[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 173 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14118-S14139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
     agricultural programs for fiscal year 2012, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin amendment No. 3500, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid (for Dorgan/Grassley) amendment No. 3508 (to amendment 
     No. 3500), to strengthen payment limitations and direct the 
     savings to increased funding for certain programs.
       Reid amendment No. 3509 (to amendment No. 3508), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3510 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 3500), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 3511 (to amendment No. 3510), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition and Forestry, with instructions to report back 
     forthwith, with Reid amendment No. 3512.
       Reid amendment No. 3512 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
     Forestry, with instructions), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3513 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to recommit), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3514 (to amendment No. 3513), to change 
     the enactment date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, we are 
now back on the farm bill. The farm bill was laid down 2 days ago, on 
Tuesday. We have asked the other side if they want to offer amendments, 
but we have seen no amendments. We have one amendment pending. The 
Grassley-Dorgan or Dorgan-Grassley--I don't know which came first on 
it--amendment is pending. But we have heard from the leader on the 
other side that they want to offer amendments.

[[Page S14119]]

  We are here. We are on the farm bill. We have asked for amendments, 
and in the intervening 48 hours, or 2 days since we laid the bill down, 
I have not seen one amendment from the other side that has been 
proffered to be taken up. So here we sit. We are trying to get a handle 
on how many amendments there will be, trying to reach some agreement, 
as we always do, to have a package of amendments that we could go to 
today and tomorrow, spill over into next week, and then reach some 
agreement, as we always do around here, on how many amendments on their 
side, on this side, reach an agreement, get a time limit set up on 
these amendments, and then get to a finish on the farm bill I hope 
sometime next week before we leave for Thanksgiving. I know there is 
some other business the majority and minority leaders probably want to 
conduct next week, but we have to get this farm bill done. It is a good 
bill.
  I remind my fellow Senators and others who may be watching that this 
farm bill passed the committee unanimously. There was not one vote 
against it. It is a bipartisan bill. I think regionally it is a 
balanced bill, for all the regions of the country. I think it addresses 
the real needs of our farmers and ranchers, as well as the other titles 
of the farm bill that are encompassed in the farm bill. Energy--we have 
put a lot, again, into promoting biofuels and bioenergy. In 
conservation, there are big increases for conservation all over this 
country. In research, we have money for continuing a strong, robust 
research program. In nutrition, we have met our obligations to the 
neediest in our society, providing substantial increases in the Food 
Stamp Program in terms of the benefits and indexing them for inflation, 
making sure we have more money for the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program, for our food banks around the country.
  In all the different areas that are covered by the farm bill, I think 
we have met our obligations to move ahead. We have done so in a very 
fiscally responsible manner. This farm bill meets all the pay-go 
requirements we instituted here in the Senate earlier this year--that 
we would not increase the deficit but that we would pay for things by 
finding offsets in other areas. The Finance Committee met, and the 
Finance Committee came up with some loophole closing, some tax 
collections. I daresay there is not any increase in taxes; it is simply 
going after taxes that are already owed but are not being collected.
  I commend both Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley and all the 
members of the Finance Committee for their help. With their help, we 
were able to put in a disaster program for the farm bill, a new 
disaster payment program--much better than what we have ever had in the 
past, I would add. Also, we were able to get some funding for some 
conservation programs and some of the energy programs. This has been a 
very bipartisan approach on this bill by committee, I would say, 
between the Agriculture Committee and the Finance Committee.

  We are out here on the floor, and I think we can move ahead in good 
faith by agreeing upon whatever amendments we can agree on on both 
sides. These are negotiations that take place in every bill in which I 
have ever been involved. They took place on the last one I was the 
manager on here, the appropriations bill on Education, Health and Human 
Services, and Labor. But you can't negotiate if you do not have 
anything to negotiate on.
  I say again to my friends on the other side of the aisle, if there 
are amendments, if we bring them forth we can discuss them, and maybe 
we can reach some agreement on a package of amendments that we can then 
get to and start disposing of, one way or the other.
  That is where we are. I see my friend and ranking member, Senator 
Chambliss, is on the floor. I thank him for all of his good work on the 
committee. We have worked hard on this bill, and I think we have a good 
bill, one that, as I said earlier, I could basically support without 
amendments. I assume there will be amendments--some I may support, some 
I may not; some Senator Chambliss may support, and some he may not 
support. But that is the way we do things around here. Then we will go 
to conference and work it out. I am just hopeful we can get some 
amendments proffered here and brought over so we can look at them.
  I say the same thing on our side too. I have heard of amendments 
other than the Dorgan and Grassley amendment, and I say if we have 
Members who have amendments they want to offer on the farm bill, they 
or their staffs ought to bring them to us as soon as possible so we can 
take a look at them, see if they are relevant to the farm bill. If they 
are relevant to the farm bill--I say this very clearly and 
forthrightly--every amendment that is basically relevant to this farm 
bill will be considered and disposed of one way or the other. That is 
really what we have to focus on, amendments that are relative to the 
farm bill.
  Again, I hope Senators on both sides would, if they have amendments, 
bring them forth so we can put a package together and we can get to it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, my friend, my 
colleague, for his comments. I concur with exactly what he said, that 
we do need to have amendments filed so we know where we are. My 
understanding is, as of right now there are 67 amendments that have 
been filed. I don't know whether all of them are relevant. We have the 
list, but we will have to see which ones are and which ones are not.
  But I think the biggest obstacle we have is the majority leader made 
the decision to fill the tree.
  We have had some discussion, not debate by any means, on the 
Grassley-Dorgan amendment the other day. I understand there is some 
conversation about filing cloture on that amendment which is fine if 
that moves us ahead.
  But until the leadership on the Democratic side makes a decision as 
to whether we are going to limit amendments, what those amendments are 
going to be, then I think we are kind of limited as far as moving 
ahead.
  Let me say to Members on both sides of the aisle, particularly on our 
side of the aisle, that if you have an amendment, if you will file the 
amendment and, while you cannot call it up because the majority leader 
has filled the tree, come on over while we have got some time and talk 
about your amendment. It will certainly speed up the process when we do 
get to the point, as the chairman says, and I think he is exactly 
right. On every bill such as this, we will ultimately come up with a 
list of amendments. I would hope all of them are germane. There may be 
some that have to do with something else, as the Senate always has on 
every major piece of legislation. We have some that may not be farm 
bill related that will have to be considered. But that is for 
negotiation and agreement.
  But if anybody has an amendment, I would say: Come over, make sure 
your amendment is filed, talk about your amendment, and at the point in 
time when the amendment ultimately is considered, it simply will speed 
up the process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate first off the bill that came 
out of the Ag Committee. It was a consensus product. There was a lot of 
bipartisanship support for it. I think it is important we move it 
forward.
  What is happening here now is delaying something that is of critical 
timing to the producers in this country; they need to know what the 
rules are before they go into planting season next year.
  By running out the clock, which essentially we have done this week, 
and unless we come to some agreement on amendments, we are going to 
lose next week. Then we are into December, and it is going to be 
awfully difficult to get a bill conferenced and on the President's desk 
before the end of the year.
  I, for one, have an amendment, along with Senator Domenici and 
Senator Nelson, that has been filed. So I would say to my friend from 
Iowa that we are more than happy, if the leadership on the majority 
side would be agreeable, to us calling up amendments.
  But as was noted by my colleague from Georgia, the current state of 
play is they have filled the amendment tree, thereby making it 
impossible for us to get amendments called up, pending, under 
consideration, debated, and voted upon.
  But I have one that I think is very important, it is very relevant. 
You talk

[[Page S14120]]

about amendments that are relevant to the farm bill that would expand 
the renewable fuel standard. That was something that was supported by 
the Senate in the Energy bill. I have my doubts about whether we are 
going to get an energy bill this year. But I cannot think of anything 
that is more important to farm country right now than making sure we 
have a higher renewable fuel standard, particularly in the short term.
  2008 is critical. We are already at 7\1/2\ billion gallons. Where the 
current renewable fuels standard sits that was passed in 2005, we are 
going to, and have, eclipsed that. If we do not raise this renewable 
fuel standard in 2008 in the short term, we are going to have a 
terrible crunch out there.
  We are already seeing ethanol plants that are stopping construction, 
those that are under construction that have stopped it. We have some, I 
know of one in North Dakota that ceased operations for a while because 
the margins are not there.
  This is a very relevant amendment to the underlying farm bill, one 
that would strengthen the energy title in the bill and one which is 
critically important, from a timing standpoint, to producers across 
this country and those who would invest in the renewable energy 
industry. I would add, because I think this is a very important point 
not just for farm country, not just for our farmers and those in rural 
areas of this country who have benefited from ethanol production 
economically, but also it is important for our energy security.
  We have got a very serious problem. Oil is approaching $100 a barrel. 
We need to be increasing the amount of renewable energy we produce, 
homegrown energy in this country, so we can lessen that dependence upon 
foreign energy. We have an opportunity to do that. The ethanol industry 
in this country has done remarkably well, thanks, in large part, to the 
renewable fuels standard enacted in 2005. But we have been overtaken by 
events. We are passing, we are blowing by that 7\1/2\ half billion 
gallons. We need to get the new renewable fuel standard in place.
  The amendment we have offered--it is a bipartisan amendment--would do 
that. It would get us to 8\1/2\ billion gallons in 2008, which is 
critically important. We are running into a wall out there. It is 
dramatically affecting the ability of this industry to compete and to 
make sure that it continues to operate profitably and move us in a 
direction that lessons our dependence upon foreign energy.
  So I would simply say to my colleagues, to the Senator from Iowa, the 
chairman of the committee, the ranking Republican, Senator Chambliss, 
that it would be very advisable, and I think advantageous, for us to be 
able to come to some agreement on amendments because delay, in the end, 
is not an option.
  We cannot afford to go into next year without a farm bill. I would 
like to see this amendment considered. I hope the majority would make 
way for us to be able to offer amendments. This whole notion of filling 
the tree, I am not sure exactly what that accomplishes, other than to 
shut us down, at least in the short term.
  So I would simply say we have an amendment, we are ready to do 
business as soon as the other side decides they want to open this bill 
for amendment. I hope we can do that and do it soon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 20 or 30 
minutes on the farm bill, if I might. I would first like to associate 
myself with the remarks of Senator Thune, the distinguished ranking 
member of the committee, Senator Chambliss, and our distinguished 
chairman, Senator Harkin.
  Let me point out that Senator Harkin did something very unusual. 
After handling one bill on the floor of the Senate, he then had the 
challenge of trying to move the farm bill, which is sometimes about as 
easy as pushing a rope. But he did it through committee in a day and a 
half. I think that is a record.
  I have been through seven farm bills, two technical farm bills that 
were really farm bills, and I have never seen committee action be 
expedited in that fashion. So I wish to thank the chairman for that.
  There were some differences of opinion. Obviously, we always have 
that. But he handled it very well. So I am in agreement with the 
chairman and with the ranking member and Senator Thune, and I think 
almost everybody on the Agriculture Committee, that we would like to 
see action on this bill.
  This morning, once again, I had the privilege of being on the ``Farm 
Show'' in Topeka, KS, America, on good old WIBW. That is where the farm 
broadcasters always ask you: Where is the farm bill? How is it coming?
  I said: Well, it is not. We have sort of a briar patch we have gotten 
ourselves into in regard to something called filling the tree, that is 
a fancy word around here meaning you cannot climb up the tree and climb 
out on a limb and drop our acorn or your amendment down to see if it 
would be considered.
  On the other side of the fence, let me say Chairman Harkin has done 
some work, and I think he has done the homework to the extent to show 
in the last three farm bills not many nongermane amendments ever popped 
up on the floor in regard to the farm bill. That is a good thing.
  Now, I am not going to be in a position to try to determine what is 
germane and what is not, but as I recall, there was only one amendment, 
I think it was by Senator Kyl on the estate tax, I do think that is 
obviously germane to farmers and ranchers, but that is obviously a tax 
measure, but that was perhaps ruled out of order.
  But hopefully we can get an agreement and say X number of amendments 
on your side and X number of amendments on our side and then proceed. I 
would hope we would not have to go to cloture to even debate the farm 
bill.
  But farmers, ranchers, their lenders, whether it be in Iowa or 
whether it be in Georgia or whether it be in the Dakotas or in Kansas, 
they need answers now. I hope we do not get into a situation where our 
only option is to simply extend the current bill.
  Now I am going to get to my prepared remarks. I have some points I 
would like to make. I will try to make them as short as possible. As I 
indicated to my colleagues, this is my ninth farm bill, either as a 
staffer or a Member. If you include the technical corrections I talked 
about, which sometimes means a complete rewrite of the farm bill, we do 
not usually say that, we usually say it is a technical correction, I 
have lost count.
  Sometimes those technical corrections may seem somewhat covert but on 
most occasions they are not. Each farm bill debate is unique. 
Certainly, this one is as well. I would like to start off by saying 
there is some good news. I wish to thank the manager of this bill for 
including some important provisions I helped author. Senator Conrad and 
I have been working on our open fields bill for quite some time. I am 
glad to see it included. It is clearly a win-win for sportsmen and also 
sportswomen, as well as farmers and ranchers who take advantage of the 
program. So that is a good thing.
  I also appreciate the authors for working with me to address my 
concerns regarding the rural utility services broadband loan program. 
The reforms included do represent a very real bipartisan consensus. 
That was an effort to bring broadband Internet to more Americans. That 
is in the bill.
  The committee bill includes crucial and very important language on 
rural hospitals. Senator Harkin was a leader in that effort, that will 
make a real difference in many of our rural communities. The rural 
health care delivery system is always under pressure in keeping what we 
have. As a member of the Finance Committee I know that as well. We need 
to strengthen and preserve what we have and then improve it.
  Finally, I also wish to thank Chairman Harkin and our ranking member, 
Senator Chambliss, and their staff for creating an agriculture security 
title in this legislation. This is something we have worked or on for 
several years.
  Now, despite the fact that our Nation enjoys but does not apparently 
appreciate the fact that production agriculture does provide this 
country and a very troubled and hungry world the very best quality food 
at the lowest price in the history of the world, we have heard a lot of 
repeated calls for dramatic reform of our farm programs.
  Now, while targeted and pertinent reforms in some of our programs are 
certainly needed, and this bill takes major

[[Page S14121]]

steps to do that in answering those calls, it seems to me we must be 
cautious of what lurks under the banner of reform.
  We must be mindful of the unintended consequences of our actions. 
Nowhere in this bill is that more evident than in the livestock title. 
I represent a State where cattle outnumber people more than two to one. 
Cattle represented 61 percent of the agriculture cash receipts by 
generating over $6 billion in 2005. That is a lot of money.
  I tell you this, so you understand that when I say the livestock 
industry is vital to Kansas and the country and our economy out there 
on the high plains and also to our livelihoods.
  Now, competition issues are nothing new to this body. I understand 
that. I agree that our producers need to be able to compete in today's 
markets. It is the role of the Government to protect producers from 
unfair practices and monopolies, and I understand the calls from some 
for increased Government involvement and oversight.
  At the same time, we must take careful steps to ensure that in any 
action we might take, we do not suffer from the law of unintended 
consequences and risk the significant gains the livestock industry has 
experienced. It has changed dramatically.
  During this debate, we have heard from several Members about how farm 
bill debates rarely fall along party lines and traditionally follow 
regional interests. This may seem odd to those who have not worked on a 
farm bill before, but that is the case.
  Agriculture in one region can mean something different, very 
different, than agriculture in some other region. These differences do 
not just include the crops and the commodities that are produced, there 
are significant differences in practices, farming practices, and input 
costs, what it costs to have a successful cropping operation and risk; 
risk, which is a big-time consideration among the different regions.
  We have low risk in certain States, where I have often said in jest, 
where they simply put the seed in the ground, they do not farm it, it 
just comes up, as opposed to other areas where we have high risk, we 
really have to farm the ground and other areas.
  As a Senator from a State with higher risk agriculture, and there are 
many of us representing these States, many of our current farm programs 
unfortunately have not worked for our constituents. However, some of 
them do. In recent years, they have represented a lifeline to our hard-
pressed producers who needed a lifeline, and it has been their only 
lifeline.
  In particular, I am talking about direct payments and crop insurance. 
I will come back to that and come back to that and come back to that. 
This is why it is vital that as a Federal Government, we craft farm 
programs that do not merely benefit one region or one crop but that we 
draft legislation that is national in scope.
  So reducing programs that benefit one region to increase programs 
that benefit another region is a dangerous enterprise. I caution my 
colleagues against taking this route.
  If we want a farm bill that represents the entirety of agriculture, 
we must not play games that pit one sector of agriculture against 
another. I remember the days of the whole herd buyout back when I was 
privileged to be a Member of the House of Representatives. That may 
have been of help--I underscore the word may--to the dairy industry, 
but it put a lot of livestock producers out of business. I underscored 
that in my mind and to my colleagues at that time, that we must not get 
into another situation where one section of agriculture is competing 
against another and putting them at a disadvantage. We certainly do not 
need that.
  For several years now I have been telling everybody who will listen 
about how the current farm bill does not provide assistance when our 
producers need it the most. When Mother Nature starts stirring up 
trouble--and we have seen that in Kansas and other States, either 
through a drought for, 2, 3, 4 years, or a flood, or a freeze, or 
tornadoes, I don't know what could come next from Mother Nature--our 
producers in the field take it on the chin and in the pocketbook. 
Yields go down; prices jump up. Again, the only programs that do 
provide them any cover are direct payments and crop insurance. The 
countercyclical program currently in the farm bill, which when we wrote 
it we predicted prices would be lower, simply doesn't offer them a 
payment. So if you lose a crop, the only thing you get again is a 
direct payment and crop insurance. In regard to crop insurance, during 
a drought your average production history goes down, and that impacts 
your crop insurance that will allow you to work with your lender and 
stay in business.
  This story isn't new to anybody who farms in what we call the 
breadbasket of the world. Thankfully this bill does not cut direct 
payments. I know direct payments may seem like an easy target or a 
bank, for some, but to those in the fields, our farmers, the direct 
payment program helps them produce the safest, most abundant food 
supply in the world. Once again, the standard farm program rationale--I 
know Chairman Harkin has made these comments, I have made them, 
everybody connected with the Agriculture Committee and agriculture in 
general has made these comments--our farm programs are a big reason why 
we in the United States enjoy a market where we spend only 10 cents of 
each dollar of our disposable income on food. That is one dime. That 
frees up 90 cents for the consumer to spend on other things, whether it 
be housing, health care, education, leisure time activity, whatever. 
That is the lowest in the history of the world. This speech used to be 
made by leaders in the House Ag Committee some years ago. Then it was 
18 cents, 19, 20. Now it is one dime we spend in regard to food, 
freeing up 90 cents.
  Without farm programs, that consumer would have to rely on market 
disruptions that happen and the fluctuations that happen, they would be 
at a big disadvantage, especially those disadvantaged and living in the 
cities. We need to thank our producers for this. But if you look at 
this farm bill, you will see that only 14 percent now goes to the 
commodity title. When Senator Conrad was on the floor earlier this 
week, he informed us that commodity title payments under this bill 
represent a mere one-quarter of 1 percent of all Federal outlays. In 
fact, $6 billion comes out of the commodity title to pay for 
initiatives in other titles. That $6 billion comes out of the 
pocketbooks of the folks who provide the food and fiber for a troubled 
and hungry world for other programs. I am not trying to perjure other 
programs. They are good programs. But we should not take it out of the 
hides of farmers and ranchers who desperately need help when they lose 
a crop.
  The conservation title receives an increase of over $4 billion, 
appropriate, but it is up $4 billion. A plus-up in nutrition program 
funding is over $5.5 billion which brings total nutrition title 
spending to two-thirds of the entire bill. I know there are amendments 
being considered that will take more out of the commodity program, give 
more to nutrition programs. I suggest that $5.5 billion in additional 
funding and two-thirds of the entire bill going to nutrition is 
appropriate. Let's work through that. Let's get at the Nation's 
problems of obesity and good health and wellness. That is appropriate.
  Yet I have no doubt that during the course of this debate, Members 
will come down to the floor and argue for additional cuts to producers 
to fund these other programs. I am not saying our conservation and 
nutrition programs don't need additional funding. I hope I have made 
that clear. Quite the contrary. I am here today saying this bill 
already puts enough of that responsibility on the backs of farmers and 
ranchers. Let's not pile anymore on.
  Production agriculture needs a voice in this debate. I am happy to 
stand up for those producers. We have heard it a lot in farm bill 
debates from critics of any farm bill, 15 percent of producers do 
produce 85 percent of our Nation's food and fiber. But in the national 
media and among many of the sideline groups and organizations, these 
producers, because of the size of their operations, are either 
described or tattooed as ``rich. `` They say ``How can you not be rich 
if you are farming 10,000 acres? How could you not be rich if you are 
farming 5,000 acres, whatever is cost efficient in whatever region of 
the country you farm in?'' In many instances, they are simply taken for 
granted or ignored. In some cases, they don't even exist. Look at their 
contribution. That is the key. Look at

[[Page S14122]]

their contribution. Kansas is the top wheat and grain sorghum-producing 
State in the country. Since 1996, Kansas farmers have produced an 
average of 365 million bushels of wheat each year. If you are taking 
away programs that help them in dire straits especially crop insurance 
and direct payments, you are risking that 365 million bushels of wheat 
each year, which I submit is a vital national asset. In 2007 alone, the 
plains States--talking about from North Dakota all the way down to 
Texas--produced more than 1.5 billion bushels of wheat. We don't want 
to do anything that could injure or set back that kind of production. 
There is a reason we are known as the breadbasket of the world. If we 
cut these direct payments and crop insurance which are vital to 
sustaining this production, who will supply the United States and the 
world? Who will give ample supplies to the world food program to 
respond immediately to the humanitarian crises we see daily in the 
world? What would this do to our prices if we lost these producers? Do 
we want our grain supply to come from China or Brazil or somewhere 
else?

  I traveled through much of western Kansas in August. Much of Kansas 
suffered heavy losses on its wheat crop this year. Western Kansas for a 
change was different. Many of those producers had a bumper crop, thank 
goodness. But I want everybody in the Senate to hear this, for many of 
them it was their first crop after 5 years of devastating drought. 
Again, under the auspices or the way this farm bill works or doesn't 
work, they received no help other than direct payments and crop 
insurance. Stop after stop on my tour, producers and their lenders, 
bankers and farm credit, made clear to me one very important fact: Had 
it not been for direct payments and crop insurance during those 5 
years, many of those producers would not have been around to grow that 
bumper crop this year. We are talking about anywhere from 350 to 400 
million bushels of wheat, let alone many other crops.
  That is why I get concerned when I hear folks talking about cutting 
direct payments or crop insurance during this debate. It is why I will 
fight and oppose any such proposals should they come forward trying to 
use the logic I have described in these remarks.
  I want to make clear to my colleagues who it is they are impacting 
the most, if they come forward with amendments and attack these 
programs. They are not going to be attacking this Senator. They are not 
going to be attacking some political or some small farm philosophy or 
some business. They will be attacking the people who feed this country 
and a troubled and hungry world. I have said that three times because 
it is true. They will be attacking the farmer who has farmed land for 
40 years or more, the land that his or her father, grandfather, and 
great-grandfather farmed before them. They will be going after the 
young family, the husband-and-wife team with two or three young 
children and agriculture degrees from Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado 
State, North Dakota State, all of the land-grant universities 
throughout the high plains, and the list goes on. The young couple who 
will return to the farm to raise their families because they believe in 
agriculture, farming, rural communities, and raising their children as 
part of the family in what is called rural America, what we in Kansas 
call ``real America.'' They get up at 5:30 in the morning. They often 
don't quit until 10 at night. They are working hard and maybe farming 
2,000 or 3,000 acres. But they are not rich simply because they farm 
2,000 or 3,000 acres. They are not rich simply because they are big 
farmers. This business of trying to means-test farm programs based on 
the size of an operation simply ignores reality in regard to production 
and what we produce for this country and the value of that production.
  It is not the size of the operation. They are still young--I am 
talking about the farm couple again--so they don't have the liquidity 
built up in their operations that allows them to survive on their own 
through droughts that last 2, 3, 4, and, yes, even 5 years. They have 
kept the dream alive. They stayed in business. They secured the 
operating loans they needed because they and their bankers knew they 
could depend on direct payments and also on crop insurance.
  When you talk about that next generation farmer and where they will 
come from and who will replace them, that is the issue. These folks are 
highly educated. They are feeding this country and the world, but they 
are operating on the margin. The actions we take here have real-world 
impact. Yes, conservation is important. We are increasing that funding. 
Yes, nutrition is important, and we are increasing that program $5.5 
billion. Yes, renewable energy programs are important, and we need and 
we are increasing the funding for these programs. But so are all those 
farmers out there, especially that next generation.
  To some here in the Senate, that young family farmer farming the 
2,000 or 3,000 acres is a big farmer. I don't know what that means. Are 
we talking about aiming the farm program? I don't know. Senator 
Chambliss has heard me say this before. I am not sure what that means. 
If we are going to aim the farm program at only small family farmers? I 
don't know whether that is somebody 5 foot 3 up in the Northeast part 
of the country who has maybe 40 acres, maybe has a pond and an orchard. 
Obviously, the orchard would be organic. They are going to be farming 
specialty crops now that have a program, over $2 billion worth, 
probably more by the time we get through. Maybe that person is a small 
family farmer. I suspect he is sitting on his glider on his wraparound 
porch. He is only 5 foot 3 so he is a small farmer, and he only has 40 
acres. He has a three-legged dog named Lucky and he pats him on his 
head and reads his Gentleman's Quarterly. He is a retired airline pilot 
and his wife works downtown as a stockbroker.
  I have a big farmer. He is 6 foot 3. He and his wife and three 
youngsters farm 10,000 acres because it is more cost efficient. Maybe 
some year they don't hit it very big. Maybe 1 out of 2 or 3 years they 
hit it really big. That production is vital to the food and fiber of 
this country. So somebody at least has to stand up and say: Wait a 
minute. What are you trying to do in terms of means testing in regard 
to size?

  Now, I used a little cynical or perhaps sarcastic example. I 
apologize for that. But that is where we are. Not everybody in America 
can take the time to come to the farm-to-market sales at their local 
communities. They are good. They are great. They are serving more 
vegetables, more fruit, more organic produce. I am all for that. But 
that is not going to make up what this country needs in regards to 20 
percent of our GDP and $64.4 billion worth of wheat, corn, sorghum and 
cotton program crops, and enabling in this country, again, every 
consumer to spend only one thin dime out of their disposable income 
dollar for food.
  Well, I have some good news for you. Yes, they farm a lot of acres 
out there, these aren't ``big farmers'' or so-called rich farmers, but 
they are family farmers in every sense of the word, and they are 
struggling to survive. So consequently, I hope we do not make the 
mistake again of pitting one region against the other or one kind of 
cost input situation or one kind of risk situation against the other. 
We need truly a national program.
  I hope before we start offering and passing amendments around here--
once we get to that point, if we can get to that point--because we 
think we can save money or because we have had a questionable GAO 
report that we think about the impact of our actions in regard to the 
real world.
  I commend our chairman, Chairman Harkin. I commend Senator Conrad and 
Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee and Ranking Members Chambliss 
and Grassley for moving us forward without cutting any direct payments. 
Chairman Harkin has gone from managing the Labor-HHS appropriations 
bill on the floor--that is a tough challenge--to the Ag Committee farm 
bill markup in a day and a half--that is a record--to now floor 
consideration of the farm bill in a few short weeks. That is quite a 
task.
  Now we find ourselves in a legislative or parliamentary quagmire in 
what we call filling up the tree. Well, I really think--I don't know, 
Senator Chambliss--have we agreed to about 10 amendments on each side, 
5 amendments on each side. As a matter of fact, we could take our 
amendments, and they would be in order, and then

[[Page S14123]]

maybe we could not consider somebody else's. But that is not fair, 
certainly not in the Senate where everybody tries to amend everything. 
So certainly we could reach some accommodation here with the leadership 
and with yourself and Chairman Harkin to say a reasonable number of 
amendments could be offered--maybe 10, maybe 5, maybe 15. I do not 
know. But obviously we have a long way to go before this bill is ready 
to become law.
  The people who are waiting are the farmers and the ranchers and the 
bankers and the lenders. We are not going to consider this farm bill, 
apparently, unless we have a cloture vote. That may be next week. Then 
we will have other considerations on the floor as of next week. Well, 
the farmers and the ranchers and their lenders are in the middle of 
planning decisions, lending decisions. They cannot wait.
  There is a school of thought: Oh, just extend the current farm bill. 
The current farm bill does not work well, as I have said, again, in 
regard to a farmer who has lost his crop. We are sitting here in this 
legislative briar patch while they wonder what on Earth we are doing 
back here in regard to trying to pass a farm bill.
  There are still several things in the House and Senate bills that 
still need some work.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, certainly I will be happy to yield to the 
distinguished Senator.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I say to Senator Roberts, you have a tremendous amount 
of experience from a legislative standpoint on farm bills. This is your 
which farm bill?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I think it is the seventh. But I did not count the 
technical corrections that, as I have said, for some cases that really 
represented a rewrite of the farm bill.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I know during my first year in the House, you were the 
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. I was privileged to serve 
on the House Agriculture Committee, and you chaired the committee that 
wrote the 1996 farm bill.
  You talked about farm bills seeking to deliver funding to the small 
farmer. That is such a difficult issue. It sounds good from a 
legislative standpoint. It sounds like something we ought to be able to 
do in practice when, in fact, it is so difficult to do, because what is 
a small farmer? I am not sure what a small farmer is in Kansas. It is 
probably different from what a small farmer is in Georgia. But a large 
farmer participates in the production of agriculture in America just 
like whatever that small farmer does.
  I would simply ask the Senator, what is your thought on the 
production by a small farmer versus a large farmer? Who is the one who 
actually puts products into mainstream agriculture from the standpoint 
of the quantity of products that are put into agriculture? In other 
words, what percentage of farmers produce the products?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Well, as I said before, some of our critics--and we 
should have critics. We should have oversight. We are not doing 
everything right, that is for sure. And farm bills--I tell you, we 
passed the Rubicon. This is no longer a farm bill. This is a bill that 
should be titled--I don't know what to put first--but conservation, 
nutrition, food stamps, rural development. We have a brand new section 
for specialty crops, which is a good thing in that for too long they 
have been out of the farm program.
  I must admit I never had a specialty crop producer come in my office 
and want to be part of the farm program because, inevitably, you have 
to put up a lot of rules and regulations, although I understand this 
one is done by State grant. I do not know whether we are going to have 
a hodgepodge of different programs for specialty crops. But specialty 
crops are a very important item.

  So is that a small farmer. Do not misunderstand me. Small farmers 
have a niche market. Small farmers are into organic produce. Small 
farmers take their produce to a place such as Alexandria, which my wife 
tries to get me up in the morning to go and visit and at least purchase 
some fresh fruits or vegetables. That is a good thing.
  But we cannot rely on just those folks or small farmers as opposed to 
the 15 percent of producers. Of course, the criticism is, they get most 
of the payments, but they produce most of the food and fiber--85 
percent. If you add that up, as I have indicated, that is 20 percent of 
our GDP. That is $64.5 billion worth in regard to the program crops I 
mentioned earlier. Yet you would think that everybody just takes them 
for granted. We are not an endangered species. We may be extinct in 
terms of the national media. Nobody pays any attention to production 
agriculture anymore. It is almost as if it is a bad thing to produce 
food.
  Go to your grocery store. I am always amazed when we have the 
opportunity to take foreign visitors to a typical American grocery 
store. It just knocks their socks off and their eyes pop out in regard 
to the variety we have there. But much of that produce in that grocery 
store on behalf of the consumer is produced by production agriculture. 
That is not a bad thing.
  That is the whole point I am trying to make. If you say, OK, somehow, 
if we go back and just limit it in size to a small family farmer, that 
does not work out on the High Plains. Yet Kansas is known as the wheat 
State, and we are known as the breadbasket of the world. The High 
Plains produce 1.5 billion bushels of wheat each year. That is what is 
at stake, not to mention the young farmers who do this.
  Well, I am very hopeful that through this process we can improve our 
agricultural programs to better protect our farmers and ranchers in 
times of need and to provide assistance to both those domestically and 
globally, increasing investments and stability in rural America. I know 
this farm bill tries to do that.
  In the end, this bill should be about the men and women in the fields 
and on the ranches working every day to provide the safest, most 
efficient food and fiber source we have seen in the history of the 
world. Our farmers and ranchers would never put the seed in the ground 
if they did not have any faith and optimism that it would grow and they 
would have a crop. We owe it to them to make sure we make this the best 
bill possible and do all we can to keep the ``farm'' in the farm bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I, first of all, extend my appreciation 
to the Senator from Kansas. Senator Roberts is not only a great 
personal friend, but he is someone for whom I have tremendous respect 
in so many areas but in no area greater than agriculture. As I said 
earlier, we served in the House together. He was my chairman on the 
House Agriculture Committee. Now he is one of the leaders on the issue 
of agriculture in the Senate and somebody on whom I rely very much in 
my role as ranking member, as I did when I was chairman over the last 2 
years.
  I just want to say, as we went through this farm bill, with all the 
complexities we had to deal with in there, there was one issue that, 
frankly, was a new addition to the farm bill mix, and that was the 
issue of average crop revenue--an option that is added in the commodity 
title. It does not look as if it is going to be of much benefit to 
Southeastern farmers, but to farmers in the Midwest, it has the 
potential to be a very usable mechanism.
  I thank Senator Roberts for taking that issue on and really getting 
into the ``weeds'' and doing the necessary study and homework on the 
issue and coming up with some strong and valuable amendments that have 
made that provision much better at the end of the day, when this bill 
came out of committee, than it was when we started.
  We are still going to have some debate on the provision as we come to 
the floor now, but without his leadership, without his studying this 
issue, we would not be where we are. I know he feels exactly the way I 
do. The Presiding Officer is, sure enough, one of those farmers who 
know what getting dirt under their fingernails means, and I know he has 
an appreciation for this too.
  We worked very hard over the last decade to improve the Crop 
Insurance Program. It is not perfect, but what we tried to do was to 
put the decision of how many crops to plant, how many acres of each one 
of those crops to plant, in the hands of the farmer and the banker who 
banks that farmer and him having the ability to use the tools of farm 
programs, plus the availability

[[Page S14124]]

of a good, solid crop insurance program and to take the decision off 
the Government mandating to that farmer what he ought to plant and 
putting it in the hands of that farmer.
  I think we have done that over the years. Still, it is not perfect. 
But today there appear to be some folks who, for whatever reason, want 
to take some shots at the Crop Insurance Program. I know the Senator 
from Kansas feels just as strongly as I do about the fact that we do 
not need to weaken the Crop Insurance Program. We need to strengthen 
that program to, again, move away from dependence by farmers on the 
Federal Government and allow them to have the market dictate their 
stream of income and have safety nets in the form of agricultural 
programs and crop insurance.
  So I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for the comments 
he has made today relative to the product that came out of the 
committee.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to take just a minute to address 
an issue that appeared in the Washington Post earlier this week. In an 
editorial, the author made some significant statements about the Cotton 
Program that exists in this current 2002 farm bill. Since we are in 
farm bill season, we have a constant barrage of editorials that come 
out--some of them in favor of farm programs; most of them seem to think 
farm programs are an easy target, and therefore they are very negative. 
This one was very negative. But as with most people who write these 
editorials and publish them around the country, frankly, this editorial 
is filled with total inaccuracies. I want to talk about a couple of 
those.
  I want to set the record straight relative to what this author is 
talking about because there is one particular issue in here that has 
been discussed over the last several years that is simply wrong.
  First of all, this editorial takes on the Cotton Program in the 2002 
farm bill and says this program has a very negative effect--if you can 
imagine this--a very negative effect on the ability of cotton farmers 
in the West African countries of Benin, Burkino Faso, Chad, and 
Mali. Now, in this editorial the author writes to start with:

       For years, the Federal Government has guaranteed American 
     cotton producers about 72 cents a pound, even though the real 
     market price of cotton has averaged about 57 cents.

  Nothing could be further from the truth. That is just a completely 
inaccurate statement. What the author is talking about is the fact that 
in the 2002 farm bill, there is a target price for cotton of 72.4 cents 
a pound, but that simply does not guarantee a cotton farmer 72 cents a 
pound. The only correlation between guaranteeing a cotton farmer a 
floor on the price of cotton and the farm bill is the fact that there 
is a marketing loan available to a cotton farmer, and the marketing 
loan rate is 52 cents a pound.
  That is the amount guaranteed to a cotton farmer from the 2002 farm 
bill. The fact is, the price of cotton today is in the range of 60-plus 
cents, so what that means is there would be no marketing loan benefits 
available to a cotton farmer as long as the current price is above the 
marketing loan rate.
  So for some off-the-wall editorial writer to come in and say a cotton 
farmer is guaranteed 72 cents a pound by the 2002 farm bill is 
misleading and is typical of the statements that are made about farm 
bills by folks who have no idea what they are talking about.
  Let me point out another inaccuracy. The author goes on to say:

       Since 2002, market prices haven't even covered the cost of 
     producing cotton, but the amount of acres planted in cotton 
     has increased because the government guarantees a higher 
     price.

  Again, the author of this editorial simply has not done their 
homework.
  Here are the actual facts: Cotton acreage in the United States in 
2002 was 17.2 million--17.2 million. In 2007--this year--cotton acres 
in the United States are 10.5 million. Instead of cotton acres 
increasing in the United States, we have seen a 39-percent reduction in 
the number of acres planted from 2002 to 2007.
  Furthermore, the author goes on to say:

       Who benefits from the current system of cotton subsidies?

  His answer to his own question:

       About 20,000 American cotton producers, with an average 
     annual income of more than $125,000.

  Let me tell my colleagues who really benefits from the cotton program 
in America as we know it today. We have in the United States today 
about 20,000 cotton producers. Those cotton producers deliver their 
cotton to gins where it is then processed, and the outcome of ginning 
cotton is a cotton bale. The cotton bale then goes into the marketing 
stream, where it can be sold to domestic cotton mills or exported, as 
most of our cotton is today. Unfortunately, all of our textile mills 
that were located all over the Northeast and then in the Southeast 
today are located in either the Caribbean region or in China or in 
Vietnam or elsewhere. Therefore most of our cotton is exported. But the 
farms and businesses directly involved in the production, distribution, 
and processing of cotton employ more than 230,000 Americans and result 
in direct business revenues of more than $27 billion.

       Additional economic multipliers through the broader 
     economy, direct and indirect employment surpasses 520,000 
     workers with economic activity in excess of $120 billion.

  Now, the author of the editorial makes this statement:

       The effects in the cotton-growing regions of West Africa 
     are dramatic.

  The author is talking about the U.S. cotton program's impact on West 
African countries. What they say is, the production of cotton in the 
United States under the current farm bill dictates to cotton growers in 
Africa what they can get for a pound of cotton. Again, nothing could be 
further from the truth because I have already noted what happened 
relative to the decrease in the production acres of cotton in the 
United States. Well, guess what has happened in other parts of the 
world. If we are having such a negative impact on producers in Africa, 
does it not stand to reason we are also having a negative impact on 
cotton growers in Brazil and in China and in India and in other cotton-
growing areas? I do not think it would have just a negative impact in 
West Africa.
  The fact is, in China, in 2002, the cotton acreage was 10.3 million 
acres. In 2007, cotton acreage in China was up to 15.1 million acres. 
During this time that we have been negatively impacting West African 
cotton growers, China has increased its cotton acreage by 50 percent. 
In 2002, India had cotton acreage of 18.9 million acres. In 2007, that 
was up to 23.5 million acres, an increase of 24 percent. In Brazil, in 
2002, 1.8 million acres of cotton were planted. In 2007, 2.8 million 
acres of cotton were planted in Brazil. Again, up 55 percent.
  For the author of this editorial to say the United States cotton 
program is having such a negative impact on four West African countries 
is totally ridiculous. This editorial failed to mention the fact that 
in this farm bill the Senate has before it for consideration, we 
provided significant reforms in the cotton program itself to reduce 
amber box government expenditures. The administration of the cotton 
marketing loan program is reformed to improve the efficiency of the 
program. The target price for cotton is the only target price in the 
Senate bill that is reduced. We thereby save $150 million over ten 
years.
  The trade title also includes provisions that repeal authority for 
the supplier credit and GSM-103 program, measures that are necessary 
for the United States to comply with the Brazilian cotton case and the 
WTO. That creates a savings of $50 million. Also, we have significantly 
reformed the payment limitation provision, and the Adjusted Gross 
Income limitations are reformed, which saves $456 million.

  None of this is mentioned in this grossly mischaracterized, 
inaccurate article that is aimed solely at a program that provides over 
520,000 American jobs.
  If we examine the production of cotton in China during the same 2002 
through 2007 period that I alluded to a minute ago, China increased by 
57 percent, India has increased by 122 percent, Brazil increased by 79 
percent, and the U.S. increased cotton production by 6 percent--6 
percent versus 57, 122, and 79 percent in those other three countries.
  The article insinuates U.S. cotton production alone resulted in the 
overproduction of cotton when, in fact, U.S.

[[Page S14125]]

cotton production in 2006 represented only 17.7 percent of the world 
production and is estimated to be just 15.1 percent in 2007.
  One other fact that is conveniently left out of this article is, if, 
in fact, the U.S. cotton program has a direct impact on the C-4 
countries in West Africa, it was not that many years ago when the price 
of cotton worldwide was $1 per pound--$1. There is no mention of the 
fact that if we had a negative impact, certainly we had a positive 
impact when the price of cotton was $1 a pound.
  As one would expect, the editorial cites economic studies by 
organizations with anticotton agendas that show U.S. cotton production 
impacting world prices. However, several independent analyses show 
minimal price impacts attributable to the U.S. cotton program on these 
West African countries and any other country. The most recent economic 
study by researchers at Texas Tech University show world price impacts 
of 3 percent or less attributable to the U.S. cotton program.
  West African cotton farmers receive less than 40 percent of the world 
market price. Why is that the case? These West African countries are 
rampant with fraud and corruption and the issues that typically are 
present in underdeveloped countries. Growers in China and India are 
paid between 90 and 100 percent of the world price for their cotton, so 
somebody other than the West African cotton farmers is receiving the 
difference. It is pretty obvious there is a lot of corruption going on 
in the West African cotton industry. But, again, this article 
conveniently fails to mention that point.
  West African cotton yields are going down, while cotton yields in 
other countries are increasing.
  Here are the real facts that are conveniently left out of this 
article:
  From 2001 to 2005, the average yield in the C-4 countries fell by 15 
pounds per acre, down to 353 pounds per acre. Average yields in India 
increased by 77 pounds per acre. Average yields in China grew by 272 
pounds per acre. Brazilian yields have increased by 668 pounds per acre 
in 10 years.
  West African farmers also have refused to take the latest, most 
technologically advanced assets that are available to them to utilize 
in the growing of cotton--again, a fact that the author conveniently 
left out of this article. They continue to reject genetically enhanced 
crops, while the adoption of those genetically enhanced crops in China, 
India, and Brazil allow their farmers to reap the benefits of improved 
yields and lower costs. The C-4 countries have little in the way of a 
textile industry, and the textile industry would like to have cotton 
close by. That is why we are seeing a huge increase in the production 
of cotton in China, for example.
  What has the U.S. actually done from the standpoint of impacting the 
West African countries? Here is exactly what we have done--another fact 
that is conveniently left out of this article. The United States is 
engaged in a number of outreach activities with West African countries 
that began in 2004 which are aimed at raising their agricultural 
productivity, spurring economic growth, and alleviating hunger and 
poverty. These efforts are coordinated by the U.S. cotton industry, 
with USAID, the Trade Representative's Office, and the Millennium 
Challenge.
  Now, I could have picked out another crop, be it corn, soybeans, or 
whatever crop is under attack right now, but this just happened to be a 
totally inaccurate editorial that appeared in the Washington Post 
earlier this week. Unfortunately it is pretty typical of the criticism 
that is leveled at farm programs by people who have no concept of the 
commitment that farmers and ranchers in America--be they a small farmer 
or a large farmer--make to ensure the development of their land and 
production of quality agricultural products that ultimately wind up in 
the grocery store, which allows all Americans to spend less than 10 
cents out of every disposable dollar on food products. That is the 
lowest--the lowest amount of money that is being spent on food products 
by any country in the world, and that is the benefit the American 
consumer gets from our agricultural producers.
  As we move forward over the next couple of days, I am very hopeful my 
colleagues will come to the floor and talk about what amendments they 
have. I see the distinguished Senator from Colorado is here to perhaps 
talk about some issues he has of concern.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I note with some interest that 
``agriculture'' does not appear in the title. It is called the Food and 
Energy Security Act. I think that in this particular piece of 
legislation, we are missing the boat, with commodity prices up, doing 
very well, and generally rural America is in a better position--at 
least in Colorado--than it has been in recent history. I think this 
would have been a good time to bring forward some reform in the 
agricultural programs. I am disappointed we don't have any reform in 
this particular piece of legislation. I do have some amendments I would 
like to be considered.
  I noticed that the chairman of the committee said no Republican 
amendments are coming forward. That is not true, the amendment tree has 
been filled. That means if you bring an amendment, you cannot call it 
up. You don't have that opportunity. So we have some very serious 
amendments that I would like to bring up for discussion on this bill. 
Our staff has been working some with the agricultural staff on some of 
these amendments. We think we will reach agreement on some of them. 
There may be several on which I would want to have votes. These are 
serious amendments which I think are important--items that ought to be 
brought up before the Senate for discussion and ought to be reviewed. I 
think they have some value in what we are trying to propose.
  I am anxiously hoping that we can put the bill in a posture so that 
amendments can be applied. I know the ranking Republican, along with 
Senator Harkin, have worked hard on this piece of legislation. There 
are some good things in it; they are not all bad. I appreciate their 
effort on what they worked on together.
  There are some things that continue to concern me: We have expansion 
of Davis-Bacon; we have tax increases and some budget gimmicks to make 
it look as if there is not as much spending as there is. Frankly, there 
is a lack of reform. I haven't made up my mind on how I will vote on 
final passage of this bill. I am waiting to see what it will look like 
after amendments have been adopted on the floor, if any, if we get an 
opportunity to do that. Hopefully, we can pass this bill in a way that 
won't adversely impact our trade agreements.
  This is another concern that gets brought up in relation to this 
issue. We have to be careful we don't do things that adversely affect 
our trade agreements, which come back and haunt us and reverse policies 
that may be decided and be applied to the agricultural industry and 
lose some of our export markets, which are so very important. Colorado 
is one of those States in the agriculture area that have benefited by 
these free-trade agreements--NAFTA in particular--and we continue to 
export our beef and our grain. They continue to be a valuable part of 
our economy. Agriculture is important to the State of Colorado. But if 
we can move more toward a market-based way of managing our agricultural 
produce, I think we would be much better off.
  So every piece of legislation that has come up in the Senate has a 
tax increase in it, or they call it revenue enhancers. Many of them 
are, frankly, tax increases, or they may be fee increases.
  I want to take a little bit of time on the floor to talk about tax 
reform. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the issue of taxes. This 
issue is very important to the hard-working men and women of our great 
country. I think we need to look seriously at tax reform.
  I believe the Federal tax burden is excessive and overly intrusive. 
Reform of the IRS and the current system is long overdue. In recent 
years, it has become abundantly clear that we have lost sight of the 
fact that the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise 
revenues to fund our Government. In its current application, the U.S. 
tax system distorts the economic decisions of families and businesses, 
leading to an inefficient allocation of resources and hindering 
economic growth. Our tax system has become unstable and unpredictable. 
Frequent changes to the

[[Page S14126]]

tax code have caused volatility, and it is harmful to the economy and 
creates additional compliance costs.
  The tax system was originally intended to be an efficient system 
designed to raise revenues for national defense, social programs, and 
vital Government services. However, the current tax system is now so 
complex that approximately $150 billion is spent each year by U.S. 
taxpayers and the Federal Government just to make sure taxes are 
tallied and paid correctly.
  This is an enormous expense and is a waste of resources. At present, 
the United States has instituted a tax system that thwarts basic 
economic decisions, punishes wise and productive investments, and 
rewards those who work less and borrow more. As it stands, the quagmire 
that is our existing Tax Code penalizes savings, contributes to the 
ever-increasing cost of health insurance, and undermines our global 
competitiveness.
  More disturbing is the fact that Americans spend more than 3.5 
billion hours doing their taxes, which is the equivalent of hiring 
almost 2 million new IRS employees--more than 20 times the agency's 
current workforce. On average, Americans spend the equivalent of more 
than half of one workweek--26 hours--on their taxes each year, not to 
mention the amount of time they work to pay the taxes themselves. At 
the end of the day, despite our lengthy codified tax law, there is no 
evidence to suggest that Americans really know how much they should be 
paying in taxes in any given year, or why. The Tax Code should aspire 
to be clear, transparent, rather than multifarious and convoluted. 
Everybody should be able to have a basic understanding of the Tax Code, 
knowing how and why they are taxed.
  The Tax Code's constant phaseins and phaseouts are a nuisance at 
best, and a negative force at worst, in the daily economic lives of 
American families and businesses, which include farmers and ranchers. 
Moreover, taxpayers with the same income, family situation, and other 
key characteristics often face different tax burdens. This differing 
treatment creates a perception of unfairness in the Tax Code and has 
left many Americans discouraged. At present, how much or little 
taxpayers pay in tax is sometimes dependent on where they happen to 
live and the choices made by their employers.

  In 1986, President Ronald Reagan, a true visionary in this area, 
signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which reduced top marginal 
individual tax rates from 50 percent to 28 percent and increased the 
standard deduction and reduced the top corporate tax from 50 percent to 
34 percent, and in so doing, this reform act simplified the Tax Code, 
broadening the income tax base, allowing for lower marginal rates, and 
curtailing the use of individual tax shelters.
  While the 1986 act was a step in the right direction, unfortunately, 
it didn't produce a long-lasting transformation of the tax system. 
Today, our tax system bears little resemblance to the simple, low-rate 
system promised by the 1986 reform. This is due to constant tweaking 
over the years, as we are seeing in these legislative proposals coming 
before the Senate in this particular piece of legislation. More than 
100 different acts of Congress have made nearly 15,000 changes to the 
Tax Code.
  I support broad-based tax reform and a simplified tax system. It is 
my belief that any reform to the current tax system should benefit the 
middle class. The vast majority of taxpayers are the middle class, and 
they have borne the burden of the current system. While I was a member 
of the Colorado Legislature, we implemented a 5-percent flat tax for 
Colorado. I believe we should take a similar approach on the Federal 
level.
  While I would be willing to consider a flat tax, a sales tax, and 
other plans on the Federal level, it is important that any replacement 
plan be simple and fair. The replacement system must provide tax relief 
for working Americans. It must protect the rights of taxpayers and 
reduce tax collection abuse. Most important, a new system must 
eliminate the bias against saving and investment and promote economic 
growth and job creation.
  No one can deny that our Tax Code is in dire need of reform. Its 
complexity, lack of clarity, unfairness, and disproportionate influence 
on behavior have caused great frustration. Our current Tax Code has 
been shaped by goals other than simplicity, by intentions other than 
helping the taxpayer plan ahead, and by objectives other than expanding 
our economy. Not only has it failed to keep pace with our growing and 
dynamic economy, frequently changes have made it unstable and 
unpredictable.
  Years of hodgepodge Government interference and ad hoc meddling have 
left our Tax Code in shambles. While we cannot change the past, we can 
learn valuable lessons from the same and remedy our mistakes. If we 
don't take steps to immediately simplify and reform our Tax Code, it 
will become more complex, more unfair, and less conducive to our 
economy's future growth. Small reforms are not enough. A total overhaul 
of the existing system is the only chance we have to get our economy 
and deficits back on track.
  We must act now. We have a responsibility to our constituents and 
this Nation to resolve the predicament in which our current tax system 
has put us in. If we here in Congress don't act sooner rather than 
later in reforming our tax system, it will become more complex and 
cumbersome.
  Mr. President, here we are again, and we have a piece of legislation 
before us that meddles with the Tax Code, takes piecemeal action on the 
Tax Code, and leads us more into a deeper quagmire of the complicated 
code. One of the aspects of our economy that gets impacted more than 
any other is the small business sector. They have to struggle with 
these. Large corporations have accountants and lawyers on staff. It is 
not a problem for them. It is a problem but certainly not as great a 
problem as for a small business, which may be a man-and-wife operation, 
or a business run out of a home, or it may be just a small workforce, a 
small business with 10, 15, 30 in the workforce. Many times, we look at 
it as we would a ranch, where it is just a family operation or a farm 
operation. They are the ones who are disproportionately impacted by a 
complicated Tax Code.
  Here we go again, in this particular farm bill, raising taxes and 
piecemealing the Tax Code. I hope the Congress--certainly, it is too 
late in this session--in the following sessions can come forward with 
serious attempts to simplify our Tax Code to make it fair and to not be 
piecemealing it, as we are seeing it in this particular farm bill and 
other pieces of legislation that have been brought up on the floor of 
the Senate.
  It is a challenge. It is not an easy task. I have been a part of 
those discussions on simplifying it, and there are many perspectives. 
It is becoming essential, and it is getting to the point where I don't 
think we can continue to ignore the challenges because of the adverse 
impact it is having on the citizens of this country and the difficulty 
they have in understanding the Tax Code and how taxes adversely affect 
productivity, such as farmers and ranchers, which we are trying to 
address in this bill, and small businesses throughout the country that 
are trying to do their best to be able to make a living for their 
families.
  So I felt we needed to take a little time to talk about taxes. Again, 
I am seeing a pattern in this legislation that really concerns me.
  As I said earlier in my introductory remarks, I have not decided if I 
am going to vote for the farm bill. Certainly, it is not a perfect 
piece of legislation. We have to weigh all aspects. Certainly, there 
are some provisions in this legislation about which I have concerns. I 
hope the majority leader and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, 
working with ranking members, can get us off this stalemate so 
Republicans can move forward and can offer amendments. I have a number 
of them that I wish to have an opportunity to offer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Trade Policy

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the House of Representatives today passed a 
bilateral trade agreement with the

[[Page S14127]]

country of Peru. I was disappointed that there was another ratification 
in our Government of another job-killing trade agreement, a trade 
agreement that will mean more unsafe food at our kitchen tables and 
more unsafe toys, consumer products, in our children's bedrooms.
  We have seen this over and over again. We saw it with NAFTA in 1993 
when the year before NAFTA was passed, we had a trade deficit in this 
country of $38 billion. Last year, the trade deficit was literally 20 
times that amount. President Bush I said every $1 billion of trade 
deficit or surplus translates into 13,000 jobs. So a $1 billion trade 
surplus means a growth of 13,000 jobs in our country; a $1 billion 
trade deficit means a loss of 13,000 jobs.
  Do the math. When our trade deficit goes from $38 billion in 1992 to 
upstairs of $700 billion in 2006, we know our trade policy is not 
working. It is not working for our workers, it is not working when we 
have layoffs in Lima, Canton, Youngstown, Toledo, or Dayton. We have 
these layoffs, and look what it does to police, fire, and schools, 
layoff of teachers. All that comes from a failed trade policy.
  Yet the House of Representatives again today passed another trade 
policy. We not only know that trade policy does not work for our 
workers and does not work for our communities where we have plant 
closings or, short of that, layoffs of large numbers of workers and 
services and our communities decline, from Galion to Gallipolis, from 
Avon Lake to Buckeye Lake, but we also know what these trade policies 
mean to consumer protection and food safety.
  Almost every week for the last several months, we have seen a new 
recall. It might be toys, it might be tires, it might be toothpaste, it 
might be vitamins. Yet, literally, almost every week there seems to be 
a recall, often from China, but not always.
  We are setting ourselves up. Think of it this way: In 2006, we 
imported $288 billion worth of goods from China. That $288 billion, 
tens of billions of dollars--if my math is right, that is about $700 
million or $800 million every day from China--tens of billions of 
dollars for toys, consumer products, and food products.
  Of those tens of billions of dollars, think about it this way: When 
we buy products made in China, the People's Republic of China, a 
Communist government, we know that Government puts no real emphasis on 
food safety, on consumer product safety, or on worker safety. So we are 
buying products from a country that puts no real premium on the safety 
of those products we are buying. That is the first problem.
  The second problem is, when we import large numbers of toys, for 
instance--let's take toys as an example because we have seen that over 
and over--when we import large numbers of toys from China, we know 
American companies such as Mattel go to China and subcontract with 
Chinese companies. Then Mattel and these other companies say to the 
Chinese subcontractors: You have to cut costs, you have to cut corners, 
you have to make these products cheaper. What do they do? They use lead 
paint. Why? Because lead paint is cheaper, it is easier to apply, it 
dries faster, and it is shinier.
  Mattel then brings these products back into the United States after 
they have told their Chinese subcontractor: You have to cut costs, you 
have to cut prices, you have to cut corners. They bring the products 
back into the United States with no corporate responsibility on their 
part. They bring them into our country. These toys end up in our 
children's bedrooms, these food products end up on our kitchen tables, 
and we have an inspection system that is increasingly falling apart, 
increasingly disintegrating.
  We have fewer inspectors than we have ever had at the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission. That Commission, when it began two or three 
decades ago, was twice the size it is today, and we were not even 
importing products from China or other places around the world. They 
were inspecting tires two decades ago, mostly made in the United 
States. They were inspecting toys two decades ago, mostly made in the 
United States under pretty good conditions.
  Today they have significantly less inspectors and tens of billions of 
dollars of products coming into this country from China, which doesn't 
have a consumer product safety commission of any import and doesn't 
have a food regulatory system, which we hold so dear in this country.
  It is a perfect storm: You trade, buy tens of billions of dollars 
from a country that doesn't have consumer product safety rules, you 
have an American company importing products and is pushing, saying, you 
have to cut costs, pushing quality and safety aside, and then you have 
a Consumer Product Safety Commission in this country underfunded by the 
Bush administration, weakened by the administrators and the White 
House, that does not protect American children.

  That is the problem with what we have seen at the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission. That is why it is time for Nancy Nord, the 
chairperson of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to step aside. 
She is the acting chairperson but, unfortunately, we see a lot more 
inaction from her and from that Commission than action. It is time to 
put a chairperson in place who is not satisfied with saying: Well, we 
are doing the best we can. ``The best we can'' is a chairperson who 
understands his or her primary responsibility is to protect the safety 
of our children and the safety of our families.
  Let me go a little further. Back around the time of Halloween, I 
asked Ohio Ashland University professor Jeff Weidenheimer to test 22 
Halloween products for lead. He is a chemistry professor. He has looked 
into lead-based paint applied to consumer products, to toys, for some 
time.
  The acceptable level of lead, according to the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, is 600 parts per million for adults, and for 
children, the Consumer Product Safety Commission says the acceptable 
level is zero.
  What Professor Weidenheimer found, of these 22 Halloween products, 3 
out of the 22 were not safe. They had much too high levels of lead. For 
example, the Halloween Frankenstein cup, which I mentioned on the 
Senate floor before, contained 39,000 parts per million of lead. Again, 
the upper level of safety for adults is 600 parts per million. This was 
39,000 parts per million. This was a Halloween Frankenstein cup that 
likely children are going to put to their lips and some of that lead 
will clearly end up in their system.
  Forty years ago, we banned lead in paint. Now we need to ban lead in 
toys. We need to get tough enforcing safety standards abroad so we will 
not see these unsafe products coming in. We need to, most importantly, 
hold responsible those importers who are bringing those products into 
the United States, subsequent to their pushing their contractors to cut 
corners and cut costs. At the same time, we need a Consumer Product 
Safety Commission that is going to work.
  A week or so ago, Chairwoman Nord of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission was lobbying against the legislation submitted by our 
colleague, Senator Pryor from Arkansas, that will make the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission work better. She said they have an adequate 
budget, even though their budget is half of what it used to be when it 
was an agency on the side of the public.
  Everyone agrees on one point: We want more trade with countries 
around the world, but we want fair trade. First, more than anything, we 
want a trade policy that protects our workers, protects our country, 
protects our communities, protects our families on food safety issues, 
protects our children on consumer product safety issues. It is our 
first responsibility as Senators to protect our families and make our 
families safe. Part of the way to do that is a very different trade 
policy. Part of the way to do that is a very different Consumer Product 
Safety Commission. Part of the way to do that is for Chairwoman Nancy 
Nord to step aside and put somebody in whose first, primary 
responsibility that he or she will recognize is protecting American 
families.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S14128]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an amendment today 
authorizing the Minor Use Animal Drug Program. This is a program which 
carries out valuable research at land-grant institutions across the 
country for veterinary pharmaceutical research, such as research being 
done right now at the University of Wyoming.
  This program is currently being administered by the USDA in 
cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration. It is identified as 
National Research Project No. 7. It is called NRSP-7.
  Minor species industries nationwide represent about $1.5 billion in 
State and local farm revenues each year. Processing and export of minor 
species food and fiber projects represent an additional $4.5 billion in 
revenue each year. Now, individually, these minor species represent 
drug markets which are too small to cover the high cost of developing 
new veterinary drugs. As a result, few approved drugs are available to 
treat diseases in these minor animal species.
  The USDA established a national Minor Use Animal Drug Program in 
1982. So over the last 25 years, this program has been used to 
facilitate research for the drug approval process. NRSP-7 offers an 
opportunity for producers of minor animal species, such as sheep, 
goats, fish, and honeybees, to have veterinary drugs approved for their 
use. This project is of particular importance to the American sheep 
industry and to the people in the State of Wyoming. The American sheep 
industry produces a superior product. Lamb is a delicacy around the 
world. In fact, our recent guest, the President of France, enjoyed an 
American lamb dinner when he dined at the White House on Tuesday 
evening. I have no doubt his meal was exquisite thanks to the American 
ranchers who prepared those animals for the plate.
  There are over 69,000 sheep producers in the United States. Those 
producers care for their animals and they produce valuable wool and 
lamb products for the country and the world. In Wyoming, 900 sheep 
producers care for close to a half million sheep. There are almost as 
many sheep in Wyoming as there are people, so it is almost a one-to-one 
ratio.
  Nationwide, the sheep industry may be considered minor. Drug 
companies may not see profit potential in the sheep industry based on 
the nationwide numbers. But in Wyoming, we see opportunity, opportunity 
in the sheep industry, and we see a pressing need for development of 
veterinary drugs to promote growth of the sheep industry.
  The industry is a big part of our heritage in Wyoming. Sheepherders 
have been incredible stewards of rangelands for more than a century. In 
Wyoming, we believe in a ranching way of life. We believe every man or 
woman who has the courage to work hard on the range can build a future 
for his or for her family, and they have. The sheep industry has 
supported that dream for thousands of people in Wyoming over the 
decades.
  Sheep ranchers take care of their animals, and their animals provide 
a valuable industry. Treating animals for injury or for disease is a 
major component of a successful ranching business. The Minor Use Animal 
Drug Program offers sheep ranchers the same opportunity as other 
livestock operators to maintain a healthy herd and healthy businesses.
  Having the right drugs to treat animal health problems is of great 
importance. New threats evolve each year and research carried out by 
the Minor Use Animal Drug Program helps keep the sheep industry up to 
date. To give a for-instance, NRSP's No. 7 research has led to approval 
of three drugs for respiratory diseases and two drugs for lung worms in 
sheep. Researchers are currently testing florfenicol for respiratory 
infections and a progesterone delivery method for breeding purposes.
  Without sheep-specific research produced for these drugs, producers 
are left to guess at adjusting the doses from what they use in cattle 
and other animals. This can lead to problems of antibiotic resistance 
and it raises questions about drug residues in meat products. NRSP-7 
provides the right research on appropriate drugs for responsible uses 
so that sheep producers know they are getting the best treatment for 
their animals.
  The United States is far behind the rest of the world in vaccines, in 
reproductive aids, and in approved antibiotics for sheep and goats. 
NRSP-7 gives American sheep producers a fighting chance to keep up with 
the competition, and it is international competition.
  It is not only the sheep industry that benefits from NRSP-7. For the 
last 25 years, NRSP-7 has facilitated drug approvals for species as 
varied as pheasants, quail, bighorn sheep, catfish, goats, partridges, 
lobster, shrimp, and the list goes on. At a time in our country when 
questions about animal disease are running rampant--when we face 
threats from avian influenza, from brucellosis, and from West Nile 
virus--it is the role of good government to protect human safety and 
animal safety.
  Having well-researched and approved drugs at the ready to meet animal 
disease threats needs to be a priority for our Nation. NRSP-7 provides 
an opportunity for Government to create a level playing field for all 
agriculture sectors. Authorizing the Minor Use Animal Drug Program 
helps prepare us for the future and for the future of agriculture 
production.
  I hope my colleagues will support this effort, this amendment to 
authorize NRSP-7, the Minor Use Animal Drug Program.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the other day the administration issued a 
veto threat against the farm bill that is pending before the body. More 
precisely, the President didn't say he would veto the bill, his aides 
said they would recommend to the President the veto if the bill that is 
currently pending before the Senate went to the President.
  We all know what that means in this town. It may sound like 
gobbledygook to almost anybody listening, but there is a nuance to what 
they are saying. The nuance is they are seeking negotiating leverage. 
That is what this is all about.
  At the end of the day, I don't think the President is going to veto 
the farm bill. I think that would be a very unwise move on his part. 
But I rise today to talk about the chief complaint they raised. They 
asserted there is too much spending in this farm bill, so I thought it 
might be useful to look at the President's proposal and how much it 
spends compared to the spending that is in this farm bill. Since they 
are asserting there is too much spending in the farm bill that has 
passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, that is before the 
whole body now, what about their proposal?
  Here is what I found. These are not my numbers. These are the 
estimates of the Congressional Budget Office. They say the bill before 
us that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee will cost $285.8 
billion over the next 5 years. But look at what they found the 
President's bill would cost over 5 years. Again, this is not my 
estimate. These are the professional estimates of the Congressional 
Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office said the President's 
proposal over 5 years would cost $287.2 billion. In other words, the 
President's proposal costs more than the proposal that came out of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee. I wish to repeat that. The President's 
proposal costs more, over the 5 years, than does the proposal that came 
out of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
  This is only a 5-year bill. I know the President's people tried to 
make it into a 10-year bill, but it is not a 10-year bill, it is a 5-
year bill. The 5-year scoring of the legislation that came out of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee by the Congressional Budget Office says 
the bill before us would cost $285.8 billion and the President's 
proposal would cost $287.2 billion. So if our proposal costs too much, 
what does he say about his own proposal? What do they say about the 
proposal they have advanced?
  Interestingly, in addition, we actually came up with the pay-fors. We

[[Page S14129]]

have completely offset the cost of the bill that is before the Senate. 
The Congressional Budget Office has so certified. They say we do not 
add a dime to the deficit. In fact, what they do say is we have a 
slight savings at the end of the day, $61 million over 5 years. That is 
what they say about our bill.
  The President has never said how he would pay for his bill. So we 
have an irony here. The President criticizes our bill as costing too 
much. His costs more. We have specified how this bill would be paid 
for. He has never specified how his would be paid for.
  On this question of the cost of this bill, we now have the latest 
calculations. These are the full and final calculations of what the 
forecast was at the time the last farm bill was written and the 
forecast now for this farm bill. It is very instructive. Again, these 
are the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office and the 
Congressional Research Service. These are not my numbers. These are not 
made-up numbers, unlike the numbers the White House used the other day, 
in which they tried to make a 5-year bill into a 10-year bill. It is 
not a 10-year bill. It is a 5-year bill. When you compare it on a 5-
year basis to the White House proposal, our proposal costs less.
  This extends the analysis and looks back at what the Congressional 
Budget Office forecasts the current farm bill would cost in 
relationship to all Federal spending. They said, at the time, the farm 
bill would be 2.33 percent, 2\1/3\ percent of total Federal spending. 
This is what they are saying the new farm bill will cost over the 5 
years of its life: 1.87 percent of total Federal outlays. In other 
words, the proportion of total Federal spending in this farm bill is 
lower than the proportion of total Federal spending of the previous 
farm bill.
  Agriculture's share of total Federal spending is going down and going 
down about quite a bit--about 20 percent. These are facts. In addition, 
regarding the commodity programs that are the ones that draw all the 
attention and all the controversy, the projection, when the last farm 
bill was written, was that would take up three-quarters of 1 percent of 
Federal spending. It turned out it didn't cost that much. It turns out 
it was one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending.
  But look at what the Congressional Budget Office is telling us this 
farm bill will cost in the commodity area. They are saying it will only 
be one-quarter of 1 percent of total Federal spending; one-half as much 
as the previous farm bill. I didn't see the White House mention that. I 
didn't see them mention this farm bill is going to cost less as a share 
of total Federal spending than the last farm bill. I didn't see them 
say the commodity provisions that are controversial provisions, that 
were projected when the last farm bill was written to absorb three-
quarters of 1 percent of Federal spending and wound up costing less, 
only one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending, is now, if this bill is 
approved, going to consume only one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal 
spending.
  It would be nice if facts were at the basis of an analysis of this 
legislation. It would be nice if we were dealing with an accurate 
description of what this bill costs, in comparison to what the 
President's proposal costs. That would be a useful debate to have. 
Because, as I have indicated, this bill before us costs less than the 
President's proposal; in fact, $1.4 billion less than the President's 
proposal. And he is accusing us of having too much money in this bill? 
Come on.
  In addition, we have completely offset the cost. This doesn't add one 
dime to the Federal deficit or debt. We have completely offset the 
cost. The President has never presented a plan for paying for his 
proposal, which costs even more.
  In addition, I want to rivet this point: When you look back at the 
last farm bill, CBO said it would consume 2\1/3\ percent of total 
Federal spending. It turned out to be somewhat less. On commodities, 
they said it would cost three-quarters of 1 percent. Look at this bill. 
This bill now is estimated to only cost 1.87 percent of total Federal 
spending and the commodity provisions one-quarter of 1 percent.
  What does this bill do? This bill is critically important to the 
national economy. It is critically important to people all across 
America. Sixty-six percent of this bill goes to nutrition, 9 percent of 
this bill goes to conservation, so 75 percent of the cost of this bill 
goes to nutrition and conservation. Those are needs that are equally 
and evenly spread all across America. Certainly, there are parts of the 
country that need more help and some less help but very broadly that 
money is evenly distributed across the country. The commodity 
provisions are less than 14 percent of the cost of this bill, and we 
now know they will consume only one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal 
spending.
  In addition, this legislation has a critical national priority--to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Mr. President, $2.5 billion in 
this bill is dedicated to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, to 
develop cellulosic energy that can help transform America's position in 
the world. Think how different our country would be if, instead of 
spending $270 billion a year buying foreign oil from Saudi Arabia and 
Kuwait and Venezuela and all the rest of the major oil producers, so 
many of whom are in unstable parts of the world--how different our 
country would be if that $270 billion were spent here, how different it 
would be if, instead of relying on the Middle East, we could turn 
toward the Midwest and the Southeast and the Southwest and the 
northeast for the energy supplies of America, how different it would 
look if that $270 billion, instead of going to Dubai, was going to 
America.
  This bill is important for the country. When the President issues a 
veto threat, saying there is too much money in it, and his proposal 
costs even more, they have some explaining to do. They have some 
explaining to do.
  I hope my colleagues are paying attention.
  Before I conclude, I would like to once again thank the ranking 
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Georgia, 
who has worked extremely hard to bring this bill to the floor. This is 
a bill with strong bipartisan support. He and his staff worked 
tirelessly to produce a professional product, one the country could be 
proud of.
  I believe he and his staff, working with the rest of us, accomplished 
that. I believe this is legislation that is going to help change our 
country and change it for the better and do it in a way that will 
reduce our dependance on foreign oil and also do it in a way that will 
help improve the American competitive position around the world.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will yield.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank you for your kind comments. This is only my 
fifth year in the Senate, but I have never seen a situation evolve in a 
more bipartisan fashion than we have with respect to this farm bill. I 
commend you for, No. 1, your insight into ag issues, your insight into 
budget issues, your insight into finance issues, all of which, when 
melded together, have been so critical in putting this bill together.
  Were it not for you and your commitment to the American farmer, we 
simply would not have this good product on the floor today. I see you 
have your staffer, Jim Miller, there. Were it not for Jim working very 
closely with my staff and Senator Harkin's staff, there is no question 
that we would not be where we are today.
  But your charts are of significant interest because you and I worked 
together on the 2002 farm bill. We both remember there was a lot of 
criticism directed at that farm bill, exactly the same criticism that 
has been directed at this farm bill today. As I remember, there was a 
veto threat by the White House in 2002. Is it not true the projected 
outlays in just the commodity title of the 2002 farm bill have been 
significantly lower, from an annual expenditure standpoint, than what 
was presented in 2002?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator has a good memory. The Senator is exactly 
right. We saved $17 billion just from the commodity provision alone 
from what was projected at the time the last farm bill was written. 
Part of it was, we did a good job of fashioning an agricultural policy 
that when prices are higher, the support is reduced.
  The result was very significant savings for the American taxpayer; in 
addition to that, a food policy that meant the lowest cost food, as a 
share of national income, in the history of the world. That is a fact. 
And by a long

[[Page S14130]]

way. We have the lowest priced food, as the Senator well knows, of any 
country in the world, and by a big margin.
  We are spending 10 percent of our income on food. That includes food 
eaten at home and food eaten out. Other countries are spending, most of 
the industrialized world, 14 and 15 percent. That is just for food 
eaten at home. So we are beating them by a country mile.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the Senator would continue to yield for a question, 
is it not true when we talk about reforms between the 2002 farm bill 
and this 2007 farm bill, that you mentioned the figure of about 14 
percent of this farm bill is spent on the commodity title; that in 2002 
about 28 percent of the expenditure in the farm bill was dedicated to 
the commodity title? So when somebody says we have not reformed the 
commodity title, that we have not reformed this farm bill, would the 
Senator not agree there is significant reform just in the pure dollars 
that are being dedicated to the commodity title?
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, once again, the Senator is exactly right. We can go 
back. These are not my numbers, these are not your numbers, these are 
not the Agriculture Committee's numbers. These are the numbers of the 
bipartisan, nonpartisan, Congressional Budget Office.
  When the last farm bill was written, they said the commodity programs 
would consume three-quarters of 1 percent of the Federal budget. They 
say this farm bill, the commodity programs will consume one-quarter of 
1 percent.
  Now, in fairness, they were wrong in the last farm bill. The last 
farm bill did not cost three-quarters of 1 percent of Federal 
expenditures, it cost one-half of 1 percent. That is still double what 
this bill does as a share of Federal spending.
  Sometimes you wonder when you read these press statements by some of 
the national media, what are they writing about? They are not writing 
about this bill because they clearly have not analyzed the bill. It is 
as clear as it can be that we have dramatically reduced the share of 
this bill going to commodity programs. We have dramatically reduced it 
on any measure.
  In addition, there are, as the Senator well knows, two of the most 
significant reforms that have been the goal of reformers, and I have 
always considered myself a reformer. No. 1, we have the end of the 
three entity rule, and, No. 2, we have the requirement for direct 
attribution of payments to living, breathing human beings, rather than 
paper entities.
  Anybody who does not recognize that is significant reform does not 
know much about agriculture policy.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Well, again, if the Senator would yield, I say this is 
not a perfect product. It is not maybe exactly what you would like or 
what I would or what Senator Harkin would like, or any member of our 
committee or this body. But when you take the interest of agriculture 
all across America, I think this farm bill truly represents the needs 
of American farmers. It represents the needs of our nutrition folks 
around the country, whether it be the School Lunch Program, our food 
banks, or our food stamp beneficiaries.
  It represents the needs from a conservation standpoint, both farmers 
and nonfarmers who want to maintain the integrity of the land and the 
environment. It looks at the needs from a research standpoint, looks at 
the needs as you mentioned from an oil dependency standpoint, and helps 
move us in the direction of becoming less dependent on foreign oil.
  At the same time, it does it, as the Senator well knows because he is 
chairman of the Budget Committee, within the numbers that were given to 
us by the Budget Committee. I daresay this is the first bill that has 
hit the floor this year that does, in fact, stay within the budget 
numbers.
  We can argue about that, but the fact is, we were given a budget 
number by your committee, and we had to craft a farm bill that gave us 
significantly less money than what we had in 2002. With your 
leadership, and Senator Harkin, we have been able to craft a farm bill 
that fits within those budget numbers.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, let me say if there were a model around here for 
fiscal rectitude, this bill would be it because not only does this bill 
come in within budget, it came in under the budget. As you know, there 
was a reserve fund created to take advantage of these opportunities 
that everyone recognized for our country in energy. So there was an 
extra $20 billion passed by both Houses of the Congress to be available 
for the Committees on Agriculture to write a farm bill, with the 
thought in mind that those resources would go for the energy 
opportunity and to deal with enhanced conservation.
  And what happened? This committee has come in only $8 billion above 
the so-called baseline, so well under the amount of additional 
resources that were allocated by both Houses of the Congress.
  The occupant of the chair now is a very valuable member of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, someone 
who has a very strong business background, someone who was Governor of 
his State, someone who balanced budget after budget after budget in 
that State, and someone who is very attuned to being fiscally 
responsible, I might add.
  I want to tell him we have just now gotten the numbers that show what 
our bill costs, the bill that came out of committee, the bill that is 
on the floor of the Senate right now, compared to the President's 
proposal.
  The President, through his staff, did not issue it. We have to make 
that clear. His staff said they would recommend to him a veto. They 
said the problem with it is we spend too much money. Well, now we have 
been able to compare what the committee did and what the President 
proposed. Guess what. The President's proposal, according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, costs $287.2 billion over 5 years.
  Our bill, the bill that is on the Senate floor, is $285.8 billion. In 
other words, the President's bill, the President's proposal, cost $1.4 
million more than ours--not by my scoring, not by the Agriculture 
Committee's scoring, but by the scoring of the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  That is on a 5-year bill. Now, the President came up--the President's 
staff, not the President--the President's staff came up with all kinds 
of almost bizarre ideas. They tried, in part of our bill, to turn a 5-
year bill into a 10-year bill. They did not do that with his proposal. 
But with ours, they tried to take some of the provisions and make them 
10-year provisions, and they are 5-year provisions.
  The fact that there will not be money for some of these things if the 
next farm bill does not find money to provide for them, those things 
will end. This is a 5-year bill. And the 5-year scoring shows ours 
costs less than the President's--less.
  So I would expect by probably late this afternoon, Mr. Conner, who is 
acting as head of the Agriculture Department, will issue an apology to 
us and no doubt have a press conference with the national media and 
acknowledge that the Congressional Budget Office has found that their 
proposal costs more than ours.
  I wait with great interest and anticipation that press conference by 
Mr. Conner to acknowledge that after new review, and after having an 
objective third-party analysis of our two proposals, they find ours 
costs less than theirs, and there will be an apology forthcoming to all 
of us who crafted this legislation.
  I eagerly await the announcement of that press conference. Again, I 
thank the ranking member of the committee for his determination to give 
good farm legislation for this country, legislation that is not just 
good for farmers and ranchers, but legislation that is good for 
taxpayers of this country, legislation that is good for all those who 
benefit from farm legislation, who are well beyond the farm and ranch 
gate.
  Because, as I have indicated, 66 percent of the funding in this bill 
is for nutrition, 9 percent is for conservation, three-quarters of the 
money in this legislation is spread broadly across America.
  In addition, there is money for research. In addition, there is money 
for trade to make us more competitive. There is money for rural 
development, and there is money for energy to make us less dependent on 
foreign oil. The commodity provisions, the ones that draw all the 
controversy, are down to 13.8 percent of the funding. They will account 
for only one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal spending, according to

[[Page S14131]]

the Congressional Budget Office. This committee has done its work and 
done it well.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank the 
staff of Senator Chambliss, my own staff, and Senator Harkin's staff 
who worked night and day, weekends, night after night, late into the 
night on this legislation. They are the unsung heroes. They get too 
little attention. We are out front. We are the ones who get talked 
about as helping to craft this bill. I emphasize the extraordinary 
efforts and performance of staff members from the three Members who 
worked to put this bipartisan compromise together.
  From the staff of Senator Chambliss, Martha Scott Poindexter is 
somebody who has great credibility with my office. She has been 
extremely professional, worked very hard, has very good judgment, and 
deep knowledge. We appreciate the attitude she brought to this effort. 
Vernie Hubert is another absolute first-class professional on the staff 
of Senator Chambliss who was great to deal with throughout the process. 
Vernie Hubert is somebody who spent the time to understand the 
implications of this legislation. We are talking about major 
legislation. It was held up the other day, but this is what I am 
talking about. This is an incredible effort, to do it and do it right. 
I acknowledge the excellent work of the staff of Senator Chambliss.
  I have expressed the high regard I have for Senator Chambliss, but 
Senator Chambliss has been ably assisted by Martha Scott Poindexter, 
Vernie Hubert, and many more whom I have not dealt with.
  On the staff of Senator Harkin, I wish to single out Mark Halverson, 
staff director, and Susan Keith. They have done an extraordinary amount 
of work, brought dedication to this effort. We thank them for it.
  On my staff, Jim Miller, who knows more about these farm bills than 
any living human being, has such an absolute commitment to helping 
family farmers and ranchers. Scott Stofferahn is my staff director back 
home. He ran the Farm Service Administration in my State. He was a 
leader in the State legislature and is my very close friend and 
confidant, somebody in whom I have absolute confidence.
  Tom Mahr, my legislative director, is one of the smartest people I 
have ever had working for me. He led the negotiations that involved the 
relationship of Finance Committee funding and Agriculture Committee 
funding and helped make sure all of this adds up. He did a superb job. 
John Fuher is relatively new to my staff but comes from a North Dakota 
farm family, as straight an arrow as one could ever ask for, somebody 
who absolutely believes in the importance of family farm agriculture to 
the economic strength of the country. He comes from a wonderful family 
and acquitted himself very well. I was amazed at the responsibility 
John took on in this process. Miles Patrie, another young member of my 
staff, did a terrific job as well. They were assisted by Joe McGarrey, 
who is my energy aide and who played a central role in negotiating the 
energy provisions of this bill.
  I thank them. Some people have an idea that the people who work in 
public service have cushy jobs. I wish they could see the work these 
people have put into this over the last 4 months. I wish they could see 
night after night, many nights here until 1 and 2 in the morning, 
weekend after weekend, here late on a Friday, then all day Saturday, 
then all day Sunday, and then right back here Monday morning and then 
late every one of these nights, week after week after week. To anybody 
who does not understand the commitment of people who have done this 
work, the fact is, virtually every one of them could make a lot more 
money downtown. They could make a lot more money down on K Street. They 
have an abiding interest in serving the public and doing right. They 
have done right on this bill. I am intensely proud of all of them.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
talk about one of the most important bills that will come before the 
110th Congress and that we will be considering for this country at the 
beginning of this century, and that is the farm bill. I wish to 
specifically address both the disaster fund, which has been created 
under the great leadership of our committee chairs and committee 
membership, as well as later on address the issue of energy and the 
importance of the energy provisions in this bill.
  At the outset, I, again, thank both Senator Harkin and Senator 
Chambliss for their leadership in producing a farm bill that has had 
tremendous bipartisan support coming out of that committee. I also wish 
to thank all members of that committee who worked so hard over the last 
2 years to deliver a product we can all be truly proud of as members of 
that committee.
  But it is not just the Senators who have the privilege of serving on 
that committee and coming and speaking on the floor; it is also the 
staffs of each of the Senators--on my staff, Brendan McGuire and Grant 
Leslie, and others who have worked so hard on this issue, but also 
people such as Mark Halverson, who have devoted their lives entirely to 
this legislation for the last couple years, along with Martha Scott 
Poindexter in Senator Chambliss's office. To them I say thank you.
  I thank Senator Conrad for his great work and understanding of the 
budget and trying to pull together what truly is a fiscally responsible 
product for energy legislation, as we move it forward. I thank Senator 
Grassley and Senator Chambliss for their leadership in helping us pull 
all the pieces of this together.
  Today I rise to speak briefly about the disaster trust fund which we 
have created in the farm bill and to voice my continued support for 
this aspect of the farm bill, with the hope that we are able to get 
this aspect of the legislation across the finish line, together with 
the rest of this farm bill, because it is so important to farm country.
  It is no secret the commodity prices in the business section 
sometimes are not good indicators of how individual farmers and 
ranchers are doing. For example, if corn prices are up--as they have 
been during the last year--that does not necessarily mean farmers and 
ranchers in counties such as those in the Presiding Officer's State of 
Nebraska or those in Baca County or Yuma County in Colorado are doing 
well. That is because sometimes some of our cattle producers in those 
circumstances are not having an easy time.
  I can tell you that when we look at $3-a-gallon gasoline and $3-plus, 
$3.10-a-gallon diesel, it creates a hardship on the farmer. But, more 
importantly, what happens on an annual basis is we have to face the 
weather. Perhaps more than any weather vane, and those from the city 
who end up watching the weather on the 10 o'clock news, a farmer is 
more attune to what is happening in the seasons simply because they 
know the weather essentially is controlling their destiny.
  They know when the frosts come in the fall. They also know when the 
last of those frosts leaves, so they can then make sure, as their 
plants start sprouting from the ground, they have the possibility of 
growing a crop. They also know, as they watch the clouds that come over 
the horizon, that when those clouds have a certain look of white on 
them, there is a possibility there is a hailstorm on the way, and that 
crop they have worked on--for which they have plowed the ground and 
planted the seeds and put in the fertilizer and done the irrigation and 
have nurtured--all of a sudden, in the course of a few minutes, could 
all be gone because a hailstorm wipes out the entire field.

[[Page S14132]]

  That certainly has happened to my family. It has happened to me, and 
it has happened to those of us in this Chamber who have been involved 
in agriculture in our past. From one second to the next, what seems to 
be a promising and hopeful year--where you can be optimistic about the 
future and be in a position where you can make ends meet--can turn into 
a situation where all of a sudden you have to wonder whether you are 
going to be able to survive into the next year because you do not have 
the dollars to be able to pay off your operating line at the local 
bank. That happens time and time again across rural America.
  For example, when you look at the issue of drought, in my State of 
Colorado, as is the case in many parts of eastern Kansas and some parts 
of the Presiding Officer's State of Nebraska, we know what drought has 
done to our communities. We know what drought has done in places such 
as the home State of the Senator from South Dakota over the last 
several years.
  That is why in this body we have come together--the Presiding 
Officer, Senator Thune from South Dakota, Senator Conrad, Senator 
Dorgan--a whole host of us, to try to deal with the reality of disaster 
emergencies that affect rural communities in agriculture.

  This picture I have in the Chamber has to do with the story of a 
farmer in my State who, through no fault of his own, has had to weather 
now the 6 years of drought that has affected my State that has put many 
farmers in a position where they either have lost their farms or have 
gotten to the brink of losing their farms.
  But it is not just the droughts. For sure, we have had those 
droughts. For sure, in my State, I guess 6 years ago now, in 2001, we 
had the most horrific drought in the history of our State for an over 
500-year period of time. It was the driest year on record for 500 
years. The consequence of that was our farmers and our ranchers in 
rural Colorado suffered a great deal.
  But it is not just the drought. It also comes with other weather-
related events, such as a blizzard. I show you a picture of the 
blizzard that hit the southeastern part of my State, where thousands 
upon thousands upon thousands of cattle were killed because of this 
unexpected blizzard that piled up drifts that were as high as the 
telephone and utility posts we see in this picture.
  You could drive across the southeastern part of Colorado and see 
carcass after carcass of cattle--dead cattle--on the highways and 
throughout the fields because of this devastating storm that had 
knocked out the future of so many ranchers in my State. So it is 
important we move forward in the proactive manner in which this 
legislation has moved forward to create a disaster emergency fund.
  Typically, in Washington, when we see these kinds of disasters, what 
happens? How do we respond to the farmers and ranchers who provide the 
food security for our Nation? We move forward and say we must provide 
disaster emergency assistance.
  The process, in its typical fashion, follows this order: First, the 
Governor gets concerned, and then the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
declares a disaster. Following that, Congress authorizes emergency 
spending. The bill sometimes gets stalled, and then farmers and 
ranchers have to wait not weeks, sometimes months, and, in fact, 
sometimes 2, 3 years before there is any help on the way.
  That kind of wait, in many cases, is no help at all. So we must do 
things differently. We must do things differently because, first of 
all, we are not delivering disaster assistance efficiently and 
effectively. Second, we should not be relying on emergency spending to 
provide disaster assistance. We need to put these expenditures back on 
the books.
  (Ms. KLOBUCHAR assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, Congress has passed 23 other ad hoc 
disaster assistance bills since 1988. Since 1988, 23 ad hoc disaster 
assistance measures have been passed by the Congress.
  Now, if this is not an indicator of the need for the creation of a 
permanent mechanism to deal with these disasters in farm country, I do 
not know what better indicator we need. Twenty-three emergency disaster 
pieces of legislation have passed this Congress since 1988.
  I am supportive of that assistance, but we need to deal with this 
problem in an effective way and on a long-term basis. That is what we 
have done in the legislation. The members of the Agriculture 
Committee--and the Presiding Officer, as a member of that committee, 
has done a tremendous job in her freshman year as a Senator, 
contributing in a huge way to many of the titles we have included in 
the farm bill, including helping write significant portions of title 
IX, the energy part of the farm bill. I am very proud of her 
contribution.
  But what we have done in this bill with respect to permanent disaster 
assistance is to work with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and 
members of the Finance Committee, in a proactive way, to create a 
permanent trust fund for disaster assistance.
  The disaster trust fund will dedicate over $5 billion during the next 
5 years to disaster relief. This will allow us to maintain discipline 
and high standards for determining when to pay out disaster funds, and 
it will allow producers to get help more quickly. The trust fund also 
brings disaster relief back onto the books so it is part of the budget 
of the national Government. This is a smart and fiscally responsible 
move.
  I have spent a lot of time in my life in rural communities--living 
there, making a living there for part of my life--and as a Senator and 
as attorney general for my State, I have been in all 64 counties in my 
State many times over the last decade.
  Now, I do not buy the argument that all is well in farm country. I 
believe we have huge problems in farm country.
  During the 1990s, in my State of Colorado, many of the counties in my 
State were deemed to be some of the fastest growing, more robust 
economic counties in terms of growth in the United States of 
America. The State of Colorado was seen as one of the fastest growing 
States in the entire Nation, and everybody was singing hallelujah to 
the kind of economic blessings that were being showered upon my State 
of Colorado. But if you traveled through 44 of the 64 counties in my 
State, you would have to say those counties were, in fact, doing as 
badly as they were in the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s. Indeed, 
not much has changed. In fact, the economic decline, including 
population decline, in those counties continues to be a reality and a 
way of life. In many of those communities where there used to be three 
grocery stores, now they were down to zero, and in many of them perhaps 
one. In many of those places where there used to be three filling 
stations, they were down to zero filling stations and perhaps only one.

  In fact, in the town closest to our ranch, the town of Manasa, CO--
this is a story of what has happened there. When I was growing up there 
and going to school at Manasa Elementary, I remember the three stores 
on Main Street. I remember the gas stations on Main Street. Well, today 
we are down to one gas station, and we are down to one small grocery 
store in the town of Manasa. So not all is well in farm country.
  So today and this week and next week as we work on this farm bill, it 
is our effort to try to make sure rural America is revitalized. So this 
is an opportunity for us to make sure we reinvigorate and revitalize 
rural America and create a whole new chapter of opportunity.
  This disaster trust fund which we are creating will help us deal with 
disasters. The other parts of the farm bill will also create huge 
opportunities for rural America.
  I will conclude by saying this--because there will be other times 
when we will come to talk about other parts of this farm bill. For me, 
one of the most exciting chapters of this farm bill for 2007 is, we are 
creating the opportunity for rural America, for farmers and ranchers to 
help grow our way to energy independence. This is not a Democratic or a 
Republican issue; it is not a progressive or a conservative issue. This 
is an issue of national security for the United States of America. That 
is why so many people have come together to celebrate this agenda that 
we are embracing on a clean energy future for America. That clean 
energy future for the 21st century for America,

[[Page S14133]]

in my mind, is based on the inescapable drivers which we see here 
today.
  First, it is about national security because as so many people have 
said, our addiction to foreign oil must come to an end because it is 
jeopardizing the national security of the United States of America.
  Secondly, the environmental security of our country requires us to 
stop ignoring the problem of global warming, and what we do with energy 
is inextricably mixed in with how we confront the issue of global 
warming.
  Finally, the economic opportunity that comes along with embracing a 
clean energy future for America is an incredible opportunity for all of 
the United States of America, but it presents a particularly positive 
opportunity for rural America. That is why there are many Members of 
this Chamber who have come together and supported the passage of a 
resolution which was crafted by Senator Grassley and myself, which is 
called the ``25 by 25'' resolution, which sets forth a vision of a 
country where we will see our country produce 25 percent of all of our 
energy needs from renewable energy resources.
  So at the end of the day, the passage of this farm bill is important 
for a lot of reasons. It is important for our food security, our 
national security, our environmental security, our economic security. 
So we do not have an option on this bill. We cannot not pass this bill. 
This bill must pass this Chamber with a significant bipartisan vote, as 
I am sure that it will, and at the end of the day, it is my hope 
President Bush, as President of the United States, will stand up also 
for rural America and say he is going to sign this bill because it is 
so necessary for the future of America and for the future of rural 
America.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for 
his comments, and the Presiding Officer, also members of the 
Agriculture Committee. We all worked together as has been mentioned. 
This was a bipartisan effort, and the product, I believe, has broad 
bipartisan support not only in the Agriculture Committee, but I think 
in the entire Senate.
  It is important we get this bill under consideration. We are 
currently being blocked from considering amendments to it, and I hope 
the majority leader and the leadership on our side can come to some 
agreement about how we are going to proceed with regard to amendments 
because we don't have a lot of time left on the clock this year. It is 
critical that we get a farm bill passed so our producers across this 
country who are already beginning to make decisions about next year 
when it comes to planting, and lenders who are going to finance them, 
have some certainty about what the programs are going to be, what the 
rules are going to be as they begin to engage in making those 
decisions.
  So I hope we can get this bill moving. It has been on the floor now 
for the past few days. ``On the floor,'' I use that term loosely 
because for all intents and purposes, action on it has been stalled. It 
is important that we come to an agreement about how we are going to 
proceed and what amendments we are going to debate and vote upon. But 
we need to get a bill through the Senate and into conference with the 
House and, hopefully, eventually on the President's desk before the end 
of the year.

  I do want to express my appreciation to the leadership on the 
committee: Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, 
and the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, for their efforts and 
leadership on the bill; also, my colleague from North Dakota, Senator 
Conrad, who is chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senators Baucus 
and Grassley, who are chair and ranking member, respectively, of the 
Finance Committee for their efforts in helping us craft funding that 
would allow the Agriculture Committee to draft a workable and what I 
believe is an effective farm bill which will move agriculture forward 
for the next 5 years.
  As was noted by my colleague from Colorado, writing farm policy is 
more regional than it is political. I commend my colleagues on the 
Agriculture Committee who represent literally every geographic region 
in the United States for their tenacity in representing the interests 
of their State as we drafted the farm bill. Most of all, I commend them 
for the respect they have exhibited throughout this farm bill drafting 
process to the various needs of each Member's State.
  Also, together the committee has drafted a bill I believe is 
something we can go home and talk proudly about not only in South 
Dakota to my farmers and ranchers, but also to our Native American 
tribes and to every man, woman, and child in South Dakota and across 
this country who enjoy the safest, most affordable food supply in the 
world.
  The 2002 farm bill, which I helped draft as a member of the House 
Agriculture Committee, very successfully provided economic support to 
America's farmers and ranchers when prices dropped below the cost of 
production. Yet this same farm bill--this same farm bill saved American 
taxpayers $20 billion over 5 years when prices improved and its 
economic safety net components were not triggered, which is good 
policy, and precisely the way it was intended to work.
  Thanks to the success of the 2002 farm bill, we had $22 billion less 
in the Commodity Credit Corporation baseline to write the 5-year, 2007 
farm bill than CBO had estimated in 2002.
  This farm bill addresses three of my highest priorities for the 2007 
farm bill, and I would like to speak briefly, if I might, to each of 
those. As I said earlier, first, it must provide an economic safety net 
for American agriculture.
  Today's farmers and ranchers face multiple uncertainties thanks 
mostly to the weather. Yet our Nation's farmers and ranchers not only 
feed every American, they help feed billions of others across the 
globe. They are expected to provide this food economically--and have 
done so--often at prices lower than their production costs. Thankfully, 
commodity and livestock prices are higher now than they have been for 
most of the past decade, but so are input costs such as fuel, 
fertilizer, and chemicals. Those things have all gone up as well. The 
2007 farm bill needs to continue with safety net provisions that 
support agriculture when commodity prices drop because input prices 
will not drop accordingly.
  The provision in this farm bill which extends the current farm bill 
countercyclical program accomplishes this price protection. Yet as I 
stated earlier, it is of no cost to taxpayers when commodity prices 
reach the levels we are experiencing now.
  Permanent disaster coverage is another farm bill essential I have 
been fighting for over the past several years, and I am pleased it is 
also included in the 2007 farm bill.
  In agriculture's uncertain economic future, direct and 
countercyclical payments, a permanent disaster program, and a healthy 
crop insurance industry are all important to a sound economic future 
for South Dakota agriculture.
  So the economic safety net for American agriculture is a critically 
important priority in this farm bill. It is addressed. It maintains the 
basic framework that has worked so well from the 2002 farm bill which, 
as I said earlier, actually has saved the taxpayers billions of dollars 
over what was projected at the time because as prices went up, 
commodity prices went up, subsidy payments went down, which is 
precisely the way the farm bill was designed to work. We build upon 
that in the safety net of the 2007 farm bill.
  The second priority we need to have in this bill is this farm bill 
needs to include alternative energy development and expansion. 
Alternative energy; namely, corn-based ethanol, has already changed the 
American agricultural landscape and has given many farmers and local 
economies renewed hope for the future. However, we recognize the 
limitations placed on corn-based ethanol, simply due to the number of 
acres that can be devoted each year in this country to producing corn. 
Thanks to the groundwork that was laid by corn-based ethanol, 
cellulosic ethanol is positioned to complement corn ethanol.
  The energy title in this farm bill contains the sustainable 
cellulosic ethanol production incentives that were laid out in my 
Biofuels Innovation Program legislation, which I introduced earlier 
this year along with Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska. Cellulosic 
ethanol produced competitively will not occur on its own. It is 
imperative these incentives are included in the 2007 farm

[[Page S14134]]

bill to kick-start the cellulosic ethanol industry.

  The energy title in this bill also includes $25 million in mandatory 
spending for the Sun Grant Initiative, which is already established in 
land grant universities across the United States and which has made 
great strides in research and development of cellulosic ethanol.
  I want to come back to that point in just a minute, but I also want 
to address what I think is the third important priority in this 
particular farm bill and that is a sound conservation title.
  Conservation should not compete with production agriculture; rather, 
it should complement it.
  Along with uncertain weather conditions, our Nation's agricultural 
landscape with its fertile and productive farmland is also peppered 
with millions of acres of marginal and fragile lands. The conservation 
title of this farm bill includes an assortment of conservation programs 
that include tools for farmers and ranchers to exercise sound land 
stewardship in unison with maximizing crop production.
  My home State of South Dakota is unique in that along with its high 
ranking as an agricultural State, wildlife and outdoor recreation 
contribute mightily to its economy as well. I believe the conservation 
title included in this farm bill will assist South Dakota farmers and 
ranchers in their efforts to maximize agricultural output, protect and 
enhance its fragile lands, and help keep our State's recreational 
industry vibrant and healthy.
  Additionally, $20 million is provided per year to fund the Open 
Fields Initiative. Open fields underwrites State programs, such as the 
1 million-acre program in South Dakota that offers incentives to 
farmers and ranchers who voluntarily open their land to hunting and 
fishing.
  I believe this farm bill targets a higher percentage of Federal farm 
program payments to family-sized farming operations. Several 
modifications to payment caps and the elimination of the three entity 
rule included in this bill are a step in the right direction to 
providing assistance where it is most needed: to family farmers and 
ranchers across America.
  However, those who criticize farm policy must be careful in their 
characterizations of ``large-scale'' farmers. A family farming 
operation consisting of a father and one or more offspring in today's 
agricultural scale can easily gross several million dollars, while 
providing a modest living to the family members. We don't want to shut 
the door of these family operations by taking away economic safety net 
programs or the conservation tools they need to productively farm.
  Americans' health and nutrition is a major consideration in this farm 
bill as well. For example, of the total budget outlays in this farm 
bill, 67 percent of the amount falls under the nutrition title, 
compared to less than 15 percent for the commodity title, and 9 percent 
for the conservation title. In the Senate farm bill, the Fruit and 
Vegetable Program, a part of the School Lunch Act which was previously 
restricted to a number of States, would be expanded to operate in every 
State in the country. Additional funding would be made available to 
each State based upon the proportion of the population of a State to 
the population of the United States.
  Additionally, a provision I offered, which is included in the farm 
bill, expands the fresh fruits and vegetables School Lunch Program to 
over 100 Indian reservations nationwide.
  Mr. President, one of the problems we encounter when drafting farm 
legislation, when commodity and livestock prices are higher, is the 
perception that these high prices will last. A farm bill lasts only 5 
years. We have no guarantee current prices will remain steady for the 
next 5 years. Anybody who has been associated with production 
agriculture for any period of time will tell you these prices we are 
experiencing currently are not going to last permanently.
  The 1996 farm bill was written during a higher commodity price cycle, 
with not enough thought given to how the policy would work when prices 
dropped. During the last 2 years of that farm cycle, billions of 
dollars in market loss assistance payments were issued because of an 
inadequate ``safety net.''
  The current direct payments structure included in this farm bill is a 
fixed payment based upon historical planting, not current crops, 
yields, or prices. This decoupling keeps the United States more 
compliant with international trade agreements.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this farm bill. I 
ask them to carefully consider the countless hours of discussion and 
negotiations, the numerous field hearings held by the Agriculture 
Committee across the country, and the voices of the American people 
that have been heeded by the Agriculture Committee in writing this 
bill.
  As noted earlier, this is not a perfect bill. There has been no 
perfect farm bill in my experience, and I have been associated with 
several as a former staffer, and now as a Member of the Senate, and 
prior to that, as a Member of the House of Representatives.
  This is a balanced farm bill that will make America a better place 
for all of us and will make rural America stronger. It includes the 
important components I talked about: A strong safety net that includes 
the disaster title of the bill, which is something we fought long and 
hard for; a strong energy policy that will help encourage and provide 
financial incentives for the development of cellulosic ethanol 
production in this country; and a strong conservation title and, as I 
said earlier, a tremendous investment in the nutrition title of the 
bill. It is all done in a way the CBO says is paid for.
  I think it is important, as we move the bill forward, we help people 
across this country understand what is at stake in a farm bill. I think 
a lot of people across the country sometimes fail to grasp the 
importance of making sure we have a safe and reliable and affordable 
food supply in this country. If you look at other countries in the 
world--such as in Europe--they know what it is like to go hungry.
  One of the reasons we have had farm policies in place for some time 
is because Americans learned during the Great Depression we have to 
have a strong farm economy that meets the food needs of people in this 
country.
  The other thing I will mention--and I will come back to it because I 
said I would--is that this traditionally has been a farm bill that 
deals with food and fiber for the American people. I believe we are 
making a transition as well. In this particular farm bill, it is not 
just about food and fiber, it is also about fuel. I believe we have a 
responsibility as Members of Congress to do everything we can to lessen 
our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. I am deeply concerned 
about the future of this country when oil prices are approaching $100 a 
barrel and gas is over $3 a gallon, with no end in sight. We have 
little or no control over that because 65 percent of our petroleum 
comes from outside the United States from foreign cartels.
  I happen to believe, as a matter of principle and practice, it is 
better for us, as a country, when it comes to buying our energy, to buy 
it from an American farmer where we are adding jobs and growing the 
economy in this country than giving our money to some foreign cartel 
that might use it to fund a terrorist organization that will turn 
around and attack the United States. That is why the energy policy of 
this particular farm bill is so important.
  I have an amendment that has been filed, along with Senators 
Domenici, Dorgan, Johnson, and Nelson--I believe the Presiding Officer 
is on it as well--which would expand the renewable fuels standard 
beyond where it is today. The standard we adopted in the 2005 farm bill 
calls for 7.5 billion gallons of renewable energy by 2012.
  Mr. President, we are going to hit 7.5 billion gallons by the end of 
this year. It is important for those who are investing in the ethanol 
industry, for our farmers and for those making decisions about whether 
to build another plant--and a lot are planned and under construction. 
We have 13 ethanol plants in South Dakota, and four are under 
construction. We have ethanol plants all across the country in some 
phase of construction that have been stopped cold because of the 
uncertainty about the future of the industry. When we blow by 7.5 
billion gallons of production of ethanol, we need to know what the 
future holds.

  The Energy bill contained a provision that expanded the renewable 
fuels

[[Page S14135]]

standard to 36 billion gallons by 2022. We have said we hope the Energy 
bill passes, but in the event it doesn't--and that looks to be 
uncertain--we ought to try to get that renewable fuels standard passed 
as part of this farm bill. It improves and strengthens the energy title 
in the farm bill by guaranteeing there is a market not only 10 years 
from now, or in 2022, when it calls for 36 billion gallons, but next 
year, in 2008, when we have already gone by the 7.5 billion-gallon cap 
called for in the 2005 bill.
  This amendment would get us to 8.5 billion gallons by next year. So 
there would be another billion gallons of ethanol production called for 
in the renewable fuels standard. That is of immediate concern to this 
industry. We need to grow the industry. If you look at the statistics, 
in 2006, the production and use of ethanol in the United States reduced 
oil imports by 170 million barrels, saving $11 billion from being sent 
to foreign and sometimes hostile countries.
  This is an industry we need to continue to support. When we get 65 
percent of our petroleum needs outside of the United States, it is 
critical we continue to develop home-grown energy we can make from 
renewable sources in the United States, which is not only good for the 
economy and the environment, but for our energy security. I hope during 
the course of the farm bill debate, when decisions are being made about 
which amendments to allow to be considered and debated and voted upon, 
the renewable fuels standard amendment is on that list. I think it is 
that important. I don't think there is anything, frankly, more 
important that we can be doing, with the exception of ensuring there is 
a good, strong safety net in the bill that will help secure American 
agriculture for the future, help keep this growing renewable fuels 
industry prospering and expanding and doing what they do best, and that 
is reducing our dependence upon foreign energy, having a renewable 
fuels standard in place that expands dramatically beyond where we are 
today.
  As I said before, there are great incentives in this bill for 
cellulosic ethanol production. People say we are running out of room or 
ceiling when it comes to corn-based ethanol. That may be true. We 
believe it is about 15 billion gallons that we can get from corn, and 
then we have to figure out how to make it out of some other form of 
biomass. But there is investment going on in R&D and technologies that, 
I believe, is going to be commercialized in the near future that will 
allow us to use switchgrass, wood chips, and other types of biomass. 
There is a project in South Dakota right now to make cellulosic ethanol 
from corncobs on a commercial scale. According to POET Energy, using 
more of the corn crop for ethanol production, such as corncobs, will be 
able to produce 11 percent more ethanol from a bushel of corn and 27 
percent more from an acre of corn.
  So we are already beginning to make a transition from the kernel of 
corn to the cob and dramatically increase the amount we can produce. 
Couple that with the research going into producing ethanol from 
switchgrass, blue stem grass, wood chips, and other types of biomass, 
the sky is the limit.
  It is important we keep this going. We are facing a serious crisis, 
in my view, if we don't expand the renewable fuels standard. Frankly, I 
hope we increase the blends that are allowed of ethanol, blended with a 
gallon of gasoline, from the current 10 percent to a higher level--I 
hope to 20 percent--which would act in a dramatic way to double the 
market for ethanol. These are steps we need to be taking as a country, 
as a Congress, if we are serious--and we need to be serious--about this 
problem we have today of nearly $100 a barrel of oil, with no end in 
sight to where it is going, and us having no control of that because we 
are so dependent upon foreign sources of energy.
  The amount of ethanol we produce in this country, it could be argued, 
maybe isn't all that significant to the amount of gasoline we use--7.5 
billion gallons of ethanol, and we use about 140 billion gallons of 
gasoline every year. When you talk about displacing 170 million barrels 
of oil, saving $11 billion from being sent overseas to some foreign 
country, a foreign cartel, that is $11 billion that is staying right 
here on American soil, investing in American jobs and in the American 
economy.
  This is an industry we need to keep going. I hope the renewable fuels 
standard amendment will be included in that list and, as the bill 
progresses through the process, I hope we can get a product through in 
the near future so that we can pass it, go to conference with the House 
and, hopefully, ultimately, get a bill on the President's desk. At that 
point, we will have the challenge of getting the President to sign the 
bill.
  I think the bill is made stronger by these energy provisions being 
included because I think it is so important to America's future--not 
just to the future of agriculture in South Dakota or Colorado or places 
like that, but to America's future. This farm bill takes us in a great 
direction, and the renewable fuels standard amendment will make it that 
much stronger.
  I hope we can get into the deliberations about this and that we can 
get working on amendments and voting on amendments and getting a bill 
passed, with a big bipartisan vote, that we can send to conference and 
on to the White House that will put in place a policy for the next 5 
years that will make agriculture strong, make America competitive in 
the world marketplace, and make sure we have food, fiber, and fuel for 
America's future.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Committing to Veterans

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
talk about something that has been a priority for me and for many of my 
colleagues; that is, our veterans. As we all know, Sunday is Veterans 
Day, the day that is designated for us to thank our Nation's heroes for 
their service to our country. It is also a time to ask whether our 
country has done enough to repay our veterans for all they have given 
to secure our safety.
  As thousands return home from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some 
now from their fifth tour of duty, I wish I could say the answer to 
that question is yes. But, tragically, this has not yet been an issue 
of priority for this administration. We have too often failed to 
provide the care our heroes have earned. From the shameful conditions 
at Walter Reed and VA facilities around the country we saw earlier this 
year, to a lack of mental health counselors, to a benefits claims 
backlog of months--and I am even hearing years--our veterans have had 
to really struggle to get basic care. Fighting overseas takes a 
tremendous toll, as we know, on the lives of our troops and their 
families.
  It is unacceptable to me that those heroes have had to fight their 
own Government for the treatment they have been promised. So today I 
wanted to come out on the floor to talk to my colleagues and to talk to 
President Bush about the hurdles our veterans have faced. As we 
approach this Veterans Day, I hope all of us, especially the President, 
will reaffirm our commitment to our veterans by providing the money, 
the attention, and the leadership they deserve.
  I know from personal experience how military service affects veterans 
and their families and how the wounds veterans suffer from their 
military service will shape their lives forever.
  When I was a student in college at Washington State University, I was 
there during the Vietnam War, and I chose to do my internship at the 
Seattle VA. I was 19 years old when I headed off to the Seattle VA, a 
time when men and women who were my own age were coming home wounded 
from Vietnam. Every day I got on the elevator at the VA Hospital and 
rode up to the seventh floor and walked into the psychiatric ward, 
where those big, heavy doors shut behind me. Day after day, during my 
entire internship, I sat and watched these young men and women, who 
were my age, as some of them just stared blankly, some of them

[[Page S14136]]

screamed in anger, many of them felt cut off from their own country, 
and most of them felt their lives had changed forever. As a volunteer 
at the VA during that time, I learned how some of these veterans can 
easily slip through the cracks.
  That experience also taught me that the doctors and the nurses who 
are there at the VA are really dedicated to trying to take care of 
these young men and women. It convinced me that the VA system is where 
our veterans can get the best care. Our VA system is uniquely 
positioned in this country to recognize and treat those specialized 
injuries, those medical conditions, and those mental health challenges 
which are caused by combat and military missions. Private medicine 
doesn't always have the knowledge base or the resources to deal with 
the unique challenges of a war. That is one reason I will continue to 
fight for better access to the VA, access that allows our veterans to 
get the care they need without the endless waits and redtape. Rather 
than kicking our veterans into yet another maze of processing and 
another maze of paperwork, we ought to be working every single day 
until we get it right, to provide better access to one of the best 
health care systems in the country to those men and women who have 
answered the call.

  I know from my own experience in my own family veterans are sometimes 
reluctant to seek attention or care they need. My own father was a 
veteran of World War II. He was one of the first soldiers into Okinawa. 
When he arrived, he was greeted with mortar. He was injured quite 
badly. He was put on a ship and sent to Hawaii, where he was in a 
hospital for weeks, recovering from those wounds. I believe he was 
there about 3 months. At the end of that time, he was then sent back to 
war.
  He was a courageous young man of 19 at the time. I didn't know him, 
obviously. He hadn't yet married my mother. I wasn't even a thought for 
him. I grew up with my dad. He was a disabled veteran. He was in a 
wheelchair for most of my life. Yet the story I told you he never told 
me. How had I found out that my dad was wounded and sent to a hospital 
and recovered under painful circumstances and sent back to war? I found 
out after he died, when I found his diary. That is the typical thing I 
hear from veterans. They are reluctant to tell us of the heroes they 
are.
  Those two experiences in my life, working at the VA when I was 19 and 
finding my dad's diary years later, help to illustrate a larger lesson 
that applies to many of our veterans that we need to remember in the 
Senate and Congress as we develop our policies, and that is often these 
veterans do not want to call attention to their service. Sometimes they 
are suffering so much they don't ask for the help they need.
  That is why I am so devoted to making sure we have a VA system that 
is ready and able and capable of taking care of all the men and women 
who served our country--all of our veterans. Sadly, as we both know, we 
are now 5\1/2\-plus years into the war in Iraq. Today we know that the 
VA is struggling to provide some of the basic services for our 
veterans. It is surprising to me it took President Bush nearly 3 months 
to announce his head of the VA to lead this beleaguered system. For 3 
months, our VA has been languishing without strong leadership to 
address the challenges they have. His lack of leadership on that 
critical appointment sent a signal to me, and to a lot of people, that 
he is not focused on that cost of war and he is not focused on our 
aging veterans who are now going into the system, who are facing long 
waiting lines and not getting appointments. It underscores to me his 
failure to count our veterans as a part of the cost of this war.
  This week we learned the year of 2007 will go down as the deadliest 
year of the war in Iraq; this year, right now, the deadliest year of 
the war in Iraq. I know my heart and the heart of the Presiding Officer 
go out to the families of nearly 4,000 brave Americans who have made 
the ultimate sacrifice in this war and to the tens of thousands more 
who have returned with physical and mental illness.
  The physical wounds our veterans have suffered in Iraq and 
Afghanistan are horrendous. I have worked, along with the Presiding 
Officer, as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to help shine a 
light on the mental wounds so many of our veterans are suffering from 
this war. As he and I know, these injuries are very deep and very 
personal and they can be very devastating, both to that servicemember 
and to his family.
  This problem is still not getting the attention it needs from this 
administration. We all know our troops are under tremendous strain. In 
the past, we were always able to give our servicemembers a break in 
service to allow them time off from the frontlines to recover from 
their physical or psychological or emotional demands. We also know some 
of them are now serving in their third and fourth and even fifth tours 
in this war in Iraq. All of that increases the likelihood they will 
suffer post-traumatic stress disorder or other mental health conditions 
when they come home. In fact, according to our VA's own numbers, fully 
a third of all our returning Iraq veterans suffer from a mental health 
condition.
  That is an astounding statistic, one-third of the men and women who 
have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan come home with mental health 
conditions that need treatment and support. But I also know that 
statistic is probably too low. That is because many of our veterans 
today do not seek care, either because of the stigma of mental health 
problems or because they live in a community where they do not know 
whom to ask. Today the VA is not reaching out and trying to find these 
men and women, to bring them in, to give them the support and services 
they need. I have talked to one too many veterans myself who has told 
me: I didn't know that I could get care at the VA. I didn't know whom I 
could call.
  We have a lot of work to do. Earlier this year, I went to Camp Murray 
and spoke with some of the National Guard members who told me they did 
not want to be labeled with PTSD or traumatic brain injury. They had 
gone to Iraq and come home and they were deathly afraid of having that 
label on them because they thought it would hurt their career. One 
soldier even told me that to be labeled with a mental trauma, 
``jeopardizes his life outside the service.''

  Clearly, this administration and every American needs to work to 
change that perception, because a soldier who is at home and doesn't 
seek the needed care is an explosive timebomb in his family and his 
community. More than that, we owe them the support and care they 
deserve. That is part of our job, to make sure these soldiers aren't 
lost when they come home.
  We have a lot of work to do as well to ensure that when our 
servicemembers do try to get care, they do not have to struggle to 
navigate this horrendous system they are thrown into to get the 
treatment they need. So far we have not seen that happening. Last year, 
a VA official revealed some of the clinics in this country do not 
provide mental health care or substance abuse care. Or, if they do, and 
this was a VA official himself who said this, ``waiting lists render 
that care virtually inaccessible.'' In other words, that VA official 
was saying, because the care is not there, we are denying the 
servicemembers the treatment they need.
  I held a hearing on the issue of mental health care in Tacoma, WA, my 
home State, a few months ago. Dan Purcell--he is an Iraq veteran--spoke 
to me and summed up the frustration I think is felt by so many of the 
servicemembers I have taken the time to talk to. He said to me he felt 
like he was being ``treated as a tool that could be casually discarded 
when broken or found to be no longer useful.''
  Can you imagine? A young man who went to serve his country in Iraq, 
served all of us, fought for our safety and security--no matter how we 
feel about this war--felt like he was discarded when he came home. That 
is not how any of us want the men and women who serve this country to 
feel.
  I think it is shameful our veterans today, across this country, are 
forced to fight to get the mental health care they need. A lot of them 
struggle to even see a doctor, and they are forced to wait months or 
even years to get their claims processed.
  Across the country, veterans who have health problems are given 
different ratings and different benefits. In 2003, the administration, 
surprisingly,

[[Page S14137]]

closed the door to VA health care for new Priority 8 veterans. Some 
veterans tell me it feels like the VA is fighting them instead of 
fighting for them. That is unconscionable.
  When this war ends--and we all pray it will be soon--when the news 
fades and the conflicts become another page in our history books, we 
have to be here to make sure the commitment to our veterans does not 
fade along with that.
  I wished to come to the floor this afternoon to highlight, on 
Veterans Day, how important it is that we recognize the men and women 
who serve us; how important our job is to make sure we provide the 
care. But I am not here just to say what they should do. I think it is 
important to talk about what we should do.
  I think there are three clear areas where we can do a much better 
job, where we can improve. First of all, I believe we can work to make 
sure the mental health care needs of our veterans are met. We need to 
work to make sure the VA does all it can to raise the awareness of 
post-traumatic stress disorder and combat-related stress. We have to do 
everything we can to make sure they hire more counselors to help treat 
everyone, from the 20-year-old veteran returning from Iraq to the 
Vietnam veteran who is still struggling with his legacy of war.
  We need to make sure all the employees throughout our VA system 
understand PTSD, so it isn't the receptionist who answers the phone 
who, when a veteran says to her: I can't get to sleep at night or I am 
having nightmares or I can't remember where my keys are or my kids 
don't understand me anymore, says: Well, let me see if I can get you an 
appointment. We have one 3 months from now. We need everyone, including 
the people who answer the phone, to understand post-traumatic stress 
syndrome and make sure we are reaching out and finding these veterans 
and getting them the care they need.
  Next, we need to work with the VA to clear up that horrendous backlog 
of complaints our veterans are facing so they can finally get timely 
care. I hope the President signs legislation soon to ensure the 
Department of Defense and the VA are working with the same disability 
rating system and that records are not lost between those two systems.
  We have worked hard in the Senate to address that issue, since the 
Walter Reed scandal broke. That legislation is within the Defense 
authorization. I hope we can get it to the President soon, that he 
signs it, and that the VA and DOD finally break apart those barriers 
that tell them they cannot talk to each other or will not talk to each 
other, and they can figure out a disability system that does not put 
our veterans into some kind of chaos between two bureaucratic systems.
  Finally, most important, we, Congress, have to provide enough money 
so our veterans do get the quality health care they deserve. The Senate 
has approved a bill that provides about $4 billion more than the 
President asked us for that is going to take some important steps. It 
is going to improve the conditions at our VA facilities around the 
country--such as we saw at Walter Reed. That was symbolic of what is 
happening in our country, and we have to put the resources into these 
VA facilities so our veterans do not face these dilapidated conditions. 
We have to invest in new ways to treat military health ailments such as 
PTSD and traumatic brain injury. We don't know the best care for our 
veterans yet. We don't know all the outcomes of PTSD and all the 
treatments available, and our VA has to have the dollars to do that 
research so we can provide the best care possible.
  That bill provides funding for better prosthetics for thousands of 
troops who have lost limbs in battle. I know the Presiding Officer and 
I have both talked with veterans and I have to tell you, the veterans 
coming home today who lose a limb in this war, they want to be able to 
climb Mount Rainier. They want to be able to run in a marathon. They 
want to be able to get up and be part of our society, our communities, 
and their families. We owe that to them, and better research on 
prosthetics and the capability of providing that to them is incredibly 
important. We provide for the research and the dollars in this bill to 
do that.
  It is so frustrating to me that this administration has ignored these 
problems for so long. We, in the Democratic-controlled Congress, came 
in this year and we have taken action so now I hope the President 
supports this critical bill and proves his commitment to veterans as 
well.
  The men and women in uniform have answered the President's call to 
serve in Iraq and Afghanistan without hesitation or complaint. They 
have left their loved ones for years. They have put their own lives on 
the line. Some have come home without limbs; others have returned with 
mental scars. Some, thankfully, have escaped without any injury. But 
everyone, to a person, has earned the respect and the best care 
possible when they come home. If we do not care for our servicemembers 
now, we will be weakening our military for decades to come.
  President Bush has been more than willing to use our veterans as 
props when he argues in favor of this misguided war. I think it is time 
to turn that lipservice into reality and give our veterans the care 
they need and they deserve. We owe it to our country to ensure we are 
there to support our servicemembers, to support our veterans, and to 
support their families every single step of the way. Mr. President, I 
know, as you do, that this country is willing to do that, unlike in 
some of our previous conflicts.

  I did not support the war, but I support the men and women who serve 
in it, and I will work every day to make sure we do our job to care for 
them when they come home, and I know all Americans feel the way I do. 
The men and women who serve us are part of the cost of war, and may we 
never forget that.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thought I would talk about agriculture and 
the farm bill today. I have a number of amendments I would like to 
offer. For example, I have one that we hope will spur the planting of 
cellulosic feedstock on CRP land, which I think is necessary if we are 
going to go to cellulosic ethanol, growing switchgrass on CRP land, 
maintaining the Conservation Reserve Program requirements, and 
providing a reduced payment, CRP payment, in exchange for allowing that 
switchgrass to be harvested for cellulosic ethanol. That is just one of 
the steps we need to take in renewable fuels.
  Today, I have filed an amendment at the desk called the Farm Red Tape 
Reduction Act. I think it is very important to give farmers a voice in 
Federal rulemakings whenever a Federal regulation threatens to impose 
severe economic pain on farmers. As we saw with small business, many 
times the Government overlooks the plight of the little guy who does 
not have the resources or know-how to weigh in with big Government 
agencies in Washington.
  In 1976, Congress created the Office of Advocacy to ensure that small 
businesses have an advocate in Government and a seat at the table when 
new regulations affecting them are drafted. I wish to share that same 
success with farmers. We also did something along the same lines in the 
Small Business Committee about 10 years ago. We introduced--I 
introduced and we passed something called the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act, or SBREFA. That has allowed small businesses 
and small business advocates to have a say in regulations affecting 
them.
  I believe we need to do the same thing for farmers. This amendment 
would help provide a more transparent Government, ensure that the 
Government listens to the people most affected by the regulations, and 
it would hold the Government accountable for its action. It is a 
message I think we all want to take to our constituents; that is, the 
Federal Government is meant to serve its citizens, not bully them. We 
want to make it an easy

[[Page S14138]]

process. Citizens should be heard while Government is deciding on a 
regulation that affects them, not after the decision is made.
  The difference is subtle but important: Listen to farmers and 
agriculture first, to be inclusive. Cutting unnecessary redtape will 
provide greater flexibility for agricultural businesses by removing 
barriers to enterprise. Encouraging enterprise is essential if the 
United States is to compete in a global environment. Farms and other 
agricultural businesses will benefit from simplified rules. This 
measure will help in cutting redtape with a view to improving the 
environment for agriculture and business.
  My experience on the Small Business Committee tells me there are 
currently dozens of regulatory proposals before Federal agencies but 
most without a true assessment of the impact on the very people they 
will affect. What are the initiatives necessary? Are they all 
essential? What are the consequences? I want the agencies to look into 
that question.
  It is not my intention to throw out regulations simply as a matter of 
principle if, for example, they involve costs for agriculture. I am 
more concerned with obtaining solid impact analysis that can serve as a 
basis for informed decisionmaking. It is also quite clear that better 
regulations will be possible only if those affected also play their 
part since they will be responsible for implementation.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.


                               Carbon Cap

  Speaking of burdens, Mr. President, this morning the Environment 
Committee conducted a hearing on the proposed Lieberman-Warner carbon 
cap legislation. I addressed then how I think this proposed legislation 
will hurt farmers in the farm economy.
  As part of the farm bill discussion, I want people who are focusing 
on agriculture and the impact on farmers to know what could be 
happening to them if we were to pass the Lieberman-Warner bill. Now, I 
have great respect for both of these gentlemen. I also am concerned 
about reducing emissions, but I believe this legislation will be very 
expensive for them. It will make it much more expensive for all of us 
cooling our homes in the summer, heating them in the winter. It will 
make more expensive the electricity we need to light our homes. It will 
make more expensive the gasoline we need to power our cars and trucks.
  An economist at that hearing today gave testimony that the Lieberman-
Warner bill would cost American families and workers at least $4 
trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--$4 trillion over the life of 
the bill. She expects a net loss of some 1.2 million jobs by 2015, and 
annual losses of U.S. production will top $160 billion in 2015, rising 
to at least $800 billion to $1 trillion in production lost per year in 
the outyears.
  The bill's sponsors have tried to say that farmers will be spared 
some of the pain by goodies they put in the bill, but no farmer should 
fail to understand that the farm costs of this bill far outweigh its 
benefit.
  Already record-high prices farmers now face will go even higher under 
Lieberman-Warner. For years, ammonia fertilizer cost farmers $250 
dollars a ton. No one thought it would break through $400, and now we 
have seen $500 per ton. Even corn at $6 a bushel cannot support where 
fertilizer prices are heading. As one who buys a small amount of 
fertilizer, 13-13-13 fertilizer, I have seen the cost of fertilizer go 
up because nitrogen very often comes from natural gas. Well, Lieberman-
Warner would make expensive fertilizers' main ingredients much more 
expensive.
  Now, electric utilities competing for natural gas to meet their own 
cap requirements can pay higher natural gas prices and then just pass 
them on to all of us as consumers of natural gas. But farmers will have 
to look to Middle East countries to import their fertilizer. That would 
make farmers dependent on Persian Gulf imports. Farmers will also face 
higher fuel costs to run their trucks and tractors, higher drying 
costs, and higher transportation costs to get their products to market.

  The Lieberman-Warner ag offset program could decimate small farm 
communities. Electric utilities that lack the technologies to cut 
emissions to levels demanded by the bill will have to take full 
advantage of the bill's so-called offset provisions. They will have 
billions of dollars to spend to retire cropland for its sequestration 
benefits. Those of us from farm country know the existing Conservation 
Reserve Program authorized through the farm bill has already taken more 
than 30 million acres out of production. The CRP is a conservation 
success. I support it. But that program has limits that prevent harm to 
local economies such as capping participation at 25 percent in any 
given county.
  Nevertheless, we would be potentially taking even far more land out 
of production, land we need to ensure that our abundant food supply for 
people at home and export markets is met by farmers. Areas which exceed 
the level of 25 percent, especially in States to the west, show what 
happened to small communities. The resulting economic damage drove 
merchants out of business, people out of the communities. In the past, 
excessive CRP enrollment has led to a disinvestment in infrastructure 
and rail line abandonment which, in turn, triggered higher 
transportation costs for remaining farmers.
  Of course, our Environment and Public Works Committee has not 
considered these farm problems. That is no surprise since we on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee don't deal with farmers, and 
some have even less farm expertise.
  I share with my colleagues who are concerned about agriculture and 
the impact this could have on farmers what they need to know about this 
bill that will cut carbon emissions. We need to cut carbon emissions 
without cutting family budgets or imposing a devastating impact on 
certain sectors of our economy. I am one who supports a broad list of 
measures to result in lower carbon emissions. An overwhelming majority 
of this body would. We have on the shelf, ready to go, carbon-cutting 
initiatives such as aggressive but achievable new CAFE vehicle 
standards to raise the mileage of automobiles and trucks. We have clean 
portfolio strategies to require a certain portion of power from 
renewable and clean sources such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, even 
tidal power. Help for zero carbon emissions nuclear power has been 
advanced in measures passed by this body. We need to do even more. We 
need to make sure we have the workers available to install those 
plants.
  We need more low carbon emission biofuels. That is why I propose 
making switchgrass planting on CRP land permissible. We need to do more 
on clean energy technologies, such as clean coal, that can capture and 
sequester forever the emissions from our Nation's abundant fuel source. 
We have 250 years of energy in the coal under our ground. We need to 
move more quickly to convert that coal to liquid coal, to gas, which 
will be cleaner burning and will allow us to sequester carbon emissions 
generally.
  I urge my colleagues to consider that we have legitimate carbon-
cutting strategies. I urge my colleagues in the name of agriculture, as 
well as vulnerable families and workers, to reject strategies such as 
Draconian carbon caps which have not worked in Europe and which will 
not work here and will result in great economic displacement and 
hardship.
  I thank the Chair. I hope we will be able to introduce some of these 
very good amendments we have on the farm bill.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment that will 
help rural communities across the country develop affordable housing. 
This amendment will authorize appropriations for the Housing Assistance 
Council, HAC, which has been committed to developing affordable housing 
in rural communities for over 35 years.
  The amendment provides $10 million for HAC in fiscal year 2008 and 
then $15 million in fiscal year 2009 to 2012. In the past, the council 
has received appropriations from the Self Help and Assisted 
Homeownership Opportunity Program. The funding has helped HAC provide 
loans to 1,875 organizations across the country, raise and distribute 
over $5 million in capacity building grants, and hold regional training 
workshops. These critical services help local organizations, rural 
communities, and cities develop safe and affordable housing.

[[Page S14139]]

  Throughout the country, approximately one-fifth of the Nation's 
population lives in rural communities. About 7.5 million of the rural 
population is living in poverty, and 2.5 million of them are children. 
Nearly 3.6 million rural households pay more than 30 percent of their 
income in housing costs. While housing costs are generally lower in 
rural counties, wages are dramatically outpaced by the cost of housing. 
Additionally, the housing conditions are often substandard, and there 
are many families doubled up due to lack of housing. Rural areas lack 
both affordable rental units and home ownership opportunities needed to 
serve the population.
  In Wisconsin, HAC has provided close to $5.2 million in grants and 
loans to 17 nonprofit housing organizations and helped develop 820 
units of housing. Specifically, since 1972 the Southeastern Wisconsin 
Housing Corporation has partnered with the Housing Assistance Council 
to develop 268 units of self-help housing. The presence of the council 
in Wisconsin has made a huge impact on rural housing development in 
Wisconsin and other rural communities across the country.
  I hope that my colleagues see the importance of this amendment and 
include it in H.R. 2419.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we haven't been able 
to accomplish more on the farm bill. We have asked for amendments 
Senators want to offer. There have been a number filed. I have asked 
that Republicans come up with a list of amendments they would like to 
have considered. It appears there is no effort made to work out 
arrangements on the farm bill passing. I state for the record that 
every farm bill we have handled in recent decades has never had 
nonrelevant amendments. They have all been relevant, with one 
exception.
  In 2002, the last one we did, we had one nonrelevant amendment. It 
was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on the estate tax. That is it. So 
I don't know, maybe the Republicans don't want a farm bill. Maybe they 
have all cowered as a result of the President saying he was going to 
veto it.
  As you know, the President has developed a new word in his 
vocabulary, and that is ``veto.'' For 7 years he was not able to mouth 
that word, but in the last few months, the last year of his Presidency, 
he has decided to do that. Maybe the Republicans don't want a farm 
bill. Maybe they want to join with the President and not have a farm 
bill. That certainly appears to be the case.
  We have basically wasted the whole week with my friends on the other 
side of the aisle pouting about procedure. The procedure on this bill 
is no different than any other farm bill we have done in recent 
decades.
  The State of Nevada would benefit a little bit from the farm bill but 
not much. I hope those constituencies who want a farm bill will start 
contacting Senators because the time is fast passing.

                          ____________________