the applicable calendar 
     quarter, and
       (2) the amount of any deduction allowable to the eligible 
     employer under chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     for taxes paid under section 3111 of such Code with respect 
     to employment during the applicable calendar quarter shall be 
     reduced by such payroll tax credit equivalent amount.

     For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, an 
     eligible employer shall be treated as having paid, and an 
     eligible employee shall be treated as having received, any 
     wages or compensation deducted and withheld but not deposited 
     by reason of paragraph (1).
       (b) Carryovers of Unused Amounts.--If the payroll tax 
     credit equivalent amount for any applicable calendar quarter 
     exceeds the required income tax deposits for the following 
     calendar quarter--
       (1) such excess shall be added to the payroll tax credit 
     equivalent amount for the next applicable calendar quarter, 
     and
       (2) in the case of the last applicable calendar quarter, 
     such excess shall be used to reduce required income tax 
     deposits for any succeeding calendar quarter until such 
     excess is used.
       (c) Payroll Tax Credit Equivalent Amount.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       (1) In general.--The term ``payroll tax credit equivalent 
     amount'' means, with respect to any applicable calendar 
     quarter, an amount equal to 7.65 percent of the aggregate 
     amount of wages or compensation--
       (A) paid or incurred by the eligible employer with respect 
     to employment of eligible employees during the applicable 
     calendar quarter, and
       (B) subject to the tax imposed by section 3111 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (2) Trade or business requirement.--A rule similar to the 
     rule of section 51(f) of

[[Page S1794]]

     such Code shall apply for purposes of this section.
       (3) Limitation on wages subject to credit.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, only wages and compensation of an eligible 
     employee in an applicable calendar quarter, when added to 
     such wages and compensation for any preceding applicable 
     calendar quarter, not exceeding $15,000 shall be taken into 
     account with respect to such employee.
       (d) Eligible Employer; Eligible Employee.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       (1) Eligible employer.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``eligible employer'' means any 
     employer which conducts an active trade or business in one or 
     more specified portions of the GO Zone and employs not more 
     than 100 full-time employees on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (B) Specified portions of the go zone.--The term 
     ``specified portions of the GO Zone'' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 1400N(d)(6)(C) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986.
       (2) Eligible employee.--The term ``eligible employee'' 
     means with respect to an eligible employer an employee whose 
     principal place of employment with such eligible employer is 
     in one or more specified portions of the GO Zone. Such term 
     shall not include an employee described in section 
     401(c)(1)(A).
       (e) Applicable Calendar Quarter.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``applicable calendar quarter'' means any 
     of the 4 calendar quarters beginning in 2007.
       (f) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) Required income tax deposits.--The term ``required 
     income tax deposits'' means deposits an eligible employer is 
     required to make under section 6302 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 of taxes such employer is required to deduct and 
     withhold under section 3402 of such Code.
       (2) Aggregation rules.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 shall apply.
       (3) Employers not on quarterly system.--The Secretary of 
     the Treasury shall prescribe rules for the application of 
     this section in the case of an eligible employer whose 
     required income tax deposits are not made on a quarterly 
     basis.
       (4) Adjustments for certain acquisitions, etc.--Under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary--
       (A) Acquisitions.--If, after December 31, 2006, an employer 
     acquires the major portion of a trade or business of another 
     person (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the 
     ``predecessor'') or the major portion of a separate unit of a 
     trade or business of a predecessor, then, for purposes of 
     applying this section for any calendar quarter ending after 
     such acquisition, the amount of wages or compensation deemed 
     paid by the employer during periods before such acquisition 
     shall be increased by so much of such wages or compensation 
     paid by the predecessor with respect to the acquired trade or 
     business as is attributable to the portion of such trade or 
     business acquired by the employer.
       (B) Dispositions.--If, after December 31, 2006--
       (i) an employer disposes of the major portion of any trade 
     or business of the employer or the major portion of a 
     separate unit of a trade or business of the employer in a 
     transaction to which paragraph (1) applies, and
       (ii) the employer furnishes the acquiring person such 
     information as is necessary for the application of 
     subparagraph (A),

     then, for purposes of applying this section for any calendar 
     quarter ending after such disposition, the amount of wages or 
     compensation deemed paid by the employer during periods 
     before such disposition shall be decreased by so much of such 
     wages as is attributable to such trade or business or 
     separate unit.
       (5) Other rules.--
       (A) Government employers.--This section shall not apply if 
     the employer is the Government of the United States, the 
     government of any State or political subdivision of the 
     State, or any agency or instrumentality of any such 
     government.
       (B) Treatment of other entities.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of subsections (d) and (e) of section 52 of such Code 
     shall apply for purposes of this section.

     SEC. 3. BONUS BUSINESS TRAVEL DEDUCTION IN SPECIFIED PORTIONS 
                   OF THE GO ZONE.

       (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(2) (relating to exceptions) 
     is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D), 
     by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)(iv) and 
     inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after subparagraph 
     (E)(iv) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F) such expense is for goods, services, or facilities 
     made available before January 1, 2010, in one or more 
     specified portions of the GO Zone (as defined in section 
     1400N(d)(6)(C).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to expenses paid or incurred after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF INCREASED EXPENSING FOR QUALIFIED 
                   SECTION 179 GULF OPPORTUNITY ZONE PROPERTY 
                   LOCATED IN SPECIFIED PORTIONS OF THE GO ZONE.

       Paragraph (2) of section 1400N(e) (relating to qualified 
     section 179 Gulf Opportunity Zone property) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``this subsection, the term'' and inserting 
     ``this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Extension for certain property.--In the case of 
     property substantially all of the use of which is in one or 
     more specified portions of the GO Zone (as defined in 
     subsection (d)(6)(C)), such term shall include section 179 
     property (as so defined) which is described in subsection 
     (d)(2), determined--
       ``(i) without regard to subsection (d)(6), and
       ``(ii) by substituting, in subparagraph (A)(v) thereof--

       ``(I) `2009' for `2007', and
       ``(II) `2009' for `2008'.''.

     SEC. 5. EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR 
                   HURRICANE KATRINA EMPLOYEES HIRED BY SMALL 
                   BUSINESSES LOCATED IN SPECIFIED PORTIONS OF THE 
                   GO ZONE.

       (a) In General.--Section 201(b)(1) of the Katrina Emergency 
     Tax Relief Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-73) is amended by 
     striking ``who is hired during the 2-year period'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``who--
       ``(A) is hired during the 2-year period beginning on such 
     date for a position the principal place of employment which 
     is located in the core disaster area, or
       ``(B) is hired--
       ``(i) during the period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of the Work, Hope, Opportunity, and Disaster Area 
     Tax Act of 2007 and ending before January 1, 2010, for a 
     position the principal place of employment which is located 
     in one or more specified portions of the GO Zone (as defined 
     in subsection 1400N(d)(6)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986), and
       ``(ii) by an employer who has no more than 100 employees on 
     the date such individual is hired, and''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     take effect as if included in section 201 of the Katrina 
     Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005.

     SEC. 6. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF 15-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE 
                   COST RECOVERY FOR QUALIFIED LEASEHOLD 
                   IMPROVEMENTS AND QUALIFIED RESTAURANT 
                   IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED IN SPECIFIED PORTIONS OF 
                   THE GO ZONE; 15-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST 
                   RECOVERY FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO RETAIL 
                   SPACE LOCATED IN SPECIFIED PORTIONS OF THE GO 
                   ZONE.

       (a) Extension of Leasehold and Restaurant Improvements.--
       (1) In general.--Clauses (iv) and (v) of section 
     168(e)(3)(E) (relating to 15-year property) are each amended 
     by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2008 (January 1, 2009, in the case of property placed in 
     service in one or more specified portions of the GO Zone (as 
     defined in subsection 1400Nd)(6)(C))''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 
     2007.
       (b) Modification of Treatment of Qualified Restaurant 
     Property as 15-Year Property for Purposes of Depreciation 
     Deduction.--
       (1) Treatment to include new construction.--Paragraph (7) 
     of section 168(e) (relating to classification of property) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) Qualified restaurant property.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `qualified restaurant property' means any section 
     1250 property which is an improvement to a building if--
       ``(i) such improvement is placed in service more than 3 
     years after the date such building was first placed in 
     service, and
       ``(ii) more than 50 percent of the building's square 
     footage is devoted to preparation of, and seating for on-
     premises consumption of, prepared meals.
       ``(B) Property located in certain areas of go zone.--In the 
     case of property placed in service in one or more specified 
     portions of the GO Zone (as defined in subsection 
     1400Nd)(6)(C)), such term means any section 1250 property 
     which is a building (or its structural components) or an 
     improvement to such building if more than 50 percent of such 
     building's square footage is devoted to preparation of, and 
     seating for on-premises consumption of, prepared meals.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to any property placed in service after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Recovery Period for Depreciation of Certain 
     Improvements to Retail Space.--
       (1) 15-year recovery period.--Section 168(e)(3)(E) 
     (relating to 15-year property) is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of clause (vii), by striking the period at the end 
     of clause (viii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at 
     the end the following new clause:
       ``(ix) any qualified retail improvement property placed in 
     service before January 1, 2009, in one or more specified 
     portions of the GO Zone (as defined in subsection 
     1400Nd)(6)(C).''.
       (2) Qualified retail improvement property.--Section 168(e) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Qualified retail improvement property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified retail improvement 
     property' means any improvement to an interior portion of a 
     building which is nonresidential real property if--

[[Page S1795]]

       ``(i) such portion is open to the general public and is 
     used in the retail trade or business of selling tangible 
     personal property to the general public, and
       ``(ii) such improvement is placed in service more than 3 
     years after the date the building was first placed in 
     service.
       ``(B) Improvements made by owner.--In the case of an 
     improvement made by the owner of such improvement, such 
     improvement shall be qualified retail improvement property 
     (if at all) only so long as such improvement is held by such 
     owner. Rules similar to the rules under paragraph (6)(B) 
     shall apply for purposes of the preceding sentence.
       ``(C) Certain improvements not included.--Such term shall 
     not include any improvement for which the expenditure is 
     attributable to--
       ``(i) the enlargement of the building,
       ``(ii) any elevator or escalator,
       ``(iii) any structural component benefitting a common area, 
     or
       ``(iv) the internal structural framework of the 
     building.''.
       (3) Requirement to use straight line method.--Section 
     168(b)(3) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(I) Qualified retail improvement property described in 
     subsection (e)(8).''.
       (4) Alternative system.--The table contained in section 
     168(g)(3)(B) is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to subparagraph (E)(viii) the following new item:

       ``(E)(ix).....39''.

       (5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


                                 S. 539

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Our States Through 
     Tourism Act of 2007'' or the ``HOST Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) in the 12-month period ending on June 30, 2005--
       (A) tourism was the second largest industry in Louisiana, 
     employing 175,000 workers;
       (B) tourism was the fifth largest industry in Mississippi, 
     employing 126,500 workers;
       (C) tourism generated $600,000,000 in State and local taxes 
     in Louisiana;
       (D) tourism generated $634,000,000 in State and local taxes 
     in Mississippi;
       (E) tourism had a $9,900,000,000 economic impact in the 
     State of Louisiana;
       (F) tourism had a $6,350,000,000 economic impact in the 
     State of Mississippi;
       (G) the State of Louisiana generated $14 in revenue for 
     every dollar the State spent on tourism;
       (H) the State of Mississippi generated $12 in revenue for 
     every dollar the State spent on tourism;
       (2) Hurricanes Katrina and Rita severely impacted 
     Louisiana's travel and tourism industry, reducing--
       (A) direct traveler expenditures by more than 18 percent 
     between 2004 and 2005, from $9,900,000,000 to $8,100,000,000; 
     and
       (B) travel-generated employment by 9 percent between 2004 
     and 2005;
       (3) Hurricane Katrina severely impacted Mississippi's 
     travel and tourism industry, reducing--
       (A) direct traveler expenditures by more than 18 percent 
     between 2004 and 2005, from $6,350,000,000 to $5,200,000,000; 
     and
       (B) travel-generated employment by nearly 18 percent 
     between 2004 and 2005, from 126,500 jobs to 103,885 jobs; and
       (4) the Gulf Coast economy cannot fully recover without the 
     revitalization of the tourism industries in Louisiana and 
     Mississippi.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration
       (2) Disaster area.--The term ``disaster area'' means the 
     areas in Louisiana and Mississippi in which the President has 
     declared a major disaster in response to Hurricane Katrina or 
     Hurricane Rita.
       (3) Hurricane katrina and rita disaster areas.--The term 
     ``Hurricane Katrina and Rita disaster areas'' means the 
     geographic areas designated as major disaster areas by the 
     President between August 27, 2005, and September 25, 2005, in 
     Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas pursuant 
     to title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
       (4) Major disaster.--The term ``major disaster'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 102 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5122).
       (5) Relevant tourism entities.--The term ``relevant tourism 
     entity'' means any convention and visitors bureau, nonprofit 
     organization, or other tourism organization that the governor 
     of Louisiana or the governor of Mississippi, as the case may 
     be, after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, 
     determines to be eligible for a grant under section 3.
       (6) Small business concern.--The term ``small business 
     concern'' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).

     SEC. 4. TOURISM RECOVERY GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting through 
     the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, 
     shall establish a grant program to assist relevant tourism 
     entities to promote travel and tourism in Louisiana and 
     Mississippi in accordance with this section.
       (b) Allocation of Funds.--From the amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to subsection (f), the Secretary shall allocate, as 
     expeditiously as possible--
       (1) $130,000,000 to the State of Louisiana; and
       (2) $45,000,000 to the State of Mississippi.
       (c) Use of Funds.--Amounts allocated to a State under 
     subsection (b) shall be used by the State to provide grants 
     to any relevant tourism entity to--
       (1) promote travel and tourism in the State; and
       (2) carry out other economic development activities that 
     have been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, in 
     consultation with the State.
       (d) Criteria.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     a State, in awarding grants under subsection (c)--
       (1) may use such criteria as the State determines 
     appropriate; and
       (2) shall not be required to apply eligibility criteria for 
     programs administered by the Federal Government, including 
     the Department of Commerce.
       (e) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 1 percent of 
     the funds allocated to States under subsection (b) may be 
     used for administrative expenses.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $175,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5. ECONOMIC INJURY DISASTER LOANS.

       (a) Loan Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator may make a loan under 
     section 7(b)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(b)(2)) to a small business concern located in the 
     disaster area that can demonstrate that--
       (A) more than 51 percent of the revenue of that small 
     business concern comes from tourism; and
       (B) such small business concern suffered direct economic 
     injury from the slowdown in travel and tourism in the 
     disaster area following Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita.
       (2) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an application for a loan described in paragraph (1) 
     shall be submitted not later than--
       (A) 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     or
       (B) such later date as the Administrator may establish.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 6. FEDERAL GULF COAST TRAVEL AND MEETINGS FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a trust fund, to be known as the Federal 
     Gulf Coast Travel and Meetings Fund (referred to in this 
     section as the ``Trust Fund''), consisting of such amounts as 
     are appropriated to the Trust Fund pursuant to subsection (f) 
     and any interest earned on investment of amounts in the Trust 
     Fund pursuant to subsection (b).
       (b) Investment of Trust Fund.--It shall be the duty of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the Trust 
     Fund that is not required to meet current withdrawals. Such 
     investments may only be made in interest-bearing obligations 
     of the United States or in obligations, whose principal and 
     interest is guaranteed by the United States.
       (c) Obligations From Trust Fund.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury may obligate 
     such sums as are available in the Trust Fund for the purposes 
     described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Eligible uses of trust fund.--Amounts obligated under 
     this subsection may be transferred to Federal agencies to pay 
     for--
       (A) lodging, meals, travel, and other expenditures 
     associated with conventions, conferences, meetings or other 
     large gatherings attended by not less than 100 Federal 
     employees and occurring within the Hurricane Katrina and Rita 
     disaster areas; and
       (B) other expenditures in the Hurricane Katrina and Rita 
     disaster areas, in accordance with paragraph (3).
       (3) Prohibited uses of trust fund.--Amounts obligated under 
     this subsection may not be transferred to Federal agencies to 
     pay for--
       (A) Federal investigations;
       (B) court cases; or
       (C) events attended by less than 100 Federal employees.
       (4) Other expenditures.--Amounts may not be obligated under 
     paragraph (2)(B) before the date that is 30 days after the 
     Secretary of the Treasury submits a report to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives that sets 
     forth the intended uses for such amounts.
       (d) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2007, the 
     Secretary of Treasury shall submit a report to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives that sets 
     forth--
       (1) the balance remaining in the Trust Fund;
       (2) the expenditures made from the Trust Fund since its 
     inception;

[[Page S1796]]

       (3) information on the applications of the Federal agencies 
     whose requests from the Trust Fund have been denied;
       (4) information on the applications that have been 
     approved, including the amount transferred to each Federal 
     agency and the uses for which such amounts were approved; and
       (5) such additional information as the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall 
     reasonably require.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2007 to be 
     deposited in the Trust Fund.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 541. A bill to amend the farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 to promote local and regional support for sustainable bioenergy 
and biobased products, to support the future of farming, forestry, and 
land management, to develop and support local bioenergy, biobased 
products, and food systems, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I laid out my vision for the legislation 
I introduce today, the Rural Opportunities Act of 2007, in an opinion 
piece that was published in the La Crosse Tribune at the end of last 
year. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record 
after my statement.
  My bill is a four part plan to increase opportunities for rural 
America. Despite its breadth, the bill is not meant to address all of 
the challenges facing farms, other working lands and rural communities. 
I know from the listening sessions that I hold across Wisconsin about 
the many challenges facing those communities, such as lack of access to 
affordable healthcare, threats from unfair competition abroad and at 
home and even misguided Federal policies such as the dairy pricing 
system that provides higher prices based on how far your farm is from 
Wisconsin. I will continue working to address these and other 
challenges. My current bill focuses on the future, by identifying and 
encouraging potential benefits for rural areas.
  The first section of the Rural Opportunities Act of 2007 tries to 
fulfill the potential of bioenergy and the broader bioeconomy to be a 
value-added enterprise for farmers and communities by encouraging 
sustainable development with an emphasis on local, farmer and 
cooperative ownership. The second theme supports both the development 
of the next generation of farmers and other rural professionals and the 
areas of agricultural growth such as organic production that provide 
viable long-term models for family farms. In an exciting win/win 
situation, the third main section of my bill strives to improve both 
farmers' income and access to healthy foods by supporting local food 
systems. The final section, while less focused directly on working 
lands, would establish the goal of providing affordable broadband 
access to rural and other underserved areas. Moreover, my proposal 
doesn't pass any extra costs on to the next generation, but is offset 
by reducing the payment limits for the largest corporate farms and 
transferring funds from other unobligated balances within USDA. I hope 
my colleagues will join me in supporting these common sense goals.
  I will now explain both the details of my proposal and how I have 
modeled the proposal after programs that I have seen working in 
Wisconsin. My goal is to both boost resources for these programs and, 
where appropriate, establish partnerships to fulfill common goals and 
direction--ultimately encouraging similar opportunities across all of 
rural America.
  Most of the incentives and support for the development of bioenergy 
and other bioproducts, or the bioeconomy, has been at the macro scale. 
I have supported these efforts, including the renewable fuels standard 
and broad goals such as providing 25 percent of our energy from 
renewable sources by 2025 and increasing our long-term security by 
becoming more energy independent. But I saw a gap in the amount of 
support at the local and regional level, especially with regard to 
making sure the bioeconomy develops properly.
  There is a lot of excitement in rural America about the bioeconomy 
and potential for renewable fuel production especially to be the driver 
of a rural renaissance. But there is also concern, because while this 
potential is definitely there, it is still unclear how it will develop 
and whether the potential benefits to farmers, rural communities and 
even the environment will be fulfilled. This concern seems well 
founded, as these macro level incentives may fall short, perhaps 
opening up a new market for corn and driving more farms toward 
intensive corn production, but doing little to add value at the local 
or regional level especially if large agribusinesses take over.
  From an environmental standpoint there is also this combination of 
risk and opportunity. Cellulosic ethanol produced from biomass has the 
potential to allow for the development of less intensive perennial 
systems especially on environmentally sensitive land, where the 
continuous cover would benefit the soil and water quality. But if the 
only incentive is to maximize bushels and dollars or remove too much 
biomass, environmental damage could clearly occur. For example, land 
that is not well suited for corn production such as that on steep 
slopes could be returned to production or taken out of pasture and put 
in corn production. Or where farmers have shifted to no-till corn 
production, the corn plant residue that now feeds the soil could be 
diverted to biomass for cellulosic ethanol. While these risks exist, 
there are also abundant win-win opportunities for farmers in following 
a sustainable approach. For example, the Wisconsin Farmers Union is 
leading efforts to establish a carbon credit program so the improved 
soil qualities also mean a return to the farmer.
  Taking these risks and opportunities into account, it seemed that 
more needed to be done to make sure that the development of the 
bioeconomy occurred in the best way to maximize the value to the public 
through an emphasis on sustainable local and regional research, 
extension and development. This emphasis isn't to say that conventional 
grain production and large agribusinesses don't belong, just that there 
needs to be balance. While many individuals have begun working to 
fulfill this potential in Wisconsin, there seems to be a gap at the 
Federal level. This is the gap my proposal aims to close both through 
some new initiatives and boosting and better focusing existing Federal 
programs.
  My sustainable local bioeconomy proposal has six main parts, starting 
with $30 million per year in matching funds to support implementation 
of collaborative State-based plans. States would be required to prepare 
a comprehensive energy plan and support the implementation of the plan 
through matching funds for research, extension, energy conservation, 
technical assistance and direct support. When developing the plan, a 
State would need to consider ways to encourage the development so as to 
best support the local communities and protect or even enhance the 
environment, with an emphasis in local, farmer and cooperative 
ownership of the new enterprises. Wisconsin has already taken 
significant steps in this regard, starting with the Governor's 
Consortium on Biobased Industry and Biobased Industry Opportunity (BIO) 
grant program. In the Governor's recent State of the State address, he 
has proposed to go even further building on these initial efforts. My 
proposal would allow the Federal Government to be a partner with him 
and every other State.
  While charting the course of development of the bioeconomy should 
occur at a State and local level, research questions are often of 
regional or even national importance. That is why my bill provides $20 
million per year for regional research, extension and education. These 
multi-state partnerships would follow the existing USDA research and 
extension divisions. Specific projects would be determined by a 
regional board with broad representation from each State, the region's 
extension service, agriculture experiment stations, agriculture 
secretaries, farmers, foresters, businesses, cooperatives and non-
profits. This cooperative regional effort will bring together the 
resources to make sure these new agricultural and forestry systems can 
be evaluated holistically at a landscape scale. Independent of my 
proposal, I understand there is a discussion ongoing to develop a 
similar partnership within the north central region which includes 
Wisconsin. My bill is specifically designed to allow existing or future 
consortiums

[[Page S1797]]

to coordinate or even become the regional body supporting these 
research and extension activities.
  While there has been significant focus on agriculture as the means of 
developing the bioeconomy and biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel 
especially, our forestlands can contribute significantly as well. While 
States and regions will likely include forestry components in their 
state energy and regional research and extension, my bill also provides 
$10 million per year to support a pair of specific agroforestry pilot 
programs. The first would evaluate whether there needs to be a support 
mechanism for landowners during the establishment phase of a woody 
biomass system which can often take up to a decade to develop, though 
it may be the best long-term use of the land both for biofuel 
production and for the environment. The second project would assist in 
the development of at least one commercial scale cellulosic ethanol 
production facility using woody biomass as a feedstock. While I expect 
other regions with significant forestry resources to participate as 
well, with the Forest Products Lab in Wisconsin and the Governor 
recently proposing support for forestry-based cellulosic ethanol, 
Wisconsin is well positioned to be a leader in this area.

  The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements 
program, also known as Section 9006 of the 2002 Farm Bill, provides 
grants to farmers and ranchers to establish a wide range of wind, 
solar, biomass, geothermal, and conservation technologies on their 
farms. This direct support is important, which is why I propose a 
significant increase in funding to $40m per year so farmers can do 
their part in this larger effort for energy independence farm by farm.
  Another existing federal program that has been beneficial is the 
Value-added Production Grant (VAPG) program. These grants broadly 
assist farmers and ranchers in developing projects that help them 
retain more value from their crops and products, including many 
bioenergy projects. I propose providing an increase to $60m per year 
and shifting the funding to mandatory spending because this program is 
so important in allowing farmers to be entrepreneurs and plan their own 
future. Specifically for the bioeconomy, I require that at least 10% of 
these funds be directed toward projects relating to bioenergy or 
biobased products.
  Without the fundamental knowledge on how to convert biomass into 
other products such as fuel and the applied research on how to best 
implement this technology, the development of the bioeconomy may be 
limited. For this reason, I propose to double the spending within the 
USDA's National Research Initiative that is dedicated toward the 
development of the next generation of technology, including cellulosic 
ethanol. The institutions of higher education in Wisconsin are ready to 
assist in this task and often work together or regionally toward this 
goal. For example, The University of Wisconsin--Madison and Michigan 
State University have recently submitted a proposal to establish a 
Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center supported by the Department of 
Energy. It will take this type of collaboration and involvement of 
multiple Federal, State and local entities to fulfill the potential of 
the bioeconomy for increasing-our national security and hopefully at 
the same time spurring a rural renaissance.
  Finally, but still very important, we need to assess whether our 
current incentives for bioenergy production and utilization are 
performing as intended and having no negative side-effects. There is 
some concern that the current incentives may not be adequately reaching 
consumers and farmers. My bill requires the Government Accountability 
Office, GAO, to evaluate whether the current incentives are the most 
effective ways to encourage the production and use of bioenergy. I 
especially ask them to assess whether there are better ways to support 
local ownership and the local and regional benefits to communities, 
while preventing excessive payments.
  There are many very positive efforts ongoing in Wisconsin to support 
the development of the next generation of farmers and ranchers and to 
provide viable models such as organic production for these new 
producers, which also benefit existing small and medium-sized farmers 
who are looking for other options. Like the sustainable local 
bioeconomy highlighted in the first section of my bill, I have designed 
my proposal so these positive projects in Wisconsin are supported and 
become the models for other states that may not be as far along.
  There is a very strong Federal, State, university and non-profit 
involvement in supporting the future of farming in Wisconsin. It is 
heartening to see so many different groups and interests coming 
together to work together to support this common goal. I just wanted to 
highlight a few examples of many that make me proud.
  From the Federal side, Wisconsin's State office of the USDA's Farm 
Service Agency leads the Nation or is the top five States for various 
loans provided to beginning farmers. Fully 37 percent of the loans in 
Wisconsin go to beginning farmers, a testament to the dedication of the 
State's FSA office.
  The University of Wisconsin's Center of Integrated Agricultural 
Systems, (CIAS), continues to be both a leader in innovative ideas and 
research, but also in putting that knowledge to work for Wisconsin. To 
pick just one of many great projects, the School for Beginning 
Livestock and Dairy Farmers provides both the knowledge and the 
mentoring and support network to help beginning farmers get off the 
ground. I have followed CIAS' development and actions since my time in 
the Wisconsin State Senate, and always appreciate their approach.
  The future of Wisconsin's agriculture and rural communities has even 
been the focus of a project at the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts 
and Letters. The Future of Farming and Rural Life project has been 
going around the state holding forums on this important topic and I 
look forward to their recommendations. I think they have been hearing a 
lot of the same sort of comments I hear at listening sessions in rural 
areas.
  Organic production, especially dairy production in southwest 
Wisconsin, has been a bright light in that comer of the State. The 
growth of this production and--potential for more growth shows a need 
for more significant Federal support in the Farm Bill. But in the 
meantime, the farmer-owned Organic Valley cooperative and groups such 
as the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, MOSES, are 
providing invaluable support for the revitalization of small dairy 
farming in the area.

  The concept of cooperatives is very important in Wisconsin and often 
provides support for these developing models of agriculture. For 
example, the Edelweiss Graziers Cooperative in Dane and Green Counties 
was recently established with technical assistance of the Wisconsin 
Federation of Cooperatives. This effort combines managed grazing and 
cheese making from this grass-fed milk to support both the 
cooperative's members and the local economy.
  In addition to supporting important projects, my proposal also 
improves on existing Federal programs. The first element of this 
section is $30 million per year in funding for State-based 
collaborations to plan for and support beginning farmers, ranchers and 
other rural professionals. Specifically these State plans and projects 
should support, encourage the development of and reduce barriers for 
the next generation of farmers, ranchers and other important rural 
professions such as foresters. States would have flexibility to 
determine where to spend the funds, but required to take a broad 
approach that incorporates extension, public colleges, State 
agriculture agencies, non-profits, private-public partnerships and 
direct aid to support the farmers with tuition and capital.
  The second main portion of the future of farming section of my bill 
would fund an important Federal effort from the 2002 Farm bill, which 
unfortunately has never been funded. My bill provides $20 million per 
year in competitive grants for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher 
Development Program, BFRDP. These funds would be mandatory to make it 
more likely the program was funded. The BFRDP funds initiatives 
directed at new farming opportunities in the areas of education, 
extension, outreach, and technical assistance. The program is targeted 
especially to collaborative local, State, and regionally based networks 
and partnerships.

[[Page S1798]]

  The third main element of my future of farming proposal seeks to 
evaluate and improve existing Federal programs. This includes directing 
the USDA to provide additional support for the Advisory Committee on 
Beginning Farmers and Ranchers to allow for increased meetings and 
outreach activities. It also proposes that this committee work with the 
USDA Secretary to oversee a series of pilot projects, which would use 
$10 million per year to find ways to better support the credit and 
capital needs of beginning farmers and ranchers. Also along these 
lines, the GAO would conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of 
tax incentives, contract guarantees and other measures that could be 
used to support and encourage the transfer of land from retiring 
farmers to beginning farmers. Finally, my bill supports the bonus cost-
share provided in conservation programs and highlights the importance 
of stewardship through the Conservation Security Program for beginning 
farmers as part of a broader review to ensure that all USDA farm 
assistance and conservation activities are accessible and useful for 
beginning farmers and ranchers.
  Two exciting growth areas in agriculture have been the development of 
more sustainable agricultural systems and organic production, often 
driven by consumers' desire to be more responsible. This increased 
support includes more than doubling the authorized funding for 
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, ATTRA, to $5 million 
per year and for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, 
SARE, program to $120 million per year. The boost for SARE would also 
include a dedicated mandatory fund of $20 million per-year for the 
Federal-State matching grant program.
  Organic agriculture has had the greatest growth in the past decade of 
any segment of agriculture. The funding for research, extension, 
technical assistance and direct aid to organic producers has not kept 
up. So my bill would provide significant increases for several existing 
organic programs and propose one new program. More specifically, 
existing research, extension and education programs would receive $15 
million per year and $25 million in additional certification cost-share 
funds would be made available. A new $50 million per year program to 
assist with the conversion to organic production and encourage 
conservation practices on the farms is also included. Since the 
integrity of the organic label is critical to the success of these 
efforts and there have been recent concerns about problems in this 
area, an annual report would also be required on USDA's activities to 
enforce proper use of the organic label and protect the integrity of 
the program.
  Finally, no proposal on the future of farming would be complete 
without recognizing the need to foster more diversity within the farm 
community. My proposal would quadruple the current funding for outreach 
to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by providing $25 million 
per year in mandatory funds. This also includes an added emphasis on 
encouraging the development of new farmers from these communities by 
requiring the USDA to periodically report to Congress on their efforts.
  Local markets and especially food systems benefit farmers 
economically and consumers through access to food that is often 
fresher, riper, better tasting and more nutritious. Farmers benefit 
both by cutting out the middlemen and through differentiating their 
products to often get a premium price. My bill supports these local 
opportunities in several ways including giving local institutions more 
flexibility to preferentially select local products, providing 
additional funding and areas of emphasis for existing farmers markets, 
farm-to-cafeteria and value-added grants. A special emphasis of many of 
the programs my bill supports is to provide healthier food to schools 
and low-income populations that might not otherwise have access to 
local fresh produce.

  More specifically, my bill allows local preference in procurement of 
fruits and vegetables by federally supported programs. The current 
procurement rules are often interpreted to prevent this local 
geographic preference, so I would clarify the food procurement rules 
for USDA and Department of Defense programs that support schools 
nutrition programs and other produce procurement, e.g., commissaries, 
to allow agencies to give a preference to locally produced products. 
This change would allow these institutions to select local produce 
which is often better tasting and more nutritious. In order to provide 
oversight of this modified rule, my proposal would also require any 
local agency that selects a bid that is more than 10 percent higher 
than the lowest bid to report this to the Federal agency for possible 
further review to help ensure the integrity of the system.
  The Farm-to-Cafeteria program or, as it is also known, the Access to 
Local Food and School Gardens, was part of the Child Nutrition 
reauthorization. Unfortunately it has never been funded, but it would 
support projects like Madison's Homegrown Lunch that link local farmers 
to the cafeteria and often classroom as the students learn more about 
where their food comes from. My proposal dedicates $10 million per year 
in mandatory funding toward this important program.
  There are two important programs that let low-income individuals 
access healthy local fruit and vegetables at farmers markets which my 
proposal supports. The Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Program would 
be increased to $25 million per year to provide more vouchers to low-
income seniors. Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee helps distribute these 
voucher and reports that it is extremely popular and could be expanded. 
A similar program, the WIC Farmers Market Supplemental Nutrition 
Program, provides similar vouchers to low-income mothers, infants and 
children and would be increased to $30 million per year.
  The proposal also supports farmers markets directly as well and 
increases the funding for the Farmers Market Promotion Program to $20 
million per year. This program provides grants to assist with the 
development of new farmers markets and also helps farmers markets 
improve their services by doing things like installing EBT readers to 
accept Food Stamps.
  The Value-Added Producer Grants, VAPG, program supports a variety of 
farmer-based enterprises including support for local food systems. My 
bill already increased the funding for this program to $60 million per 
year and would also require that 30 percent of the VAPGs go to support 
local food, bioenergy and bioproducts. In addition, half of these funds 
would be dedicated to supporting mid-sized value-added chains, which 
establish ways for mid-sized farmers to differentiate their products 
and work with distributors and retailers along a supply chain. Many 
believe these mid-sized value-added chains are the key to accessing 
regional markets and expanding local food systems. There are several 
examples in Wisconsin of farmers and cheesemakers working together to 
establish this sort of relationship and value chain in producing 
specialty cheeses.
  My proposal builds on the recommendations from the Community Food 
Security Coalition to expand the current Community Food Projects 
Competitive Grants by providing $60.5 million per year. Community food 
projects fight food insecurity by increasing the access of low-income 
people to fresher, more nutritious food supplies along with projects 
that increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their 
own food needs.
  Numerous studies have shown that rural areas lag behind their urban 
and suburban counterparts in access to broadband Internet services. The 
United States is losing ground to other nations in broadband 
availability. For example in 2001, the United States ranked 4th out of 
nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 
OECD. The United States now ranks 12th.
  From my trips to rural areas of Wisconsin, I can attest that 
broadband availability is spotty and a concern for local officials and 
residents. They tell me that the lack of broadband access can limit 
their opportunities for employment, entertainment, education and 
communication. There have been several different ways proposed to 
increase availability of affordable rural broadband. In this 
legislation, I do not take a specific stand on which solution is best, 
but I require efforts to better assess the problem and I set forth a

[[Page S1799]]

goal for the Senate in solving this problem.
  More specifically, the Sense of the Senate finds that given the 
growing number of opportunities provided by broadband access, the 
digital divide affecting rural households and other underserved groups 
should be eliminated within a decade. The ultimate goal should be to 
provide affordable access to broadband nationwide.
  The FCC data on rural broadband availability and affordability is 
limited in several regards, most importantly by not collecting detailed 
enough information. The zip-code level data now available does not have 
a fine enough resolution to fully understand which specific areas lack 
any affordable access to broadband.
  Even several of the FCC Commissioners agree on that point. My 
proposal requires the FCC to improve this situation to get a better 
picture of the extent of the problem.
  As technology improves and faster data transfer rates become the 
norm, the FCC should make sure their definition of broadband keeps up. 
My proposal requires a periodic review of what is standard in the 
marketplace and an update of the definition as warranted. Without this 
requirement, the government could potentially end up subsidizing an 
obsolete service.
  The USDA Inspector General found a number of deficiencies within the 
Rural Utilities Service Broadband Grant and Loan Programs and set forth 
a series of recommendations in a report in 2005. My bill would require 
the USDA to update Congress on the progress of these changes so these 
important programs work efficiently and provide the increased access 
they are designed to support.
  The Universal Service Fund helps ensure that rural areas have 
affordable access to telecommunications services such as telephone and 
911. The program allows for the coverage to be extended to other 
services such as broadband Internet based on a review of a Federal-
State Joint Board. My bill requires a new review by the Joint Board 
after receiving the updated and improved FCC data since they previously 
had limited data and have not done such a review in several years.
  My proposal is fully offset by reducing payments to the largest 
farmers, transferring funds from unobligated balances within USDA and 
reallocating authorized funds that were replaced by mandatory funding 
in my legislation. This offset, especially the reduced payment limits, 
is consistent with my longstanding feeling that Federal aid should be 
directed toward the farmers and communities that need it instead of the 
largest producers who don't. In fact, I estimate that my proposal could 
even return a couple hundred million dollars to the treasury over 10 
years.
  All too often in agriculture we are filling breaches in the safety 
nets, combating unfair trade, seeking equity in the programs such as 
the dairy marketing orders, or ensuring the large don't take undue 
advantage of the small. So it was a welcome change to propose ways to 
open doors and encourage development for family farmers and rural 
communities.
  I worked with many Wisconsin-based groups and individuals along with 
others nationally and regionally in developing this legislation. I will 
work to include my proposals in the upcoming Farm Bill or other 
legislation.
  I would especially like to thank the following groups and individuals 
who have supported my legislation: Wisconsin Farmers Union; Sustainable 
Agriculture Coalition; Stan Gruszynski, Director, Rural Leadership and 
Community Development Program, UW Stevens Point; the Community Food 
Security Coalition; and the Land Stewardship Project. The National 
Organic Coalition has also sent me a letter expressing support for the 
organic sections of my proposal.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letters 
from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Land Stewardship 
Project and the National Organic Coalition be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [From the La Crosse Tribune]

                           (By Russ Feingold)

       The strength of our rural communities is a big source of 
     pride in our state. Wisconsin is known not just for its 
     agricultural products, but for the special character of our 
     small towns. With a changing economy and tough challenges for 
     our hard-working farmers, it is going to take some new 
     approaches to create more opportunities for people living in 
     these rural communities that mean so much to our state.
       The federal government has an important role to play in 
     supporting America's small towns and rural areas, which 
     contribute so much to our economy and to our strength as a 
     nation. That is why, when the new Congress starts in January, 
     I plan to introduce a bill to create more economic 
     opportunities in rural America.
       This initiative is the last in a series of proposals I have 
     announced this year to address domestic issues raised by 
     Wisconsinites; the first three proposals took steps to reform 
     our health care system, fix our trade policy and create more 
     affordable housing.
       My bill will support rural America in four ways: supporting 
     local bioproducts and food markets, encouraging local 
     renewable fuels and bioproducts, expanding broadband Internet 
     service in rural areas, and helping develop the next 
     generation of farmers, ranchers and land managers.
       Developing local markets is critical for the future of 
     rural communities, since those markets help farmers get more 
     for their products and counter the power of big agribusiness. 
     My proposal would help schools link up with local farmers to 
     supply their cafeterias with locally produced products. It 
     would also provide additional funds for existing USDA 
     programs, which help develop local markets and help farmers 
     develop and sell products at these markets.
       My bill would also boost funds to provide additional 
     vouchers--like those distributed by the Hunger Task Force in 
     Milwaukee--for low-income seniors to purchase items at 
     farmers markets. This would both provide a nutritional 
     benefit for voucher recipients and help farmers see more 
     value from their crops.
       There is a lot of discussion about how renewable energies 
     like ethanol and biodiesel will help rural economies, but for 
     these opportunities to fulfill their potential, we need to 
     make sure the benefits stay local. We need more technical 
     assistance and other efforts to ensure that the benefits of 
     turning agricultural and forest products into fuel go back 
     into local economies.
       Otherwise, ethanol and biodiesel plants could shift from 
     value-added local and farmer ownership to multinational 
     investment firms and energy corporations. My bill will 
     provide flexible federal matching funds for extension, 
     education and applied research purposes, as well as 
     boosting funding to develop the next generation of 
     biofuels.
       Not surprisingly, Wisconsin is already well ahead of the 
     curve in supporting biofuels. In addition to many other 
     exciting developments statewide, Gov. Jim Doyle has 
     established a Consortium on Biobased Industry. My bill would 
     give a federal boost to such efforts in Wisconsin and every 
     other state.
       As we support local agriculture markets, we must also help 
     rural economies grow in new directions, and broadband 
     Internet access is key to that growth. As many Wisconsinites 
     know, the availability of affordable broadband Internet 
     service in rural areas of the state is spotty. The United 
     States is falling behind some of our Western European and 
     Asian counterparts who have supported more universal access 
     to the Internet. My proposal includes a language encouraging 
     improvements in existing programs to increase Internet access 
     and a goal of universal affordable service.
       Finally, no matter the type of farm, a common concern 
     expressed by farmers across Wisconsin is this: ``How we can 
     support the next generation of farmers, and where will they 
     come from?''
       My bill will improve existing federal programs to better 
     serve beginning farmers and ranchers, giving them more 
     resources, and targeting those resources toward developing 
     agricultural methods appropriate for small farmers, such as 
     organic farming, farmers markets and grazing. It would also 
     provide federal matching funds for states and regions to 
     address their specific local needs.
       I've designed my bill to allow Wisconsin to continue to 
     build upon programs such as the University of Wisconsin's 
     Center of Integrated Agricultural Systems' School for 
     Beginning Dairy Farmers. There are even regional grants to 
     encourage regional collaborations, and I could very well see 
     Wisconsin becoming the regional hub for developing the next 
     generation of dairy farmers, just as another region may focus 
     on crop production or ranching.
       In true Wisconsin style, my bill is fully offset so that it 
     doesn't add to the deficit. The bill reforms our agricultural 
     support system by reducing the subsidies paid to the largest 
     farms, and uses the money to pay for the new assistance.
       These efforts certainly don't address every challenge rural 
     communities face. There is much more to be done for the small 
     towns and rural areas across Wisconsin, and around the 
     country, that represent America at its best--proud 
     communities built by centuries of hard work and commitment.
                                  ____



                            Sustainable Agriculture Coalition,

                                 Washington, DC, February 6, 2007.
     Hon. Russell Feingold,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold, The Sustainable Agriculture 
     Coalition would like to congratulate you for introducing the 
     Rural Opportunities Act of 2007, a bill that contains

[[Page S1800]]

     many of the reforms members of the sustainable agriculture 
     community would like to see manifested in the next Farm Bill, 
     including important provisions addressing the health and 
     sustainability of rural communities and small to mid-sized 
     family farms.
       Reauthorization of the next Farm Bill is a critical 
     opportunity to support the revitalization of family farming 
     and ranching in the United States. Among the positive 
     transformations taking place in American agriculture is the 
     growing consumer demand for high quality, sustainably 
     produced foods from family farms. Programs that support new 
     farmers, organic production, farmer's markets, community 
     supported agriculture, and sustainably raised energy crops 
     help to increase the economic vitality of local and regional 
     economies, improve the environment, and ensure the continued 
     growth of these new markets for the next generation of family 
     farmers.
       In particular, we want to commend you for including 
     proposals in your new bill that would create or improve the 
     Regional Bioenergy Competitive Research, Education and 
     Extension Program, Renewable Energy Systems and Energy 
     Efficiency Improvements Program, Value-Added Producers Grants 
     program, Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, 
     Sustainable Agriculture Federal-State Matching Grant Program, 
     National Organic Certification Cost-Share, National Organic 
     Conversion and Stewardship Incentive Program, Farmers Market 
     Promotion Program, and Community Food Grants. We also support 
     the language to provide geographic preference for locally 
     produced foods for federal procurement programs.
       As you know, the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition 
     represents grassroots farm, rural, and conservation 
     organizations from across the country that together advocate 
     for federal policies and programs supporting the long-term 
     economic and environmental sustainability of agriculture, 
     natural resources and rural communities. We are committed to 
     supporting these programs and to working with your office to 
     make certain they are included in the 2007 Farm Bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Ferd Hoefner,
     Policy Director.
                                  ____



                                   National Organic Coalition,

                                 Alexandria, VA, February 7, 2007.
     Hon. Russell Feingold,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: I am writing to thank you for your 
     introduction of the Rural Opportunities Act of 2007 and to 
     express the strong support of the National Organic Coalition 
     for the important organic provisions included in this 
     legislation.
       Specifically, your bill would:
       (1) reauthorize and increase funding for the National 
     Organic Certification Cost Share Program, which has been a 
     critical program to help organic producers and handlers 
     defray the annual costs of organic certification;
       (2) create a new National Organic Conversion and 
     Stewardship Incentive Program to provide incentives for 
     farmers to transition their farms to certified organic 
     operations, providing assistance during the transition period 
     when farmers are incurring high costs, but are not yet 
     receiving the price benefits that comes with final 
     certification;
       (3) reauthorize and increase funding for organic research 
     through the Organic Agricultural Research and Extension 
     Program; and,
       (4) require USDA's National Organic Program to update 
     Congress regarding its enforcement activities and its reforms 
     in response to recent critiques by USDA's Inspector General 
     and by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
       All of these provisions address issues of high priority for 
     the member organizations of the National Organic Coalition. 
     We look forward to working with you toward their enactment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Steven D. Etka,
     Legislative Coordinator.
                                  ____



                                     Land Stewardship Project,

                                Minneapolis, MN, February 8, 2007.
     Senator Russell Feingold,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold, The Land Stewardship Project is 
     pleased to endorse and support the introduction of the Rural 
     Opportunities Act of 2007. Our membership of farmers, rural 
     residents and other concerned citizens, based primarily in 
     the Upper Midwest, recognize your bill as sound public policy 
     for our nation. The bill's focus on programs that support new 
     farmers, organic production, farmers' markets, community 
     supported agriculture, and sustainably-raised energy crops 
     helps to increase the economic vitality of local and regional 
     economies, improve the environment, and ensure the continued 
     growth of new markets for the next generation of family 
     farmers.
       The introduction of the Rural Opportunities Act underlines 
     Senator Feingold's leadership and commitment to a sustainable 
     and economically prosperous rural America.
       Particularly important are sections in the bill that 
     provide resources to support new and beginning farmers 
     getting started on the land, such as the reauthorization and 
     funding of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development 
     Program (BFRDP). The BFRDP, which was passed in the 2002 Farm 
     Bill but which never received funds for implementation, has 
     the opportunity to create partnerships between community-
     based organizations and public institutions and agencies to 
     make a difference for beginning farmers and the land. We also 
     strongly support the language to provide geographic 
     preference for locally produced foods for federal procurement 
     programs such as helping schools work in conjunction with 
     local farmers to supply their cafeterias with locally 
     produced products. It is also critical that the bill provides 
     funding for the Farmers Market Promotion Program and Value 
     Added Producers Grants program, which can contribute to 
     building regional and local food systems as a growing 
     economic sector for family farmers and rural communities.
       As the next Farm Bill is being debated, we hope many 
     elements of Rural Opportunities Act will provide direction 
     and be included in the final bill. The Land Stewardship 
     Project is committed to supporting these programs and to 
     working with your office to win reforms that are good for our 
     nation's communities, family farmers and the land.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Mark Schultz,
     Policy and Organizing Director.
                                  ____


                                 S. 541

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Opportunities Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 9001 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (6), as 
     paragraphs (5) through (7), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1001).''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) State.--The term `State' means--
       ``(A) a State;
       ``(B) the District of Columbia;
       ``(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
       ``(D) any other territory or possession of the United 
     States.''.

     SEC. 3. LOCAL AND REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE BIOENERGY AND BIOBASED 
                   PRODUCT USE AND PRODUCTION.

       (a) Local and Regional Sustainable Bioenergy and Biobased 
     Product Use and Production.--Title IX of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8101 et seq.) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 9012. LOCAL AND REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE BIOENERGY AND 
                   BIOBASED PRODUCT USE AND PRODUCTION.

       ``(a) Extension, Education, Technical Assistance, Applied 
     Research, and Development.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     States to carry out extension, education, applied research, 
     and development activities at appropriate institutions of 
     higher education, State agencies, or partnerships in the 
     States to support local and regional sustainable bioenergy 
     and biobased product use and production.
       ``(2) Allocation of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     funds made available under paragraph (4) shall be allocated 
     among the States in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     of paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 3(c) of the Hatch 
     Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361c(c)) and subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Unallocated funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may use funds described in 
     clause (ii) to provide bonus grants to States based on the 
     need and merit of projects identified through annual reports 
     submitted under paragraph (3)(E), as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(ii) Relevant funds.--The funds referenced in clause (i) 
     are funds that--

       ``(I) would otherwise remain unallocated under this 
     subsection for a fiscal year;
       ``(II) remain unused by a State as of the end of the grant 
     term, as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(III) are returned to the Secretary in accordance with 
     paragraph (3)(C)(ii).

       ``(C) Administration.--The Secretary shall use not more 
     than 5 percent of funds made available under paragraph (4)--
       ``(i) to maintain a clearinghouse for projects funded under 
     this subsection;
       ``(ii) to fund liaisons to provide technical assistance 
     within--

       ``(I) the Department of Agriculture;
       ``(II) the Department of Commerce;
       ``(III) the Department of Energy;
       ``(IV) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       ``(V) other appropriate Federal agencies as determined by 
     the Secretary.

       ``(iii) to support studies, competitions, and 
     administration required by this section; and
       ``(iv) to support the collection and sharing of local 
     innovations between the State lead agencies designated under 
     this section.
       ``(3) Conditions on receiving grants.--
       ``(A) Lead agency.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Governor of a State shall designate 
     or establish an agency, institution of higher education, or 
     joint entity in the State as the lead agency for the 
     distribution of grant funds.

[[Page S1801]]

       ``(ii) Duties.--A lead agency designated under clause (i) 
     shall--

       ``(I) encourage collaboration between agencies, 
     institutions of higher education, cooperative extension, and 
     appropriate nonprofit organizations in the State;
       ``(II) support private- and nonprofit-public partnerships 
     for purposes of the grant;
       ``(III) establish a local citizen and industry advisory 
     board;
       ``(IV) improve the energy independence of the State; and
       ``(V) in consultation with the advisory board, develop a 
     comprehensive statewide energy plan to increase energy 
     independence described in clause (iii).

       ``(iii) Comprehensive plan.--The plan developed under 
     clause (ii)(IV) shall--

       ``(I) support local and regional sustainable bioenergy and 
     biobased product use and production;
       ``(II) provide flexibility for local needs;
       ``(III) support other renewable energy, energy efficiency 
     and conservation activities, and coordination with other 
     State and Federal energy initiatives (including the Clean 
     Cities Program established under sections 405, 409, and 505 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13231, 13235, 
     13256));
       ``(IV) support a diverse array of farm sizes, crops 
     (including agroforestry), and production techniques, with a 
     particular focus on small and moderate-sized family farms;
       ``(V) have a goal of maximizing the public value of 
     developing and using sustainable bioenergy and biobased 
     products;
       ``(VI) include activities--

       ``(aa) to manage energy usage through energy efficiency and 
     conservation;
       ``(bb) to develop new energy sources in a manner that is 
     economically viable, ecologically sound, and socially 
     responsible; and
       ``(cc) to grow or produce biomass in a sustainable manner 
     that has net environmental benefits and considers such 
     factors as relative water quality, soil quality, air quality, 
     wildlife impacts, net energy balance, crop diversity, and 
     provision of adequate income for the agricultural producers; 
     and

       ``(VII) consider providing grant preferences to local and 
     farmer-owned projects in order to retain and maximize local 
     and regional economic benefits.

       ``(B) Use of funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), a grant received 
     under this subsection may be used to pay the Federal share of 
     carrying out that support the establishment, growth, and use 
     of local bioenergy and biobased products, including--

       ``(I) extension;
       ``(II) curriculum development;
       ``(III) education and training;
       ``(IV) technical assistance;
       ``(V) applied research;
       ``(VI) grants to support local production and use of 
     bioenergy and biobased products;
       ``(VII) energy conservation or support for other renewable 
     fuels, if identified as part of the comprehensive statewide 
     energy plan developed under subparagraph (A)(ii)(IV);
       ``(VIII) support of bioenergy and biobased product 
     cooperatives through education, training, technical 
     assistance, or grants; and
       ``(IX) any other activity identified or approved by the 
     Secretary as meeting those goals.

       ``(ii) Allocation of grant resources.--

       ``(I) In general.--Each comprehensive statewide energy plan 
     shall include a balanced allocation of grant resources to 
     ensure support for each of research, education, extension, 
     and development.
       ``(II) Secretarial review.--If after review of a 
     comprehensive statewide energy plan received under 
     subparagraph (D)(i), the Secretary determines that the plan 
     or allocation of resources is inadequate or inappropriate, 
     the Secretary shall request clarification or revisions.

       ``(C) Matching funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--A recipient of funds for an activity 
     under this subsection shall contribute an amount of non-
     Federal funds (including non-Federal funds from nonprofit 
     organizations, local governments, and public-private 
     partnerships) in the form of cash or in-kind contributions to 
     carry out the activity that is equal to the amount of Federal 
     funds received for the activity.
       ``(ii) Return of funds.--A recipient of funds for an 
     activity under this subsection that fails to comply with the 
     requirement to provide full matching funds for a fiscal year 
     under clause (i) shall return to the Secretary an amount 
     equal to the difference between--

       ``(I) the amount provided to the recipient under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(II) the amount of matching funds actually provided by 
     the recipient.

       ``(D) Annual report.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than February 1 of each year, 
     each State receiving a grant under this subsection shall 
     submit to the Secretary a report that--

       ``(I) describes and evaluates the use of grant funds during 
     the preceding fiscal year; and
       ``(II) includes the comprehensive statewide energy plan, 
     and any revisions to the plan, developed under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii)(IV).

       ``(ii) Publication.--The Secretary shall make available to 
     the public all reports received under clause (i).
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $30,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, to remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(b) Study.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall carry out a study that assesses--
       ``(A) changes to law (including regulations) and policies 
     to provide or increase incentives for the potential 
     production of bioenergy (at levels greater than in existence 
     as of the date of enactment of this section) to maintain 
     local ownership, control, economic development, and the 
     value-added nature of bioenergy and biobased product 
     production;
       ``(B) potential limits to prevent excessive payments, 
     including variable support (such as reducing subsidies based 
     on the price of bioenergy or a comparable conventional energy 
     source); and
       ``(C) the use of existing and proposed incentives for 
     particular stages in the bioenergy system (including 
     production, blending, or retail), including an evaluation of 
     which incentives would be most efficient and beneficial for 
     local and regional communities and consumers.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress the report under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(c) Basic Research on Next Generation Technology.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013, the Secretary, acting through the National Research 
     Initiative, shall use $5,400,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation, to remain available until expended, to 
     carry out additional research on biobased products and 
     bioenergy production with an emphasis on developing and 
     improving the next generation of products and production 
     methods (such as cellulosic ethanol).
       ``(2) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under 
     this subsection shall supplement (and not supplant) other 
     Federal funding for the National Research Initiative in those 
     research areas.
       ``(d) Supplemental Rural Cooperative Development Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013, the Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for 
     Rural Development, may use up to $1,000,000 to supplement 
     existing grants under the rural cooperative development grant 
     program established under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)) (referred 
     to in this subsection as the `program').
       ``(2) Requirement.--The Secretary may award supplemental 
     grants under this subsection to program grant recipients the 
     applications or ongoing activities of which support, 
     establish, or assist the establishment of, renewable fuels or 
     biobased product-based cooperatives.
       ``(3) Amount.--The amount of a supplemental grant under 
     this subsection shall not exceed 20 percent of the amount of 
     the base program grant.
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
       ``(5) Maintenance of funding.--The funding provided under 
     this subsection shall supplement (and not supplant) other 
     Federal funding for the program.''.
       (b) Regional Bioenergy and Biobased Products Competitive 
     Research, Education, and Extension Programs.--Title IV of the 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
     1998 (7 U.S.C. 7621 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 412. REGIONAL BIOENERGY AND BIOBASED PRODUCTS 
                   COMPETITIVE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish regional 
     funds in accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Unallocated Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may use funds described in 
     paragraph (2) to provide bonus grants to regional centers 
     based on need and merit, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Relevant funds.--The funds referenced in paragraph 
     (1) are funds that--
       ``(A) would otherwise remain unallocated under this section 
     for a fiscal year; or
       ``(B) remain unused by a regional center as of the end of 
     the grant term, as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(C) are returned to the Secretary in accordance with 
     paragraph (3)(B).
       ``(3) Matching funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--A recipient of funds for an activity 
     under this section shall contribute in the form of cash or 
     in-kind contributions an amount of non-Federal funds to carry 
     out the activity that is equal to the amount of Federal funds 
     received under this section for the activity.
       ``(B) Return of funds.--A recipient of funds for an 
     activity under this section that fails to comply with the 
     requirement to provide full matching funds for a fiscal year 
     under subparagraph (A) shall return to the Secretary an 
     amount equal to the difference between--
       ``(i) the amount provided to the recipient under this 
     section; and
       ``(ii) the amount of matching funds actually provided by 
     the recipient.
       ``(C) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the matching funds 
     requirement described in subparagraph (A) with respect to a 
     project if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) the results of the project, while of particular 
     benefit to a specific bioenergy or biobased product research 
     question, are also likely to be generally applicable; or

[[Page S1802]]

       ``(ii)(I) the project involves a minor crop or production 
     method and deals with scientifically important research; and
       ``(II) the grant recipient is unable to satisfy the 
     matching funds requirement.
       ``(c) Identification of Regions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Regions under this section shall 
     correspond with the regions of the Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service of the Department 
     of Agriculture.
       ``(2) Subregions.--Each regional board established under 
     subsection (f) may establish up to 3 subregions based on 
     common characteristics, including--
       ``(A) bioenergy production methods;
       ``(B) research questions;
       ``(C) the benefits in efficiency and coordination of 
     identifying the same regions as are used by other Federal 
     programs, such as regions used for sun grant centers under 
     section 9011(d) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8109(d)); and
       ``(D) other factors important in fulfilling the goal of 
     increasing local and regional sustainable bioenergy and 
     biobased product use and production in the United States.
       ``(d) Regional Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish for each 
     region identified under subsection (c) a regional fund.
       ``(2) Allocation of funds.--Funds made available under 
     subsection (g) shall be allocated among the regional funds in 
     accordance with the proportional share of funds received 
     under section 9012(a)(1) of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 by the States that constitute the 
     appropriate region.
       ``(e) Competition.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not less often than once every 5 years, 
     in conjunction with the appropriate regional board, the 
     Secretary shall competitively award--
       ``(A) the funds in each regional fund to a regional center 
     to carry out multi-State applied research, extension, 
     education, and development; and
       ``(B) the designation of the regional center to an agency, 
     institution of higher education, nonprofit organization, or 
     joint entity in the region.
       ``(2) Shared centers.--An agency, institution of higher 
     education, nonprofit organization, or joint entity may host 
     more than 1 regional center if the appropriate regional board 
     determines that shared administrative and other expenses 
     benefits program efficiency.
       ``(f) Regional Board.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a regional 
     board for each region.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The membership of each regional board 
     shall include--
       ``(i) representatives of--

       ``(I) the Agricultural Research Service;
       ``(II) the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
     Extension Service;
       ``(III) the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
       ``(IV) nonprofit organizations with demonstrable expertise 
     in sustainable agriculture and sustainable bioenergy and 
     biobased product use and production;
       ``(V) cooperatives engaged in bioenergy or biobased 
     products production;
       ``(VI) agricultural producers involved in production of 
     agricultural commodities for bioenergy and biobased products;
       ``(VII) landowners or businesses involved in forestry; and
       ``(VIII) agribusinesses; and

       ``(ii) 1 member from each State designated by the Governor 
     of the State and approved by the Secretary who represents--

       ``(I) State cooperative extension services;
       ``(II) State agricultural experiment stations; and
       ``(III) State departments engaged in bioenergy and biobased 
     products programs.

       ``(B) Rotation.--The members of the board described in 
     clause (ii) shall regularly rotate among representatives of 
     the groups described in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) in 
     order that each regional board has equitable representation 
     of each of those groups.
       ``(3) Relation to existing or future regional 
     consortiums.--If a regional consortium is developed that, as 
     determined by the Secretary, fulfills the goals of this 
     section and reflects, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     membership diversity described in paragraph (2), the regional 
     consortium or a subpart of the regional consortium may act as 
     the regional board for the purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Responsibilities.--Each regional board shall--
       ``(A) promote the programs established under this section 
     at the regional level;
       ``(B) establish goals and criteria for the selection of 
     projects authorized under this section within the applicable 
     region;
       ``(C) appoint a technical committee to evaluate proposals 
     for projects to be considered under this section by the 
     regional board;
       ``(D) review and act on the recommendations of the 
     technical committee, and coordinate the activities of the 
     regional board with the regional host institution; and
       ``(E) prepare and make available an annual report covering 
     projects funded under this section and including an 
     evaluation of the project activity.
       ``(5) Preferences.--In determining regional priorities and 
     making funding decisions, the regional board shall give 
     preference to--
       ``(A) collaborative proposals;
       ``(B) research that adapts existing technology to local 
     conditions;
       ``(C) proposals that include more than 1 of the components 
     of education, extension, and research and development;
       ``(D) proposals that examine multiple factors (including 
     economic, social, and environmental factors) at a landscape 
     or watershed scale to maximize the public value; and
       ``(E) proposals that develop and evaluate more sustainable 
     alternatives to traditional monocultures, including perennial 
     continuous living cover systems and incorporating bioenergy 
     or biobased product production on conventional farms in 
     sensitive areas, such as perennial biomass production on 
     watercourses.
       ``(6) Other duties.--The regional board shall coordinate 
     with other Federal programs (including the research, 
     extension, and educational programs described in section 9011 
     of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 
     U.S.C. 8109)) to support joint initiatives, encourage 
     complimentary priorities, and prevent duplication of effort.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $20,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, to remain 
     available until expended.''.
       (c) Agroforestry Conversion and Cellulosic Production Pilot 
     Programs.--
       (1) Agroforestry conversion.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to 
     in this paragraph as the ``Secretary'') shall carry out an 
     agroforestry conversion pilot program under which the 
     Secretary shall provide technical assistance, cost share 
     assistance, grants, or loans to landowners during the 
     establishment phase of a woody crop.
       (B) Selection.--In providing assistance under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall--
       (i) use a competitive selection process; and
       (ii) consider diversity of--

       (I) region;
       (II) production method;
       (III) type of woody crop;
       (IV) method of requested support.

       (2) Cellulosic production pilot program.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry a cellulosic 
     production pilot program under which the Secretary shall 
     provide loans, loan guarantees, or grants, or any combination 
     thereof, to cooperatives, businesses, or joint ventures to 
     produce cellulosic ethanol from woody biomass on a commercial 
     scale.
       (B) Multiple pilot programs.--If there is sufficient 
     funding for the Secretary to carry out more than 1 pilot 
     program under this paragraph, the Secretary shall ensure, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, that the pilot programs are 
     geographically representative of the major forestry regions 
     of the United States.
       (3) Report.--Not later than October 1, 2013, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate a report that--
       (A) describes the effectiveness of the pilot programs under 
     this subsection; and
       (B) recommends whether or not the pilot programs should be 
     continued and at what funding level.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
       (d) Reauthorizations.--
       (1) Renewable energy systems and energy efficiency 
     improvements.--Section 9006(f) of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8106(f)) is amended by 
     striking ``section $23,000,000'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``section--
       ``(1) $23,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(2) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(3) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013.''.
       (2) Grants for certain value-added agricultural products.--
     Section 231(b)(4) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
     2000 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 106-224) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Not later'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) Fiscal years 2003 through 2007.--Not later''; and.
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Fiscal years 2008 through 2013.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2007, and each 
     October 1 thereafter through October 1, 2012, of the funds of 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall made 
     available to carry out this subsection, $60,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.
       ``(ii) Use of funds.--The Secretary shall ensure that not 
     less than 10 percent of the competitive grants awarded during 
     each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 are awarded to 
     producers of value-added agricultural products that use or 
     produce biobased products or bioenergy.''.

     SEC. 4. FUTURE OF FARMING, RANCHING, AND LAND MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle D of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act is amended by inserting after section 
     344 (7 U.S.C. 1991) the following:

     ``SEC. 345. FUTURE OF FARMING, RANCHING, AND LAND MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) Grants to Support the Future of Farming, Ranching, 
     and Land Management.--

[[Page S1803]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants to 
     States to support the development of the next generation of 
     farmers, ranchers, and other land managers.
       ``(2) Allocation of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     funds made available under paragraph (4) shall be allocated 
     among the States in accordance with the terms and conditions 
     of paragraphs (1) through (3) of section 3(c) of the Hatch 
     Act of 1887 (7 U.S.C. 361c(c)) and subparagraph (C).
       ``(B) Unallocated funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may use funds described in 
     clause (ii) to provide bonus grants to States based on the 
     need and merit of projects identified through annual reports 
     submitted under paragraph (3)(E), as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(ii) Relevant funds.--The funds referenced in clause (i) 
     are funds that--

       ``(I) would otherwise remain unallocated under this 
     subsection for a fiscal year; or
       ``(II) remain unused by a State as of the end of the grant 
     term, as determined by the Secretary; or
       ``(III) are returned to the Secretary in accordance with 
     paragraph (3)(D)(ii).

       ``(C) Administration.--The Secretary shall use not more 
     than 5 percent of funds made available under paragraph (4)--
       ``(i) to maintain a clearinghouse for projects funded under 
     this section;
       ``(ii) to fund liaisons within each agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture; and
       ``(iii) to support studies, competitions, and 
     administration required by this section.
       ``(3) Conditions on receiving grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Governor of a State shall designate 
     or establish an agency, public institution of higher 
     education (as that term is defined in section 101 of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)), or joint 
     entity in the State as the lead agency for the distribution 
     of grant funds.
       ``(B) Duties.--A lead agency designated under subparagraph 
     (A) shall--
       ``(i) encourage collaboration between agencies, cooperative 
     extension, local nonprofit organizations, agricultural 
     organizations, and institutions of higher education in the 
     State;
       ``(ii) support private- and nonprofit-public partnerships 
     for purposes of the grant;
       ``(iii) establish a local citizen and industry advisory 
     board;
       ``(iv) in consultation with the advisory board, develop a 
     statewide plan to increase opportunities for, and reduce 
     barriers to, beginning farmers and ranchers and, in 
     accordance with subparagraph (C), other rural professions;
       ``(v) support the development of local community-based 
     support and mentoring networks;
       ``(vi) to the maximum extent practicable, enable the 
     transfer of family farms to children or other relatives of 
     owners in order to allow family farms to be kept whole in 
     cases in which the division of the farm would result in a 
     less viable agricultural operation; and
       ``(vii) support small-scale models for farms or ranches for 
     beginning farmers and ranchers and other rural professions, 
     including models based on--

       ``(I) community-supported agriculture;
       ``(II) organic agriculture;
       ``(III) farmers markets;
       ``(IV) speciality agricultural products;
       ``(V) sustainable production;
       ``(VI) grazing;
       ``(VII) agrotourism; and
       ``(VIII) agroforestry.

       ``(C) Other rural professions.--A State that identifies 
     other important rural professions in the State (including 
     professions involving forestry, conservation, land 
     management, tourism, or a combination of those professions) 
     may include those professions in the statewide plan under 
     subparagraph (B)(iv).
       ``(D) Matching funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--A recipient of funds for an activity 
     under this subsection shall contribute in the form of cash or 
     in-kind contributions an amount of non-Federal funds to carry 
     out the activity that is equal to the amount of Federal funds 
     received for the activity.
       ``(ii) Return of funds.--A recipient of funds for an 
     activity under this subsection that fails to comply with the 
     requirement to provide full matching funds for a fiscal year 
     under clause (i) shall return to the Secretary an amount 
     equal to the difference between--

       ``(I) the amount provided to the recipient under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(II) the amount of matching funds actually provided by 
     the recipient.

       ``(E) Use of funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--A grant received under this subsection 
     may be used to pay the Federal share of carrying out the 
     programs that support and develop the next generation of 
     farmers, ranchers, and other rural professionals, including--

       ``(I) extension;
       ``(II) education, including targeted scholarships and loan 
     forgiveness, for traditional degree and certificate courses 
     and continuing education and short courses;
       ``(III) technical assistance, including support for 
     development of cooperatives;
       ``(IV) grants to support transitional ownership, 
     mentorships, apprenticeships, and peer-support networks;
       ``(V) support of matched-savings programs through 
     individual development accounts that can be used for capitol 
     expenses, land acquisition, or training for beginning 
     farmers, ranchers, and other rural professionals;
       ``(VI) support of farmer land contract programs to provide 
     payment guarantees to encourage retiring landowners to sell 
     to beginning farmers, ranchers, and rural professionals; and
       ``(VII) any other activity identified or approved by the 
     Secretary as meeting those goals;

       ``(ii) Preference.--In allocating grants and other direct 
     assistance under this subsection, a lead agency shall give 
     priority to limited resource and socially-disadvantaged 
     individuals.
       ``(F) Annual report.--
       ``(i) In general.--Not later than February 1 of each year, 
     each State receiving a grant under this subsection shall 
     submit to the Secretary a report that describes and evaluates 
     the use of grant funds during the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Publication.--The Secretary shall make available to 
     the public all reports received under clause (i).
       ``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $30,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, to remain 
     available until expended.
       ``(b) Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and 
     Ranchers.--To the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary 
     shall use funds otherwise available to the Secretary--
       ``(1) to support the work of the Advisory Committee on 
     Beginning Farmers and Ranchers established under section 5(b) 
     of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (7 U.S.C. 
     1929 note; Public Law 102-554) (referred to in this 
     subsection as the `Committee')--
       ``(2) to fund more frequent meetings of the Committee 
     (including meetings at least twice per year); and
       ``(3) to increase the outreach activities of the Committee, 
     including increased public field hearings, if determined to 
     be necessary by the Committee.
       ``(c) Study and Pilot Program.--
       ``(1) Beginning farmer and rancher loan program.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013, the Secretary shall use funds made available under 
     subparagraph (D)--
       ``(i) to study the provision under this Act of direct farm 
     ownership and guaranteed loans to beginning farmers and 
     ranchers;
       ``(ii) to carry out a pilot program to use additional 
     resources to reduce the backlog of loan applications from 
     beginning farmers and ranchers;
       ``(iii) to carry out a pilot program under which grants, 
     rather than loans, are provided to support capitol 
     investments or farm purchases at the same amount as the 
     subsidy would be over the term of a comparable loan; and
       ``(iv) to carry out a pilot program under which direct and 
     guaranteed loans are provided under this Act to beginning 
     farmers and ranchers with no interest or payments due, and no 
     accrual of interest, during a period of up to the first 36 
     months of the loans.
       ``(B) Reports.--
       ``(i) Initial report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report that--

       ``(I) describes the results of the study under subparagraph 
     (A)(i); and
       ``(II) recommends changes to improve the efficiency of the 
     provision under this Act of direct and guaranteed loans to 
     beginning farmers and ranchers.

       ``(ii) Additional reports.--Not later than 4 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and thereafter as 
     appropriate, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     that describes the effectiveness of the pilot programs 
     described in subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(C) Additional pilot programs.--After submission of the 
     study under subparagraph (B)(i), the Secretary may use funds 
     made available to carry out this subsection--
       ``(i) to continue the pilot programs described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii); or
       ``(ii) to carry out other pilot programs based on the 
     conclusions and recommendations of the study.
       ``(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
       ``(d) GAO Study and Report.--
       ``(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall carry out a study of possible tax incentives, contract 
     guarantees, and other measures to support the transfer of 
     land from retiring farmers and ranchers to beginning farmers 
     and ranchers.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit to Congress a report that 
     evaluates, and makes recommendations concerning, the 
     effectiveness of measures studied under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program.--
     Section 7405 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
     2002 (7 U.S.C. 3319f) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(5)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) refugee or immigrant farmers or ranchers''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
       ``(h) Funding.--
       ``(1) Fees and contributions.--

[[Page S1804]]

       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may--
       ``(i) charge a fee to cover all or part of the costs of 
     curriculum development and the delivery of programs or 
     workshops provided by--

       ``(I) a beginning farmer and rancher education team 
     established under subsection (d); or
       ``(II) the online clearinghouse established under 
     subsection (e); and

       ``(ii) accept contributions from cooperating entities under 
     a cooperative agreement entered into under subsection 
     (d)(4)(B) to cover all or part of the costs for the delivery 
     of programs or workshops by the beginning farmer and rancher 
     education teams.
       ``(B) Availability.--Fees and contributions received by the 
     Secretary under subparagraph (A) shall--
       ``(i) be deposited in the account that incurred the costs 
     to carry out this section;
       ``(ii) be available to the Secretary to carry out the 
     purposes of the account, without further appropriation;
       ``(iii) remain available until expended; and
       ``(iv) be in addition to any funds made available under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, 
     the Secretary shall use $20,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to carry out this section, to remain 
     available for 2 fiscal years after the date on which the 
     funds are first made available.''.
       (c) Improving and Targeting Farm Support and Conservation 
     Programs for Beginning Farmers, Ranchers, and Rural 
     Professionals.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall carry out a study 
     to identify and propose remedies to barriers to small, 
     beginning, socially disadvantaged, and limited resource 
     producers in conservation and farm support programs, 
     including--
       (A) the environmental quality incentives program 
     established under chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.);
       (B) the conservation security program established under 
     subchapter A of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.);
       (C) the farmland protection program established under 
     subchapter B of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838h et seq.) (commonly 
     known as the ``Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program'');
       (D) the wetlands reserve program established under 
     subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.);
       (E) risk management tools, such as insurance;
       (F) commodity support programs;
       (G) food purchases by the Agricultural Marketing Service;
       (H) the provision of value-added agricultural product 
     market development grants to producers under section 231(b) 
     of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 
     1621 note; Public Law 106-224); and
       (I) other programs identified by the Advisory Committee on 
     Beginning Farmers and Ranchers established under section 5(b) 
     of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (7 U.S.C. 
     1929 note; Public Law 102-554).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, or 
     otherwise on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on 
     Beginning Farmers and Ranchers established under section 5(b) 
     of the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 (7 U.S.C. 
     1929 note; Public Law 102-554), the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report that--
       (A) describes the results of the study under paragraph (1);
       (B) summarizes the participation rates for small, 
     beginning, socially disadvantaged, and limited resource 
     producers in the programs studied;
       (C) recommends changes to make the programs studied more 
     accessible and effective for limited resource and beginning 
     farmers and ranchers; and
       (D) for each report after the initial report, describes the 
     status of changes recommended by previous reports.
       (3) Sense of the senate regarding conservation security 
     program.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (A) the conservation security program established under 
     subchapter A of chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.) was 
     intended to be an entitlement available to all agricultural 
     producers, rather than available on a piecemeal basis;
       (B) sufficient mandatory funds should be provided to the 
     conservation security program to fulfill the promise of 
     supporting conservation on working land; and
       (C) the next reauthorization of the Farm Bill should--
       (i) contain sufficient mandatory funding for the 
     conservation security program; and
       (ii) continue the 15 percent cost-share bonus for beginning 
     farmers and ranchers for the conservation security program 
     and the environmental quality incentives program established 
     under chapter 4 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa et seq.).
       (d) Sustainable Agriculture Initiatives.--
       (1) Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas.--There 
     is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to carry out appropriate technology transfer for 
     rural areas program under the same terms and conditions as 
     funds provided under the heading ``rural cooperative 
     development grants'' under the heading ``Rural Business-
     Cooperative Service'' in title III of the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-97; 119 
     Stat. 2141) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013, to remain available until expended.
       (2) Sustainable agriculture research and education 
     program.--
       (A) Best utilization of biological applications.--
       (i) In general.--Section 1624 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5814) is 
     amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1624. FUNDING.

       ``(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out sections 1621 and 1622 $75,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2013, to remain available until 
     expended.
       ``(b) Federal-State Matching Grant Program.--For each of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2013, the Secretary shall use 
     $20,000,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     carry out section 1623, to remain available until 
     expended.''.
       (ii) Multi-state regions.--Section 1623 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     5813) is amended--

       (I) in subsections (a), (b), (c)(1), and (d)(1), by 
     inserting ``or multi-State regions'' after ``States'' each 
     place it appears;
       (II) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or multi-State'' 
     after ``enhancement of State'';
       (III) in subsection (b)(8), by inserting ``or multi-State 
     region'' after ``State'';
       (IV) in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (c) and 
     subsection (d)(1), by inserting ``or multi-State'' after 
     ``State'' each place it appears; and
       (V) in subsection (d)(2)--

       (aa) in the paragraph heading by inserting ``or multi-
     state'' after ``State'';
       (bb) by inserting ``or multi-State region'' after ``a 
     State'';
       (cc) by inserting ``or multi-State'' after ``from State'';
       (dd) by inserting ``or multi-State'' after ``other State''; 
     and
       (ee) by inserting ``or multi-State region'' after ``the 
     State''.
       (B) National training program.--Section 1629 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     5832) is amended by striking subsection (i) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(i) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2013, to remain available until expended.''.
       (e) Organic Programs.--
       (1) Organic agriculture research and extension 
     initiative.--Section 1672B of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925b) is 
     amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(e) Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, 
     the Secretary shall use $15,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to carry out this section, to remain 
     available until expended.''.
       (2) National organic certification cost-share program.--
     Section 10606 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 6523) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``$5,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2002'' and inserting ``$25,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``$500'' and 
     inserting ``$750''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Recordkeeping Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, shall--
       ``(A) keep accurate, up-to-date records of requests and 
     disbursements from the program under this section; and
       ``(B) require accurate and consistent recordkeeping from 
     each State or other entity receiving program payments.
       ``(2) Federal requirements.--Not later than 30 days after 
     the closing date for States to request funding under the 
     program, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) finalize records that describe--
       ``(i) each State that has requested funding; and
       ``(ii) the amount of each funding request; and
       ``(B) distribute the funding to the States.
       ``(3) State requirements.--Annual funding requests from 
     each State shall include data from the program during the 
     previous year, including--
       ``(A)(i) a description of which entities requested 
     reimbursement;
       ``(ii) the amount of each reimbursement; and
       ``(iii) any discrepancies between requests and the 
     fulfillment of the requests;
       ``(B) data to support increases in requests expected in the 
     coming year, including information from certifiers or other 
     data showing growth projections; and
       ``(C) an explanation if an annual request is made for an 
     amount less than the amount requested the previous year.
       ``(d) Reporting.--Not later than March of each year, the 
     Secretary shall provide an annual report to Congress that 
     describes, for

[[Page S1805]]

     each State, the expenditures under the program under this 
     section, including the number of producers and handlers 
     served by the program in the previous fiscal year.''.
       (3) National organic conversion and stewardship incentive 
     program.--The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     6501 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating sections 2122 and 2123 (7 U.S.C. 6521, 
     6522) as sections 2124 and 2125, respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after section 2121 (7 U.S.C. 6520) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 2122. NATIONAL ORGANIC CONVERSION AND STEWARDSHIP 
                   INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definition of Secretary.--In this section, the term 
     `Secretary' means the Secretary (acting through the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service), in consultation with the 
     National Organic Technical Committee established under 
     subsection (h).
       ``(b) Program.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of the Rural Opportunities Act of 2007, the 
     Secretary shall establish a national organic agriculture 
     conversion and stewardship incentives program under which the 
     Secretary shall provide cost-share and incentive payments and 
     technical assistance to eligible producers who enter into 
     contracts with the Secretary to assist the producers in--
       ``(1) developing and implementing practices to convert all 
     or part of nonorganic farms to certified organic farms; and
       ``(2) adopting advanced organic farming conservation 
     systems.
       ``(c) Eligible Producers.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible for a payment or 
     technical assistance under this section, a producer shall 
     enter into a contract with the Secretary under which the 
     producer shall agree to develop and implement an organic 
     system plan that--
       ``(A) describes the conservation and environmental purposes 
     to be achieved through conservation practices and activities 
     under the contract;
       ``(B) demonstrates an existing market or reasonable 
     expectation of a future market for an agricultural product 
     that is organically produced; and
       ``(C) meets the requirements of this title.
       ``(2) Compliance.--To be eligible for a payment or 
     technical assistance under this section, a producer shall 
     comply with organic certification requirements as verified by 
     a certifying agent (as defined in section 2103 of the Organic 
     Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6502).
       ``(3) Conversion payments for certified organic 
     producers.--A producer who owns or operates a farm that is 
     partially a certified organic farm and who otherwise meets 
     the requirements of this section shall be eligible for 
     payments under this section to convert other parts of the 
     farm to a certified organic farm.
       ``(4) Appeals.--An applicant that seeks assistance under 
     this section shall have the right to appeal an adverse 
     decision of the Secretary with respect to an application for 
     the assistance, in accordance with subtitle H of the 
     Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 
     U.S.C. 6991 et seq.).
       ``(d) Eligible Practices and Activities.--The Secretary 
     shall provide payments and technical assistance to eligible 
     producers under this section for--
       ``(1) carrying out--
       ``(A) organic practices and activities to convert all or 
     part of a nonorganic farm to a certified organic farm, in 
     accordance with an organic system plan that meets the 
     requirements of this title;
       ``(B) advanced organic practices that are consistent with 
     the organic system plan;
       ``(C) organic animal welfare measures, so long as the 
     measures are--
       ``(i) necessary to implement an organic practice standard; 
     and
       ``(ii) consistent with an approved plan to transition to 
     certified organic production; and
       ``(D) other measures, as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(2) developing an organic system plan that meets the 
     requirements of this title.
       ``(e) Payment Limitations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), an individual or entity may not receive, directly or 
     indirectly, cost-share or incentive payments under this 
     section--
       ``(A) that, in the aggregate, exceed $10,000 per year; or
       ``(B) for a period of more than 4 years.
       ``(2) Specialty crops.--In the case of an individual or 
     entity who annually produces 3 or more types of specialty 
     crops (as defined in section 3 of the Specialty Crops 
     Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; Public Law 
     108-465)), the individual or entity may not receive, directly 
     or indirectly, cost-share or incentive payments under this 
     section--
       ``(A) that, in the aggregate, exceed $20,000 per year; or
       ``(B) for a period of more than 4 years.
       ``(3) Dairy.--In the case of an individual or entity whose 
     principal farming enterprise is a dairy operation, the 
     individual or entity may not receive, directly or indirectly, 
     cost-share or incentive payments under this section--
       ``(A) that, in the aggregate, exceed $20,000 per year; or
       ``(B) for a period of more than 4 years.
       ``(f) Technical and Educational Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use not less than 50 
     percent of the funds that are made available under subsection 
     (k) for each fiscal year to--
       ``(A) provide technical assistance to eligible producers to 
     carry out eligible practices and activities described in 
     subsection (d); and
       ``(B) enter into cooperative agreements with qualified 
     nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations and consultants 
     to carry out educational programs that promote the purposes 
     of this section, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Cooperative agreements.--Of the amount of funds for a 
     fiscal year described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     use not less than 50 percent of the funds to carry out 
     paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(g) Suspension Authority.--
       ``(1) Assessments.--Not later than October 1 of each fiscal 
     year, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register and 
     otherwise make available an assessment for each organic 
     product that analyzes--
       ``(A) the domestic production and consumption of the 
     organic product;
       ``(B) the import and export organic market demand and 
     growth potential for the organic product; and
       ``(C) the estimated number and total amount of new payments 
     under this section for the fiscal year to be made to 
     producers of the organic product.
       ``(2) Suspension of new contracts.--The Secretary shall not 
     enter into contracts with new producers of an organic product 
     under this section if the Secretary determines that entering 
     into the contracts would--
       ``(A) produce an increased quantity of the organic product 
     that the Secretary finds is reasonably anticipated to 
     adversely affect the economic viability of producers who own 
     or operate certified organic farms under this title; or
       ``(B) create an unreasonable geographic disparity in the 
     distribution of payments under this section.
       ``(h) National Organic Technical Committee.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     National Organic Technical Committee to--
       ``(A) advise and assist the Secretary in carrying out the 
     program established under this section; and
       ``(B) improve the interface between owners and operators of 
     certified organic farms and other conservation programs and 
     activities administered by the Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service, including development of criteria for the approval 
     of qualified organic technical advisors under this title.
       ``(2) Membership.--The National Organic Technical Committee 
     shall consist of 9 members appointed by the Secretary, 
     including--
       ``(A) 3 owners or operators of certified organic farms;
       ``(B) 2 certifying agents;
       ``(C) 2 inspectors of organic products;
       ``(D) 1 representative of an environmental organization 
     that is knowledgeable concerning organic agriculture; and
       ``(E) 1 scientist with expertise in conservation planning.
       ``(i) Annual Reports.--Not later than March 1 of each year, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report 
     that describes the operation of the program established under 
     this section, including--
       ``(1) a State-by-State analysis of expenditures on 
     assistance under this section, including the number of 
     producers served by the program and the practices and 
     activities implemented;
       ``(2) an assessment of the impact of the program on organic 
     food production; and
       ``(3) any recommended modifications to the program.
       ``(j) National Program Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     commencement of the program established under this section, 
     the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) conduct a national program review (including public 
     hearings) of the program established under this section; and
       ``(B) submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report that describes 
     the results of the review (including any appropriate 
     recommendations).
       ``(2) Content.--In conducting the review, the Secretary 
     shall evaluate and make recommendations to--
       ``(A) resolve any program deficiencies;
       ``(B) redress any underserved States, agricultural 
     products, and regions; and
       ``(C) ensure that the program is contributing positively to 
     the profitability of small- and intermediate-size producers 
     and existing owners and operators of certified organic farms.
       ``(k) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out this 
     section $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013, to remain available until expended.''.
       (4) Annual report.--The Organic Foods Production Act of 
     1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 2122 (as added by paragraph (3)) the following:

     ``SEC. 2123. ANNUAL REPORT.

       ``Each year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress, and 
     make available to the public, a report that--
       ``(1) describes the enforcement activities carried out by 
     the Secretary under this Act to ensure the integrity of 
     organic labels; and

[[Page S1806]]

       ``(2) includes specific details on the number and 
     investigative results of retail surveillance and oversight by 
     certifying agents under this Act.''.
       (5) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the progress in carrying out the national 
     organic program established under the Organic Foods 
     Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) in 
     implementing the recommendations contained in--
       (A) the audit conducted in 2004 by the American National 
     Standards Institute; and
       (B) the audit conducted in 2005 by the Office of the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture.
       (f) Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Outreach 
     and Technical Assistance Program.--Section 2501 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     2279) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, 
     the Secretary shall use $25,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to carry out this subsection, to remain 
     available until expended.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by inserting ``, including 
     beginning farmers and ranchers in those groups,'' after 
     ``groups''.

     SEC. 5. ENCOURAGING LOCAL MARKETS FOR FOOD, BIOENERGY, AND 
                   BIOPRODUCTS.

       (a) Geographic Procurement Preference for Department of 
     Defense and Department of Agriculture.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) local produce, as compared to transported produce--
       (i) is often harvested closer to full ripeness and can have 
     higher nutritional quality;
       (ii) can have improved ripeness, taste, or selection, which 
     can increase rates of consumption of fruits and vegetables; 
     and
       (iii) is more efficient to store, distribute, and package;
       (B) use of local produce--
       (i) reduces dependence upon foreign oil by reducing fuel 
     consumption rates associated with the production or 
     transportation of fruits and vegetables;
       (ii) can help to improve the ability of those using the 
     procurement system to provide education on nutrition, 
     farming, sustainability, energy efficiency, and the 
     importance of local purchases to the local economy;
       (iii) helps to maintain a robust logistics network for 
     agricultural product procurement; and
       (iv) promotes farm, business, and economic development by 
     accessing local markets; and
       (C) section 9(j) of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(j)) directs the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to encourage institutions participating in the 
     school lunch program established under that Act and the 
     school breakfast program established by section 4 of the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) to purchase, in 
     addition to other food purchases, locally produced foods, to 
     the maximum extent practicable and appropriate.
       (2) Geographic procurement preference.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Department of Defense, the Department of 
     Agriculture, schools, local educational agencies, and other 
     entities may use a geographic preference to purchase locally 
     produced fruits and vegetables for--
       (i) in the case of programs carried out by the Department 
     of Defense--

       (I) the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia;
       (II) the Department of Defense Farm to School Program;
       (III) the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 
     Program;
       (IV) the service academies;
       (V) Department of Defense domestic dependant schools;
       (VI) other Department of Defense schools under chapter 108 
     of title 10, United States Code;
       (VII) commissary and exchange stores; and
       (VIII) morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) facilities 
     operated by the Department of Defense; and

       (ii) in the case of programs carried out by the Department 
     of Agriculture, schools, local educational agencies, and 
     other entities--

       (I) the school breakfast program established by section 4 
     of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773);
       (II) the school lunch program established under the Richard 
     B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et 
     seq.);
       (III) the summer food service program for children 
     established under section 13 of the Richard B. Russell 
     National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1761); and
       (IV) the child and adult care food program established 
     under section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766).

       (B) Additional authorizations.--A local food service 
     director or other entity may include a geographic preference 
     described in subparagraph (A) in bid specifications and may 
     select a bid involving locally produced fruits and 
     vegetables, even if that bid is not the lowest bid.
       (3) Scope of authority.--The authority provided in 
     paragraph (2) applies to the purchase of fruits and 
     vegetables for both Department of Defense and non-Department 
     of Defense uses.
       (4) Reporting.--A school, local educational agency, or 
     other entity participating in 1 or more of the programs 
     described in paragraph (2)(B) shall report to the Secretary 
     of Agriculture if the school, local educational agency, or 
     other entity pays more than 10 percent more than the lowest 
     bid to purchase locally produced fruits and vegetables in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       (5) Review.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall periodically review the program under this 
     subsection to prevent fraud or abuse.
       (b) Access to Local Foods and School Gardens.--Section 
     18(i) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1769(i)) is amended by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, 
     the Secretary shall use $10,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to carry out this subsection, to remain 
     available until expended.''.
       (c) Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--Section 
     4402(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
     (7 U.S.C. 3007(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary;''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Subsequent funding.--Of funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out this 
     section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, to remain available 
     until expended.''.
       (d) WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--Section 
     17(m)(9)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 
     1786(m)(9)(A)) is amended by striking clause (ii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(i) Mandatory funding.--Of funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out this 
     subsection $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, to remain 
     available until expended.''.
       (e) Farmers Market Promotion Program.--Section 6 of the 
     Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 (7 U.S.C. 
     3005) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Mandatory Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013, the Secretary shall use $20,000,000 of funds of 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this section, 
     to remain available until expended.''.
       (f) Grants for Development of Local Food, Bioenergy, and 
     Bioproducts Systems.--Section 231(b)(4)(B) of the 
     Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 1621 note; 
     Public Law 106-224) (as added by section 3(b)(2)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) Development of local food, bioenergy, and 
     bioproducts systems.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that not less 
     than 30 percent of the competitive grants awarded during each 
     of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 are awarded to producers of 
     value-added agricultural products relating to developing 
     local food, bioenergy, and bioproducts systems (such as 
     supporting local markets, labeling of production location, 
     local infrastructure, or local distribution).
       ``(II) Specific projects.--Not less than 50 percent of the 
     grants specified in subclause (I) shall be used to fund 
     projects that support the establishment of mid-tier food 
     value-added chains intended to help mid-sized farms, through 
     the marketing of differentiated products that adhere to sound 
     social and environmental principles and equitable business 
     practices at regional scales.
       ``(III) Project details.--Projects described in subclause 
     (II) should--

       ``(aa) facilitate partnerships between businesses, 
     cooperatives, non-profits, agencies, and educational 
     institutions;
       ``(bb) have mid-sized farmer or rancher participation;
       ``(cc) include an agreement from the eligible agricultural 
     producer group, farmer or rancher cooperative, or majority-
     controlled producer-based business venture engaged in the 
     food value-added chain relating to the method for price 
     determination; and
       ``(dd) articulate clear and transparent social, 
     environmental, fair labor, and fair trade standards.''.
       (g) Assistance for Community Food Projects.--Section 25 of 
     the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2034) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end and 
     inserting ``and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) supply healthy local foods to underserved markets, 
     including--
       ``(i) purchase of local foods by government and nonprofit 
     institutions;
       ``(ii) provision of technical assistance for retail 
     development in underserved areas;
       ``(iii) support of metropolitan production linked to 
     community-based food services and markets (such as urban, 
     community, school, and market gardens);
       ``(iv) provision of technical assistance for limited-
     resource and socially-disadvantaged applicants;
       ``(v) support of local purchase of foods by food banks and 
     other emergency providers; and
       ``(vi) support of an information clearinghouse on 
     innovative solutions to common community food security 
     challenges; or'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013, the Secretary shall use, of

[[Page S1807]]

     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation--
       ``(A) $15,000,000 to make grants to assist eligible private 
     nonprofit entities to establish and carry out community food 
     projects;
       ``(B) $10,000,000 to encourage eligible private nonprofit 
     entities to purchase of local foods for community food 
     projects;
       ``(C) $10,000,000 to provide technical assistance under 
     this section for retail development in underserved areas;
       ``(D) $10,000,000 for the community food project 
     competitive grant program to support metropolitan production 
     linked to community-based food services and markets (urban, 
     community, school and market gardens);
       ``(E) $7,000,000 to provide technical assistance under this 
     section for limited resource and socially disadvantaged 
     applicants for community food project funds;
       ``(F) $5,000,000 for the community food project competitive 
     grant program to support food policy councils and food system 
     networks to develop demonstration regional food authorities;
       ``(G) $3,000,000 to support local purchase of foods by food 
     banks and other emergency food providers under this section; 
     and
       ``(H) $500,000 to support an information clearinghouse on 
     innovative solutions to common community food security 
     challenges.''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)(4), by striking ``2007'' and 
     inserting ``2013''.

     SEC. 6. BROADBAND REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) While data collection on broadband access and 
     affordability could be improved, several reports indicate 
     that both factors have led to a digital divide in the nation, 
     with rural areas lagging behind suburban and urban areas.
       (2) Even as early as 2000, a joint Department of Commerce 
     and Department of Agriculture report demonstrated that there 
     was a noticeable disparity in the availability of broadband 
     access between rural and urban areas, with less than 5 
     percent of towns smaller than 10,000 people having broadband 
     access, while 56 percent of cities with populations of 
     100,000 and 65 percent of cities with populations of 250,000 
     have broadband access.
       (3) A February 2002 report by the Department of Commerce 
     found that among Internet users, only 12.2 percent of such 
     users located in rural areas had high speed connections 
     versus 21.2 percent of such users located in urban areas. 
     Furthermore, the report found higher income households were 
     more likely to have broadband access than lower income 
     households.
       (4) A September 2004 report by the Department of Commerce 
     evidenced growth in broadband subscribers among all Internet 
     users, however, the broadband access gap between rural (24.7 
     percent) and urban areas (40.4 percent) remained.
       (5) A May 2006 report by the Government Accountability 
     Office found that 17 percent of rural households subscribe to 
     broadband service, while suburban households had a broadband 
     subscription rate 11 percent higher and urban households had 
     a broadband subscription rate 12 percent higher than that of 
     rural households.
       (6) A May 2006 report by the Government Accountability 
     Office found that data collected by the Federal 
     Communications Commission on broadband subscribers at a zip 
     code level was of limited usefulness for an accurate 
     assessment of local availability of broadband service, 
     especially in rural areas. Moreover such report found that 
     this lack of reliable information was a key obstacle in 
     analyzing and targeting Federal aid for increasing access to 
     broadband service.
       (7) Even with this limited zip code level data, the most 
     recently released Federal Communications Commission data (for 
     December 31, 2005) disclosed that 11 percent fewer of the 
     lowest population density zip codes had at least 1 subscriber 
     relative to the highest population density zip codes.
       (8) A February 2006 report prepared for the Economic 
     Development Administration of the Department of Commerce 
     found that communities with early broadband availability 
     experienced more rapid growth in employment, number of 
     businesses, and number of information technology businesses.
       (9) The United States is losing ground relative to other 
     developed countries. According to the Organization for 
     Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States now 
     ranks 12th out of the 30 OECD countries in broadband access 
     per 100 inhabitants. In 2001, the United States ranked 4th, 
     behind only Korea, Sweden, and Canada. A similar worldwide 
     ranking by the International Telecommunications Union put the 
     United States even further behind at 16th in broadband 
     penetration.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that, given the growing number of opportunities provided by 
     broadband access, the digital divide affecting rural 
     households and other underserved groups be eliminated not 
     later than 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act 
     with the ultimate goal of providing nationwide universal 
     access to affordable broadband.
       (c) Improving FCC Data Collection.--
       (1) Reporting requirements.--
       (A) General requirements.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall revise FCC Form 477 (relating to reporting 
     requirements) to require each broadband service provider to 
     report the following information:
       (i) Identification of where such provider provides 
     broadband service to customers, identified by zip code plus 4 
     digit location (in this section referred to as ``service 
     area'').
       (ii) Percentage of households and businesses in each 
     service area that are offered broadband service by such 
     provider, and the percentage of such households that 
     subscribe to each service plan offered.
       (iii) The average price per megabyte of download speed and 
     upload speed in each service area.
       (iv) Identification by service area of such provider's 
     broadband service's--

       (I) actual average throughput; and
       (II) contention ratio of the number of users sharing the 
     same line.

       (B) Exception.--The Federal Communications Commission shall 
     exempt a broadband service provider from the requirements in 
     subparagraph (A) if the Commission determines that compliance 
     with such reporting requirements by the provider is cost 
     prohibitive, as defined by the Commission.
       (C) Report to joint board.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall provide the Federal-State Joint Board 
     established pursuant to section 410 of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 with any and all data and analysis collected from the 
     initial set of submitted revised Form 477s.
       (2) Demographic information for unserved areas.--The 
     Federal Communications Commission, using available Census 
     Bureau data, shall provide to Congress on an annual basis a 
     report containing the following information for each service 
     area that is not served by a broadband service provider:
       (A) Population.
       (B) Population density.
       (C) Average per capita income.
       (d) Reviews and Reports.--
       (1) Data transfer rate.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, 
     the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Agriculture and any other Federal agency 
     that administers a broadband program, shall revise its 
     definition of broadband to--
       (A) reflect a data rate--
       (i) greater than the 200 kilobits per second standard 
     established in the Commission's Section 706 Report (14 FCC 
     Rec. 2406); and
       (ii) consistent with data rates in the marketplace; and
       (B) promote uniformity in the definition of broadband 
     service.
       (2) USDA report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     report on the adoption or planned adoption of the 
     recommendations contained in the September 2005 audit report 
     by the Inspector General of the United States Department of 
     Agriculture entitled ``Rural Utilities Service Broadband 
     Grant and Loan Programs''.
       (3) Universal service.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal-State Joint Board in 
     accordance with the authority granted to such Board under 
     section 254(c)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 254(c)(2)) shall recommend to the Federal 
     Communications Commission whether advanced services such as 
     broadband service should be included in the definition of 
     universal service.
       (B) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       (i) Federal-state joint board.--The term ``Federal-State 
     Joint Board'' means the joint board established pursuant to 
     section 410 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     410).
       (ii) Universal service.--The term ``universal service'' 
     means services that are to be supported by Federal universal 
     support mechanisms under section 254 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254).

     SEC. 7. OFFSETS.

       (a) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency 
     Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--Section 
     1001 of the Food Security of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``$40,000'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``$20,000'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``$65,000'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``$32,500''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Limitations on Marketing Loan Gains, Loan Deficiency 
     Payments, and Commodity Certificate Transactions.--
       ``(1) Loan commodities.--The total amount of the following 
     gains and payments that a person may receive during any crop 
     year may not exceed $75,000:
       ``(A)(i) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a 
     marketing assistance loan for 1 or more loan commodities 
     under subtitle B of title I of the Farm Security and Rural 
     Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7931 et seq.) at a lower 
     level than the original loan rate established for the loan 
     commodity under that subtitle.
       ``(ii) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance 
     loan for 1 or more loan commodities under that subtitle by 
     forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount exceeds the 
     repayment amount for the loan if the loan had been settled by 
     repayment instead of forfeiture.
       ``(B) Any loan deficiency payments received for 1 or more 
     loan commodities under that subtitle.

[[Page S1808]]

       ``(C) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity 
     certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 1 
     or more loan commodities, as determined by the Secretary, 
     including the use of a certificate for the settlement of a 
     marketing assistance loan made under that subtitle, with the 
     gain reported annually to the Internal Revenue Service and to 
     the taxpayer in the same manner as gains under subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B).
       ``(2) Other commodities.--The total amount of the following 
     gains and payments that a person may receive during any crop 
     year may not exceed $75,000:
       ``(A)(i) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a 
     marketing assistance loan for peanuts, wool, mohair, or honey 
     under subtitle B or C of title I of the Farm Security and 
     Rural Investment Act of 2002 at a lower level than the 
     original loan rate established for the commodity under those 
     subtitles.
       ``(ii) In the case of settlement of a marketing assistance 
     loan for peanuts, wool, mohair, or honey under those 
     subtitles by forfeiture, the amount by which the loan amount 
     exceeds the repayment amount for the loan if the loan had 
     been settled by repayment instead of forfeiture.
       ``(B) Any loan deficiency payments received for peanuts, 
     wool, mohair, and honey under those subtitles.
       ``(C) Any gain realized from the use of a commodity 
     certificate issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation for 
     peanuts, wool, mohair, or honey, as determined by the 
     Secretary, including the use of a certificate for the 
     settlement of a marketing assistance loan made under those 
     subtitles, with the gain reported annually to the Internal 
     Revenue Service and to the taxpayer in the same manner as 
     gains under subparagraphs (A) and (B).''.
       (b) Rescissions.--
       (1) Section 32.--Of the unobligated balances under section 
     32 of the August of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), 
     $37,601,000 is rescinded.
       (2) Cushion of credit payments program.--Of the funds 
     derived from interest on the cushion of credit payments, as 
     authorized by section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act of 
     1936 (7 U.S.C. 940c), $74,000,000 shall not be obligated and 
     $74,000,000 is rescinded.
       (c) Transfer of Funds.--For each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2011, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation from unobligated funds made 
     available under section 32 of the August of August 24, 1935 
     (7 U.S.C. 612c), $125,500,000, to be used to carry out the 
     amendments made by section 5.

     SEC. 8. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to implement 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
       (b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall be made without regard to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
  By Mr. CRAIG:
  S. 542. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the 
Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of Idaho, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies 
to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette 
River systems in the State of Idaho. My State has experienced 
unprecedented growth in recent years. That growth, coupled with years 
of drought, has created a serious need for additional water storage. Of 
course, the first step in developing additional storage is the 
feasibility process.
  This bill provides the consent needed for the Secretary to conduct 
further studies of the projects that are currently underway in the 
State of Idaho that will help to alleviate water shortages in three of 
our river basins. This bill authorizes $3,000,000 to be used for the 
continuation of these studies.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to quickly move this 
much-needed bill through the legislative process.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 542

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT FEASIBILITY STUDIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Bureau of Reclamation, may conduct feasibility 
     studies on projects that address water shortages within the 
     Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in the State of 
     Idaho, and are considered appropriate for further study by 
     the Bureau of Reclamation Boise Payette water storage 
     assessment report issued during 2006.
       (b) Bureau of Reclamation.--A study conducted under this 
     section shall comply with Bureau of Reclamation policy 
     standards and guidelines for studies.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to carry 
     out this section $3,000,000.
       (d) Termination of Effectiveness.--The authority provided 
     by this section terminates on the date that is 10 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________