[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1790-S1808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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.
                                 ______