[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 14, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14387-S14391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007--Continued

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are on the 
farm bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to the desk on the substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Harkin amendment 
     No. 3500 (Substitute) to H.R. 2419, the farm bill.
         Tom Harkin, Jon Tester, Daniel K. Inouye, Dick Durbin, 
           Patrick J. Leahy, Patty Murray, Bernard Sanders, Kent 
           Conrad, Ben Cardin, Debbie Stabenow, Ben Nelson, Byron 
           L. Dorgan, Max Baucus, Ken Salazar, Claire McCaskill, 
           Bob Casey, Jr., Sherrod Brown.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send another cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     339, H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 
     2007.
         Tom Harkin, Harry Reid, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Frank R. Lautenberg, Daniel K. Inouye, 
           Bernard Sanders, Russell D. Feingold, Patty Murray, 
           Claire McCaskill, Byron L. Dorgan, Max Baucus, John 
           Kerry, Debbie Stabenow, Richard J. Durbin, Sherrod 
           Brown.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I indicated this morning that sometime 
today, unless something changed, I would file a cloture motion on the 
Dorgan-Grassley amendment and, as I have indicated, on the bill, which 
I have just done. I had a long conversation with the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota. Very few people know the farm bill as well 
as he does. Certainly his partner in this amendment, Senator Grassley--
no one can dispute his knowledge of the farm bill.
  It is the feeling of Senator Dorgan, after having conferred with 
Senator Grassley, that it would not be in the interests of the Senate, 
the farm community, and the country to go forward on cloture on that 
amendment at this time. I have followed their suggestion and that is 
why I did not go forward with this.
  Unless something is worked out, it appears very clear--we have heard 
the debate all day on the farm bill. Tremendously difficult, hard work 
has gone on. The bill was reported out of the Agriculture Committee. 
Every Senator there voted for it. There was not a recorded ``no'' vote, 
but that only says part of the story. The rest of the story is numerous 
Senators worked for weeks and weeks to arrive at a point where a bill 
could come out of that committee. It came out here to the floor. It 
came out last week and we have tried to move forward on it. That we 
have been unable to do that was unfortunate.
  I hope Senators, when they are called upon to vote cloture on this 
matter, would understand that the work of the committee was very good 
work. Does that mean there should not be amendments to improve it? 
Probably not. But if we did nothing more than pass the bill that came 
out of that committee and took it to conference with the House-passed 
bill, we would be way ahead of the game. I hope that is what Senators 
will understand.
  I am confident virtually every Democratic Senator will vote for 
cloture on the farm bill, even though there are many Democratic 
Senators whose No. 1 industry in the State is not agriculture. But they 
recognize that agriculture is an important business for this country. 
It is an important business for this country for so many reasons, one 
of which is the farming and ranching industry in this country is 
exemplary. We are able to compete with the rest of the world, without 
any question. We have modern techniques that have gone into farming 
that have made our production extraordinary.
  We now have, as represented by Senator Tester from Montana--one 
example--we have now a thriving business in America of organic farming. 
There are many people in this Senate who, when they go shopping, will 
only buy organic produce. That is part of this bill. Part of this bill 
recognizes that. It is very unfortunate that we have been stopped from 
going forward on this bill because people want to vote on immigration 
matters, they want to vote on tax matters, they want to vote on issues 
that are not related. I went over that entire list this morning, of all 
the nonrelevant, totally nongermane amendments that have been given to 
us.

[[Page S14388]]

  I have said we Democrats will agree to five amendments. Five 
amendments; that is all we want. We don't expect the same from the 
Republicans. If they want more amendments--fine, give them to us. I 
said to Saxby Chambliss and to Trent Lott, we will even take a look at 
some of the nonrelevant amendments. If you want to meet the standard 
that has been in the last three farm bills and come up with one 
amendment--that is what has been the average--but come up with some 
nonrelevant amendments that people believe they have to offer, we will 
be happy to consider that. But let's agree to a finite number of 
amendments. We will take a few. The Republicans have more than we have.

  This is something we want to do. We want to do the farm bill. As I 
have said before on the Senate floor, the farm bill is not the most 
important bill for the State of Nevada. When I go shopping at Smith's 
or one of the other grocery stores in Las Vegas, I am impressed with 
all that I find on those shelves: food produced in America. There is no 
question we import some food. I always look at the labels. We get some 
mangoes from other places and a few things, but we in America do well. 
Even though I am from Nevada--and I am very proud of the white onions 
we grow. The largest white onion producer is in Nevada, in Lyon County. 
I am happy about the garlic we grow and I am happy about the alfalfa we 
grow, but the driving force is tourism and gold. We produce 85 percent 
of all the gold that is produced in America.
  But I think I represent the Democratic caucus. We are not all pushing 
forward on this farm bill because it is the most important thing in our 
State, directly. But indirectly, it is one of the most important things 
this body can do.
  There can be all the statements made about: he will not take down the 
tree, and we never did do this before, and the last bill we had 240 
amendments, the one before we had 196 or whatever it is. Of course 
there are a lot of amendments filed on bills, but we don't deal with 
that many of them. We have been stopped for 10 days from dealing with 
these amendments.
  I reach out to my Republican colleagues and I say this with all 
sincerity: You want to bring down this bill? That is what you are 
doing. Yes, maybe we can take it up some other time, and I will 
certainly try to do that, but I think the time is slowly evaporating 
here. We need to get this bill done. We could still complete the bill 
before we leave here. If we couldn't complete the bill before we leave 
here for Thanksgiving, we certainly could get it teed up so we could 
finish in a day or so when we get back.
  I hope above all hope, with the hard work that has gone into this 
bill on a bipartisan basis--this is not a Democratic bill by any 
stretch of the imagination; this is a bipartisan farm bill--I hope 
somehow we can work our way out of this.
  I stand willing to do whatever I can, to be as reasonable as I can 
be. I am sure I have Senators on my side of the aisle over here who are 
not happy with the proposal I have made--five amendments. But I have 
done that because I believe it is that important to get the bill done.
  This is a bill where there will be a conference. We have had bills 
that passed here and passed the House and we have not had a conference. 
This is a bill that will be conferenced.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Kentucky for a 
question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I heard my good friend say what we needed to 
do was get a list of amendments and a starting place. I remind my good 
friend from Nevada, the majority leader, we were prepared to do that 
yesterday. We are prepared to do that now, if we could enter into an 
agreement to have a finite list of amendments, which I offered to do 
yesterday. That would at least define the universe, and at whatever 
point we get back to beginning to make progress on the bill, it would 
be a good starting place.
  I was pleased to hear the majority leader indicate that is what we 
need to do and I say to him I am happy to do that.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, as you can see, looking at our list, 
our list of amendments is mostly amendments saying, ``If you offer one, 
I am going to offer one.'' I don't have the list before me. Well over 
half of the amendments we have are ``relevant''--just relevant 
amendments. In the vernacular, that means I have an amendment but 
probably not. That is to protect them in case they want to offer an 
amendment.
  I plead to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--yes, you 
have given us a list. But give us a real list. I have made a proposal I 
think is very reasonable. We will take five relevant amendments. You 
give us a number of amendments that you have, relevant and nonrelevant, 
and let's see if we can work something out. I talked with the 
distinguished manager of the bill and he said to me: I have no 
authority to do anything. So talking to my friend from Georgia, for 
lack of a better description, is a waste of my time. He says he has no 
authority to do anything. What kind of negotiation is that?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the majority leader agree with me that it would 
be at least desirable to prevent there being a further proliferation of 
amendments? It strikes me the longer we are out here, the more the 
amendments would multiply. Why would it not be a good idea to enter 
into a consent agreement now to limit the universe of amendments, as I 
was prepared to do yesterday, at least to give us a first step toward 
preventing the multiplicity of amendments that have a way of coming out 
of the woodwork around here, so at whatever point we go back to the 
farm bill we have at least defined the universe? That is the way we 
almost always start on a bill of that magnitude. It is the way we 
started on past farm bills. At the end we, of course, will pass a farm 
bill. We have in the past and we will this year.
  I ask my friend from Nevada, what would be wrong with locking in the 
master, the universe--the list that we both produced yesterday? I was 
happy to enter into a consent agreement to limit the amendments to that 
24 hours ago.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, there is no question, if you have to 
walk a mile, a few steps is better than nothing. Here is what I would 
be willing to do on behalf of the Democratic caucus. OK, we have your 
list, they have our list. We have two lists. I would have no problem 
entering into an agreement that that is a finite list. How we complete 
all those amendments is a different question. I am not going to take 
down the tree at this stage. I am happy to work on that at a subsequent 
time, to see what we can do in that regard, but I am willing to do 
that.
  We have their amendments and our amendments. I agree to a unanimous 
consent proposal that that is the finite list of amendments and that we 
will try to figure out a way to move through that. Maybe, as I have 
indicated, each mile has to be done in short steps. This would be a 
short step. I would be willing to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, obviously we prefer the tree be taken 
down so we didn't have one Senator, in effect, dictating to the rest of 
the Senate what amendments get to be considered. But it does strike me 
that at least that is a place to start. Both sides are familiar with 
the list that was produced yesterday. I wish to ask unanimous consent 
that that list be adopted as the list that could be--we all know the 
vast majority of these amendments are never offered and will not be 
offered on this one.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would say to my friend and friends on the 
other side of the aisle, we will continue to work. We have now a 
tentative arrangement, starting arrangement. This is not the end, we 
know that. But we will figure out a way that people can offer 
amendments.
  I will be happy to consider--I do not like language like this, but 
that is what we use around here, ``take down the tree.'' That kind of 
turns into a buzzword for--it is kind of like ``earmarks'' or something 
like it is real bad.
  So I would be happy, at this stage, to accept the proposal that these 
two lists the staff has, these be the entire universe of the amendments 
that we will work on, on this bill. We will come back at a subsequent 
time to figure out

[[Page S14389]]

a way to take down the tree and work our way through these.
  I think it is fair. I would say this to my friend, that these 
amendments would be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. I 
accept that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, obviously I am not 
going to, I wish to make sure we do not have any misunderstanding. This 
is a little, small step forward. This does not mean we will invoke 
cloture on either the bill or the substitute.
  But it does indicate there is an interest, on this side of the aisle 
and on the other side of the aisle, in preventing the further kind of 
proliferation of amendments that will go on a virtually daily basis 
until we define the universe.
  At whatever point we go back to the bill and seriously try to go 
forward with it, we can have further discussions about some further 
limitation of amendments. We are certainly, in order to agree to any 
further limitation of amendments, going to want the tree to be unfilled 
so we can have a more free-flowing debate on this bill, as we have had 
in the past.
  Mr. REID. I am happy to work with my esteemed colleague, the minority 
leader, to see how we can work our way through this procedure. We have 
taken a short step, but it is at least a very important step.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I want to make sure I got the nod of Senator McConnell's 
important staff person. The agreement says there will be unanimous 
consent that there be only relevant second-degree amendments.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I shall not object to a 
baby step, but let me try to understand exactly what we have.
  I looked at the list that is before us. My name is not on that list. 
I assume that the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is now pending. And if the 
tree is taken--
  Mr. REID. You are protected.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wish to make sure there is protection for that 
amendment. I also would like, if I might for a moment, to say that the 
cloture motion you have filed does not alter or change the opportunity 
for Senator Grassley and myself? The point that you had made was I did 
not want a vote on the Dorgan-Grassley amendment to be a cloture vote 
because there may be some who feel they have to vote with their 
leadership on a cloture, in a manner that would be different than if we 
had it straight up and down on the merits. It will still be pending, 
and we will intend to pursue that amendment.
  The list of amendments is as follows:

       Akaka--Amdt. No. 3538, Alexander--SoS: Broadband, 
     Alexander--Increase Ag Research, Alexander--Strike renewable 
     tax credit, Alexander--Wind energy tax credit, Alexander--
     Wind energy property taxes, Allard--PART, Allard--Vet Food 
     Systems, Allard--Forest Reassessment, Barrasso--Support 
     project-7, Baucus--State assistance for beginning farmers 
     (Amdt. No. 3598), Baucus--Ag Research, Baucus--Brucellosis, 
     Baucus--Agriculture supply, Bingaman--1 relevant amendment, 
     Bingaman--Ground and water surface conservation program, 
     Bingaman--Regional Water Enhancement program, Bond--Food 
     Stamps, Bond--Red-tape Reduction, Bond--Research.
       Boxer--6 relevant amendments, Brown/Hatch--Crop Insurance, 
     Bunning--Disaster Relief, Cantwell--Study on climate change 
     and impact on wine industry, Cantwell--increase funding 
     specialty crop block grant, Cantwell--Minor oil seed crops, 
     Cantwell--tree assistance program, Cardin--2 relevant 
     amendments, Casey--crop insurance, Casey--agriculture 
     inspectors, Casey--food stamp nutrition education, Casey--
     emergency funding for invasive pests and diseases, 
     Chambliss--Farm Credit Service, Chambliss--Crop Insurance 
     Fix, Chambliss--Trade-strikes section 3101, Chambliss--
     Biotech--PPV, Chambliss--Sugar technical fix, Chambliss--
     Ethanol/direct payments, Chambliss--Conservation AGI, 
     Chambliss--5 Relevant.
       Chambliss--2 Relevant to any on the list, Coburn--Waste, 
     Coburn--Chinese garden maintenance, Coburn--Transparency, 
     Coburn--Estate payments, Coburn--Federal hunger problems, 
     Coburn--Crop Insurance, Coburn--Equip, Coleman--AGI Caps, 
     Coleman--Drivers License, Conrad--3 relevant amendments, 
     Corker--Coal gasification project credits, Cornyn--Child 
     obesity study, Cornyn--Strike Disaster Trust Fund, Cornyn--
     New Budget P/O, Craig--Loan Repayment, Craig--Land 
     Preservation, Craig--Worker Housing, Craig--Biogas.
       DeMint--Death tax, Dorgan CRP, Dorgan--2 SECA tax 
     amendments, Dorgan--Secretary's rule regarding cattle and 
     beef (Amdt. No. 3602), Dorgan--Amdt. No. 3508 (pending), 
     Dorgan--payment limits, Dole--Tax Credit, Domenici--Renewable 
     Energy, Domenici--Land Transfer, Durbin--Food Safety sunset, 
     Durbin--McGovern-Dole funding, Durbin--ACR improvements, 
     Durbin--Puppy information, Durbin--Low-interest financing to 
     fight invasive species, Durbin--Food Safety, Ensign--5 
     Relevant Amendments, Enzi--Captive Supply, Feingold--13 
     relevant amendments, Feinstein--Ag inspectors, Feinstein--
     Energy market oversight, Feinstein--Leafy greens, Feinstein--
     Clementines.
       Graham--Cellulosic Ethanol, Grassley--Agricultural mergers, 
     Gregg-Mortgage Crisis, Gregg--Drivers License, Gregg--
     Firefighters, Gregg--Ag disaster funds, Gregg--Farm stress 
     program, Gregg--Proper budget accounting, Gregg--Commodity 
     subsidies, Gregg--Sugar Program, Gregg--Loss assistance 
     (asparagus), Gregg--Commodity subsidies, Gregg--Gulf of 
     Mexico, Gregg--Farm and rural healthcare.
       Harkin--7 relevant amendments, Harkin--2 amendments 
     relevant to any on the list, Harkin--School nutrition 
     standards, Harkin--Packers and stockyards Act, Harkin--
     Managers' Amendments, Hutchison--Southwest Dairy, Hutchison--
     Land Grants, Hutchison--Rio Grande, Hutchison--Renewables, 
     Inouye--Food for Peace, Inouye--Rail related, Inouye--
     Broaband Data, Inouye--Energy related, Inouye--Sugar/ethanol 
     loan guarantee grant program, Inouye--Exemption for Hawaii, 
     Inouye--Reimbursement payment to geographically disadvantaged 
     farmers/ranchers.
       Kerry--4 relevant amendments, Kohl--Revised membership/
     Federal Milk Marketing (Amdt. No. 3531), Kohl--SOS Rural 
     Energy America Program (Amdt. No. 3532), Kohl--Amdt. No. 
     3533, Kohl--Amdt. No. 3534, Kohl--Amdt. No. 3535, Kohl--Amdt. 
     No. 3536, Kohl--Amdt. No. 3537, Kohl--Amdt. No. 3555, 
     Klobuchar--AGI Limits, Klobuchar--Timber contracts, 
     Klobuchar--Beginning farmers/ranchers, Kyl--Tax/AMT, Kyl--
     Relevant.
       Landrieu--7 relevant amendments, Lautenberg--FRESH Act, 
     Lautenberg--FEED Act, Levin--Energy Markets, Lincoln--4 Ag 
     tax amendments, Lincoln--Bio Fuels, Lincoln--Small Procedure 
     Credit, Lincoln--1 relevant amendment, Lott--Gulf of Mexico 
     task force, Lott--Tax/AMT, Lott--2 Relevant, Lugar--Complete 
     overhaul, Lugar--Trade, Lugar--2 Relevant.
       McCaskill--Amdt. No. 3556, McConnell--4 Relevant, 
     McConnell--Death Tax, McConnell--AMT, McConnell--Tax/Horses, 
     McConnell--2 Relevant to any on the list, Menendez--4 
     relevant amendments, Mikulski--2 cloned foods amendments, 
     Mikulski--2 H2B amendments, Murkowski--Exxon Valdez 
     litigation, Murkowski--Specialty crops, Murray--2 
     Conservation amendments, Murray--Energy, Murray--Specialty 
     crop, Nelson (NE)--Amdt. No. 3576, Pryor--Broadband (Amdt. 
     No. 3625), Pryor--4 relevant amendments.
       Reid--Amdt. No. 3509, Reid--Amdt. No. 3510, Reid--Amdt. No. 
     3511, Reid--Amdt. No. 3512, Reid--Amdt. No. 3513, Reid--Amdt. 
     No. 3514, Reid--2 relevant amendments, Reid--2 amendments 
     relevant to any on the list, Roberts--Technical, Roberts--Ag 
     Fair Practices, Roberts--Definitions, Roberts--Regulations, 
     Roberts--Conservation, Roberts--Conservation, Roberts--Trade, 
     Roberts--Nutrition, Roberts--Rural Development, Roberts--
     Rural Development, Salazar--Cellulosic Biofuels Production 
     Incentives (Amdt. No. 3616), Salazar--Colorado Good Neighbor 
     Agreements (Forestry), Sanders--Amdt. No. 3595, Schumer--5 
     Conservation amendments, Sessions--Rural Hospital, Sessions--
     Farm Savings Accounts.
       Smith--Americorp Vista volunteers, Smith--River 
     Conservatory, Smith--Deschutes River, Smith--Wallowa Lake 
     Dam, Smith--Oregon Subbasins, Smith --North Irrigation unit, 
     Smith--Irrigation Districts, Smith--Fire sprinkler systems, 
     Stabenow--Local farmer initiative--Buy America, Stabenow--
     CSFP, Stevens--Protecting Kids Online, Stevens--e911, 
     Stevens--FSA operating loans, Stevens--Quarantine inspection 
     fees, Stevens--Bloc Grant to seafood, Stevens--AQI User Fees, 
     Stevens--Fishing Loans, Sununu--Biomass Fuel.
       Tester--Amdt No. 3516, Tester--Live Stock Title, Thune--
     Bioluels, Vitter--National Finance Center, Webb--3 relevant 
     amendments, Wyden--Illegal logging, Wyden--Biomass grants 
     (Nov. 14, 2007).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to announce there will be no further 
votes on this today.
  Unless someone has something else, I yield to my friend from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wanted to speak on the farm bill. I 
am glad to see we are taking baby steps forward. If the leaders have 
their things worked out, I want to go ahead and speak.
  The farm bill obviously for my State is a very important issue. I 
appreciate that we are making some steps forward. I do think it would 
be wiser if we could start amending and start working as a legislative 
body and see how far we get. We have been on the bill now for 10 days. 
We have not had a vote. It seems it would be prudent to go ahead and 
try it. I realize the leaders are trying to work something out,

[[Page S14390]]

and I hope they can. But each day we do not get something moving, we 
are not moving forward on the farm bill.
  I think we can trust each other in the process. I do want to 
recognize the work that has been done by the committee on the farm 
bill, the Agriculture Committee and their work. I think they have done 
a number of very nice things in the bill. I say that as someone from an 
agricultural State, from an agricultural family, who has been Secretary 
of Agriculture for the State of Kansas and has a degree in agriculture.
  I can see some very positive things. I like the overall trend in 
certain areas of the bill and some of it not. I wish to comment on both 
of those and make one particular policy provision notice to my 
colleagues and friends in the Senate.
  The Senate farm bill creates the Average Crop Revenue Program, a new 
safety net for farmers to utilize if they choose to do so. That is key 
for me, giving farmers the choice in how they manage their risk and not 
requiring that they take and use this program. Farmers may choose to 
stay in the current system or may opt into the new ACR Program. I think 
that flexibility is a good way to go forward.
  Despite several threats throughout the year, the farm bill leaves 
direct payments at their current level. I think that is a victory and 
that is good for farmers in farm country. Direct payments are the only 
commodity title program that provides direct assistance to producers 
when they have no crop to harvest. Unfortunately, that happens all too 
often in my State.
  It has happened in places of my State this year. In fact, 2 weeks 
ago, I was in a field of soybeans tilling them up. There was not enough 
there to harvest. It happens. There is nothing a farmer can do about it 
if the weather breaks that poorly against him.
  So I am pleased to see those direct payments continue to exist, 
because when you have no crop, it does not matter how much the price 
is, it doesn't work, you have nothing to sell.
  I also particularly appreciate the expanded research for energy 
coming from agriculture. To me, this has been one of the Holy Grails in 
agriculture for years and years, to expand the definition of the 
business from food and fiber, to food, fiber, and fuels. This effort 
recognizes our need to grow more of our own fuel to help in the 
environment in doing that, to help in the economy, the rural economy in 
doing that. It recognizes this fabulous chance we have in a world today 
to do things along that line.
  If I could take a moment to set a root off to the side or shoot it 
off to the side, on this particular energy provision, I think there is 
another way we can also go that the managers have put in the base bill; 
that is, replacing oil-based products with starch-based products. This 
is again something the agricultural industry has worked at for a long 
time, is doing a much better job of, but we still do not have many of 
the products on the marketplace.
  For instance, I had a company from my State, Midwest Grain Products, 
in my office 2 weeks ago with now 100 percent starch-based plastic 
utensils. He gave me some spoons and chopsticks that were made 100 
percent out of wheat starch. They had been going 50 percent out of 
starch and 50 percent out of oil-based products. But he is now at 100 
percent.
  Yet they have not been able to crack through the marketplace yet on 
this, a totally biodegradable product made out of agricultural 
commodities, better for the environment, certainly better for our 
economy.
  One of the things we have put in this farm bill is a New Uses Expo, 
where we would showcase on an annual basis, almost like you do at an 
auto show, the computer shows, on an annual basis, the new widgets 
coming out of agriculture, replacing, in many times and places, oil-
based products with agricultural-based products, but showcasing that, 
having the Secretary of Agriculture and indeed even the Secretary of 
Energy cohosting that event. I think that is something that can help us 
expand the marketplace and expand value added coming out of 
agriculture, which is key for rural communities in my State and many 
others.
  There are problems in the bill. That is why I hoped we could get some 
amendments moving. First, the bill contains a ban on packers owning 
livestock. This is a very contentious issue in my State and many places 
around the country.
  Under this packer ban provision, processers would be prohibited from 
owning, feeding or controlling livestock more than 14 days before 
slaughter. You can look at this, and as someone raised in a farm 
family, I look at this and say: Well, that sounds like a pretty good 
thing. I do not want packers owning livestock. I want the family farm, 
I want my dad and my brother to be owning that livestock rather than 
the packers.
  But then you start looking at the marketplace and the changes taking 
place in the marketplace and say: Wait. This is going to disrupt some 
good things happening. Ten days ago, I was on a ranch, a feed yard in 
Lyons, KS. They are raising certified Angus beef, natural, no 
artificial hormones, no antibiotics in the livestock, and then direct 
marketing that to consumers on the east coast, a great innovative 
product they have got coming out. They are getting a premium then for 
farmers when they can market this product that way.
  But to do it, they had to enter into a contractual agreement with the 
packers that are set to process the animal and to deliver it to the end 
consumer, to the stores that they are going to directly to the 
consumers with.
  So with this packer prohibition ban, this innovative market technique 
that is getting more in the pocketbooks of my farmers, because they are 
working with the packers, going straight to the consumer with a product 
they want, certified Angus beef, that is all natural, you are going to 
break that supply chain.
  They are not going to be able to work with the packer on a 
contractual arrangement to do this. They are saying: Look, this is 
going to hurt us. We are not going to be able to do this. Now your ban 
that you are doing to try to save family farmers is going to hurt 
family farmers. So this is kind of the law of unintended consequences, 
that something people are trying to do on a positive basis to help 
family farmers is, in the end, going to hurt many of them in being able 
to increase the income they get from their livestock.
  That is what they need. They need to be able to get more income from 
their livestock, and here is a key marketing tool and a way to be able 
to do that. I would hope that would be something we could deal with and 
something we can get passed.
  Overall, I do not want to take a lot of time of my colleagues, other 
than to recognize the importance of getting this bill through. I would 
urge them on the Democratic side to let us start doing some amendments 
and working this bill through. I think we have a good base bill to work 
from. I think we can make some sensible decisions around here and get a 
farm bill through that is important to my State, important to the 
country, important to the future of the industry, and important to 
security in the United States on energy security.
  But to do that, we need to get the process going. I would urge my 
colleagues to allow that to move on forward.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the tribal 
forestry provisions in title VIII of S. 2302, the Food and Energy 
Security Act of 2007, also referred to as the 2007 farm bill. These 
tribal provisions make important and needed improvements in the U.S. 
Forest Service by authorizing direct tribal governmental participation 
in State and private forestry conservation and support activities, and 
by providing the Secretary with flexible authority to enhance and 
facilitate tribal relations with the Forest Service and activities on 
National Forest System lands. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition 
and Forestry is to be commended for its bipartisan development and 
adoption of these provisions.
  There are nine federally recognized tribes within my home State of 
Oregon, and it is my pleasure to serve on the Committee on Indian 
Affairs. Indian tribal governments are separate sovereigns that have a 
unique government-to-government relationship with the United States. 
That relationship embraces special duties to tribes that extend 
throughout the Federal Government, including the Department of 
Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service.

[[Page S14391]]

  Within the Forest Service, State and private forestry programs 
authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act are intended to 
conserve and strengthen America's non-Federal forest resources across 
the landscape. However, the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 
does not authorize direct support to tribal governments, and the Forest 
Service has found that tribal forest land participation is inconsistent 
and low. The new authorities in title VIII will help rectify these 
matters by establishing a more appropriate and equitable relationship 
between tribal government and the Forest Service. In so doing, it will 
also enable State and private forestry to better meet its mission among 
all stakeholders across the landscape.
  The tribal provisions in title VIII authorize direct tribal 
governmental participation in a new Community Forest and Open Space 
Conservation program and in the established forest legacy conservation 
easement program. The title also authorizes Forest Service support 
directly to tribal governments for consultation and coordination, for 
conservation activities, and for technical assistance for tribal forest 
resources.
  Additional tribal provisions in title VIII facilitate the Forest 
Service's interaction with tribal governments on National Forest System 
lands. In Oregon, all nine of the tribes in the State have deep 
historical ties and active current interests in the National Forests 
around the State. From time immemorial, the tribes have drawn physical 
and spiritual sustenance from what are today Oregon's national forests, 
and they continue those activities to this day. Of course, the modern 
conduct of those activities involves both the tribes and the Forest 
Service, and the Senate's farm bill provides the Secretary and the 
Forest Service new authorities that will enable these two stewards of 
our forests--one ancient and one contemporary--to work in closer 
cooperation. The bill gives clear authority for the reburial of tribal 
remains and cultural items on National Forest System land, and it 
allows free tribal access to forest products from the national forests 
for cultural and traditional purposes. It also allows the Secretary to 
temporarily close National Forest System land for the tribal conduct of 
cultural and traditional activities. Finally, it enables the Secretary 
to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive tribal information that 
has come into the possession of the Forest Service in the course of its 
collaborating with tribes.
  The tribal forestry authorities in title VIII of S. 2302 are a 
historic step forward for the Forest Service and tribal governments. 
They are supported by Oregon tribes and I am pleased they are in the 
bill. Once again, I want to express my support, and I urge the support 
of all my colleagues as well.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________