[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.
____________________