[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 177 (Thursday, November 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14435-S14445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2419, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
     agricultural programs through 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 is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are back on the farm bill. To refresh 
memories, we have now been on the farm bill 10 days. This is our tenth 
day. Not one vote has occurred. We have tried time and again to bring 
up amendments, and they have been objected to. I will attempt to do 
that again this morning. I will wait until my ranking member is 
present. I see that Senator Salazar is here to speak on the farm bill.
  I wish to make it very clear, tomorrow morning we will have a vote on 
cloture on the farm bill. I want there to be no mistake in anyone's 
mind: Tomorrow morning's vote will be a vote on whether we have a farm 
bill this year. If we get cloture on the farm bill tomorrow, we will 
have a farm bill this year. We will be able to pass a bill in the 
Senate, we will go to conference, and we will send it to the President.
  If we do not get cloture tomorrow, that is like killing the farm 
bill. A vote against cloture will be a vote to kill the farm bill. We 
will run out of time. We will be out of here at Thanksgiving for 2 
weeks. When we come back, we have all the appropriations bills to do, 
we have the Iraq funding bill to work out, and we will only have about 
3 weeks before Christmas. Therefore, if we do not get cloture, that is 
like saying we don't want a farm bill. So I hope everyone understands 
what the stakes are.
  I also hope no one has the mistaken impression that because we invoke 
cloture, they cannot offer amendments. I got that question from a press 
person this morning. I had to inform them that, no, if we get cloture, 
we have 30 hours of debate and people can offer amendments during that 
30 hours.
  I just spoke with our leader. It would be the prerogative, if we 
wanted to on the majority side, if we got cloture, to lay down one 
amendment and take all 30 hours and debate it and block everybody from 
offering amendments. That has happened around here before, by the way, 
where we get cloture and then block it and nobody gets to offer any 
amendments until the end. Then we get into this vote-arama where we 
have votes on amendments but nobody gets to talk about them. We are not 
going to do that.
  If we get cloture, I will try to reach an agreement with my ranking 
member, Senator Chambliss, so we can have, say, at least a half hour 
debate on every amendment and vote. That would give us a shot at having 
probably pretty close to 20 amendments that could be debated and on 
which we could vote.
  At the end of the 30 hours, of course, any amendments still pending 
have a right to have a vote. There would be a minute on each side to 
explain those amendments, and we would vote on them.
  I want to make it clear that voting for cloture does not cut off 
amendments. Yes, it may cut off nongermane amendments dealing with 
whether we are going to go to the Moon or Mars or whether we are going 
to do wacky stuff such as that. Yes, it cuts that stuff out. But any 
amendment that is germane to the farm bill can be offered and will be 
voted on even after cloture. I want to make that very clear.
  If we do not get cloture, that is it; that is the end of the ball 
game, and I don't know when we can ever come back to the farm bill 
after that. Certainly not this year.
  It is getting late. The crops are in. In most parts of the country, 
crops are in. And now they are beginning to think about next year. 
Bankers want to know, farmers need to know what the program is going to 
be for next year. Will it be this one or will it be what we have come 
up with in our farm bill and worked out with the House. So it is 
getting very late, and we need to get this bill done.
  I encourage all Senators, we are open for business now. We can take 
amendments now. We can debate amendments, and we can vote on amendments 
all day today.
  Shortly, I will be asking consent to bring up amendments. I am going 
to ask consent to bring up Republican amendments that are filed. I have 
a Lugar amendment. I have a Roberts amendment, an Alexander amendment, 
a Lott amendment, and I am going to be asking consent to bring up those 
amendments. If there is no objection, we will bring them up, have a 
debate, and we can have votes on a lot of amendments this afternoon.
  I want to make it very clear again: This side is not holding up the 
process. We want to vote; we want to debate. Just as yesterday, I 
wanted to bring up five amendments yesterday and have limited time and 
vote on them, but it was objected to. I will try that again today. 
Hopefully, maybe we can make some movement and we can have some votes 
today on some amendments. I will be doing that shortly.
  I see the Senator from Colorado is on the Senate floor. He has been a 
great member of our Agriculture Committee. No one has worked harder 
than Senator Salazar in getting us to the point where we have a farm 
bill that came out of our committee without one negative vote.
  I say to my friend from Colorado, someone this morning on a press 
call asked me: If you don't get cloture, if you don't get this bill, or 
if the President vetoes it and you have to go back, what are you going 
to do differently?
  I said: I don't know how much we can do differently to get more of a 
positive vote out of our committee than a unanimous vote. What do you 
do that is different from that? It is not as if we had a split vote on 
the committee and we still have to work it out. We didn't have one 
dissenting vote, so I am not certain how we get much better than that.
  I thank my friend from Colorado for all of his hard work on this 
bill. He was instrumental in a number of issues before the committee, 
especially on energy, on conservation. The Senator from Colorado was 
instrumental in working out the agreements and making sure we had a 
bill that got a unanimous vote out of our committee. I thank him for 
that.
  He has been a champion of ranchers and farmers, a real champion of 
moving us ahead in energy, in renewable energy, farm-based energy, bio-
based energy, which will get us off the Mideast oil pipeline that we 
have been on for far too long.

[[Page S14436]]

  Again, I thank my friend from Colorado for all of his hard work. With 
him, I am hoping we can get cloture on this bill tomorrow and move 
ahead and go to conference and get a bill we can send to the President. 
I thank my friend from Colorado for all of his help in getting this 
farm bill here.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come here again, some 10 days after we 
brought the farm bill here to the floor, and I want to say first of all 
to my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, Tom Harkin, that there are few people who really understand 
the importance of rural America and agriculture in the way Tom Harkin 
does. There are very few people on the floor of the Senate today who 
can claim they still live in the same house in which they were born. 
Few people here can say they know the pain and suffering and the 
challenges, the hopes, and the optimism of rural America in the way Tom 
Harkin does.
  The best of what we have here in the Senate today we see in someone 
like Tom Harkin, who is here for the right reasons--standing up as a 
champion for agriculture, for rural America, and for America in general 
because he understands what is at stake. He understands that the food 
security of the Nation is at stake. Senator Harkin understands what is 
going on with respect to the oil addiction of America and foreign oil 
and the importance of American farmers and ranchers helping us to grow 
our way to energy independence. Senator Harkin understands how 
important it is to be a champion of the most vulnerable in our society 
by having the kind of nutrition programs that will put fruits and 
vegetables and other kinds of healthy foods in the stomachs of our 
children as they are trying to learn. Senator Harkin understands the 
importance of standing up and fighting for our land and for our water 
and making sure farmers and ranchers across America, who are some of 
the best stewards of our lands and water, have the right tools so that 
we have a conservation ethic that is appropriate at the dawn of this 
21st century.
  So I say this to my friend from Iowa: I applaud his efforts in 
bringing us to this point. This has been an effort which is not one we 
dreamt up overnight to bring to the floor of the Senate just 10 days 
ago; it is an effort that has consumed thousands upon thousands of 
hours, with hearings all over the country. And it was not only Senator 
Harkin and his leadership, but it was also Senator Chambliss, working 
as the ranking member alongside Senator Harkin, trying to get us to a 
point where we had a farm bill we could bring to the floor of the 
Senate.
  At the end of the day, there are not many votes on major bills that 
come out of committee on a voice vote. We had Democrats and Republicans 
saying this is a good farm bill. This is the way for the future. So I 
am very hopeful that tomorrow morning at 9, 9:30, 10 o'clock, when we 
come to the floor, we take the lead of Senator Harkin and our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and 
vote yes on the cloture motion before us. It is important that we move 
forward in that direction.
  I will remind my colleagues--as Senator Harkin already has reminded 
our colleagues--that even though we get to cloture tomorrow morning, we 
will still have an opportunity to go through a number of amendments. We 
have another 30 hours of debate and multiple amendments that can be 
considered and many votes that can be had as we move forward to try to 
improve upon the product of the Agriculture Committee. But if we don't 
get cloture tomorrow, we are, in fact, endangering the prospect of even 
getting to the farm bill.
  Now, we have some people who may say that what is happening here in 
the Senate is that there is a stall underway, a stall to keep us from 
getting to action on a very important piece of legislation for America. 
That may very well be true. But if those who are trying to stall this 
important measure have their way, then those voices that need 
champions, those voices in rural America, those farmers and ranchers, 
those who care about food security, they will be the ultimate losers in 
this debate.
  I don't think today in my State of Colorado, on the eastern plains or 
the San Luis Valley or the Western Slope or in Weld County, CO, the 
farmers and ranchers or those rural communities really understand what 
is going on here, but what they should understand is we will have an 
opportunity in the vote we will have here tomorrow morning to make a 
determination as to whether the farm bill moves forward. So for those 
who vote yes, they are saying they feel we do need a farm bill for 
America. For those who say no, whatever their motivation might be, they 
are saying we should not and that we should allow this very important 
issue to take a secondary seat. So I ask for those voices that care so 
much about what we have done in this farm bill to rise and make sure 
Members of this Chamber know of the importance of getting cloture 
tomorrow morning so that we can move forward on the farm bill.
  Over the last several weeks, I have spoken often here on the floor 
regarding the farm bill, and I have spoken about the importance of this 
farm bill with respect to its imperative direction in producing healthy 
and safe foods here in America. It is a vital piece of legislation that 
will provide us with clean, renewable energy and be a keystone in a 
clean energy economy of the 21st century. It is vital to fighting the 
hunger we see among our school children and hunger that still affects 
millions of Americans. It is vital to our rural communities, in making 
sure we give them an opportunity to stand on their feet again. It is 
vital to our farmers and to our ranchers and to their very livelihood.
  This morning I want to speak to a part of the farm bill which is 
important, and that is conservation, the part of the farm bill that 
deals with fighting for and protecting our land and our water. Senator 
Harkin and others have been champions of this aspect of the farm bill, 
and I applaud them for their efforts.
  The bill we have brought to the floor does more for conservation than 
any farm bill in the entire history of the United States. It does more 
for conservation than any bill in the entire history of the United 
States. So for all of those Americans who care about how we take care 
of our land and water, it is important that they have their voices 
heard on getting this farm bill moving forward.
  The farm bill has an enormous impact on this Nation's land and water. 
Non-Federal agricultural and forest lands occupy 1.4 billion--that is 
billion, not million, 1.4 billion--acres or nearly 70 percent of the 
lands of the 48 contiguous States. Mr. President, 7 out of 10 acres in 
the United States of America, in the 48 contiguous States, are affected 
by this farm bill. These lands provide the habitat and corridors of 
support for healthy wildlife populations, they filter our groundwater 
supplies, they regulate surface water flows, sequester carbon, and 
provide the open space and vistas that make America a place we all 
love. As I learned from working for a long part of my life on a ranch 
and farm in southern Colorado, farmers and ranchers are some of the 
best stewards of these resources. Farmers and ranchers want to take 
care of their land, and they want to do what is right for the 
protection of our environment.

  The conservation programs that are in this farm bill reauthorize what 
are already some programs that are making a major contribution to the 
land stewardship challenges of the last half century.
  In 1982, not so long ago, widespread soil erosion was degrading water 
quality in rivers and streams and putting dust in the air at 
dangerously high levels. But since 1982, with the Conservation Reserve 
Program, the EQIP program, and their predecessor programs, total 
erosion on U.S. cropland has fallen by more than 43 percent. Since 
1992, total erosion on U.S. cropland has fallen by more than 43 
percent. We are succeeding, and we can make more progress.
  The investments we make in the Conservation Reserve Program, which 
puts environmentally sensitive croplands into conservation uses, 
results in the following: First, $266 million annually in environmental 
benefits from reduced sediment loads in streams and rivers, $51 million 
annually from reduced dust and wind, and $161 million annually from 
increased soil productivity.

[[Page S14437]]

  Here is a picture that the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
sent to me a few days ago from Colorado. This shows how some of our 
conservation dollars are spent.
  I wish to thank Allan Green, our State conservationist, and Tim 
Carney, our assistant State conservationist, for helping us with this 
effort on conservation. And I thank all the staff, all the dedicated 
staff of NRCS, who dedicate their hearts and souls to making sure 
America's farmers and ranchers are doing the best they can on 
conservation.
  This is a picture of some of my friends and colleagues in the Saint 
Vrain and Boulder Creek watersheds. What these farmers and ranchers are 
learning here behind the tractor, working with NRCS, is how to work on 
watersheds with some of the new practices that have come into play in 
farming and ranching over the last several decades which will allow 
them to reduce their tillage, to reduce their consumption of energy as 
they are tilling those lands, and at the same time to increase the 
yields in their fields.
  The field day, which is depicted here in this program, was part of a 
3-year EQIP conservation innovation grant that was done in partnership 
with the local conservation district, local farmers, seed companies, 
and farm equipment dealers. At the end of the day, these farmers went 
home with new ways to reduce erosion and to boost their bottom line.
  The conservation program we are authorizing in the farm bill today 
also helps us protect the very wetlands of America that are so valuable 
to hunters and to anglers, to wildlife watchers, and to those of us who 
care so much about the beauty of this place. Indeed, for those of us 
who come from a natural resources background, we know that more than 
half of all of the species of wildlife essentially reside around these 
wetlands and river corridors of our Nation. So what we do with this 
farm bill in terms of the protection of wetlands and continuing the 
Wetlands Reserve Program is very important to all those who care about 
hunting, who are the anglers of our Nation, and who care about making 
sure we are protecting our wildlife.
  Starting in the mid-1950s, we were losing over half a million acres 
of wetlands every year--half a million acres of wetlands. To put it 
into perspective so that people will understand, it is like losing the 
same amount of acreage that makes up all of the District of Columbia 
every year. Thanks in large part to the Wetlands Reserve Program and 
CRP, we have achieved the goal of having no net loss--no net loss--from 
agriculture. In fact, from 1997 to 2003 in that 6-year period, we had a 
net gain of 260,000 acres of wetlands here in America.
  This is a picture of the Wetlands Reserve Program project near 
Berthoud, along the Front Range, north of Denver. WRP funded 70 percent 
of the $12,000--70 percent of the $12,000--it took to restore this 
wetland. You can see what great waterfowl habitat and nesting areas it 
created along the shoreline. When you look at this beautiful picture--
and, yes, I happen to live in the State which is the crown jewel of the 
Nation in terms of its beauty--you see the mountains, the snow-capped 
Rockies in the background, but you also see part of what makes Colorado 
such a wonderful place; that is, the agriculture that feeds into this 
wetland and a wetland that has now been restored to provide the 
valuable wildlife and water quality values I addressed a few minutes 
ago.
  This farm bill and the Wetlands Reserve Program is part of what is at 
stake on this vote that we take tomorrow morning, on whether we move 
forward with the farm bill.
  At the end of 2005, nationwide we had 1.8 million acres enrolled in 
the WRP. We had 2 million acres of wetlands and buffer zones in the 
area that were enrolled in CRP. This is great for the bird watchers, 
for the anglers, for the hunters. CRP alone yields about $737 million a 
year in wildlife-related benefits.
  The conservation program in the farm bill also helps ensure that we 
have healthy ranges and that animal waste does not harm water quality. 
Here is an example of EQIP, along Pawnee Creek near the Colorado-
Wyoming border. EQIP provided about $3,000--around 50 percent of the 
project cost--to install this water tank for livestock. This tank is 
part of a grazing system with a stock well, a pipeline system, and 
cross fencing that facilitates rotational grazing.
  For those of us who come from the West, we understand the importance 
of water. I often say, for us in the West, we all recognize that water 
is the lifeblood of our community. Without the waters of the streams 
and rivers and aquifers in my great State, we would continue still to 
be the great American desert. It is important we take care of our water 
in the right way. We know that, it is part of our heritage in the State 
of Colorado. EQIP is representing these ranchers, making sure we are 
taking care of a very precious resource.
  As this picture shows, a small investment from EQIP results in more 
balanced grazing, less erosion, improved water quality, and improved 
wildlife habitats.
  I see my friend from New York is here. I have probably 4 or 5 more 
minutes to go. Through the Chair, I say I will continue to speak but to 
let him know I have probably another 5 or 10 minutes on the farm bill, 
and I will yield the floor to my friend from New York.
  This is a picture of an irrigation ditch. Through the improvements 
made on the irrigation ditch, it will make sure there is less water 
loss along this ditch so water can be more efficiently and more 
effectively applied on the soil that will be irrigated from this ditch.
  I could speak for a long time about the benefits of the Conservation 
Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program, the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program, 
the Grassland Reserve Program, and many other programs we are 
reauthorizing in the farm bill. You see the benefits of the farm bill 
and the programs in this legislation throughout my State of Colorado. 
From my native San Luis Valley in the south to the Yampa River Valley 
in the north, they have made an immeasurable difference over the last 
two decades.
  I am proud this farm bill reauthorizes these programs and invests 
$4.4 billion in conservation, a record amount in conservation. The 
growing pressures on agricultural lands make it all the more important 
that we pass a farm bill with a strong conservation title. I wish to 
again applaud Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss, and Senator 
Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, as well as Chairman 
Grassley, for their contribution--the members of both committees who 
have brought a great farm bill to the floor of the Senate. I hope we 
can get beyond the roadblocks that some Members have placed before this 
legislation. We need to pass this bill for the good of America.
  Finally, again, I think we need more people in the Senate who 
understand the importance of this farm bill. We need more people who 
understand the food security of our Nation should not be imperiled.
  That sign on my desk that says ``no farms, no food,'' is something we 
ought to be hitting everybody over the head with every day, as we deal 
with this very important part of our legislative responsibilities, to 
make sure we have the food security we so need in this country.
  We also need to make sure, on this floor, there are people who have a 
strong voice for those farmers and ranchers who work very hard every 
day, in a way that you only know when you have worked on a farm or a 
ranch, to make sure we have that food security for America. For most 
people in America, when you are out there at work and it is 5 or 6 
o'clock, you look at your clock and it is time to go home. If you are a 
farmer or rancher and you look at your watch and it is 5 or 6 o'clock, 
more than likely you have another 4 or 5 hours to go.
  Then, when you get home, you know you have probably 5 or 6 hours' 
sleep before you have to get up and make sure you are milking the cows, 
if you are a dairy farmer, or make sure you are out checking the calves 
that are being born on the spring days or that the water is being 
changed at the right time so you are not wasting water, at 2 or 3 or 4 
in the morning. It is a hard life out there on the farm. It is a hard 
life out in rural America. It is important this Senate stand up strong 
and say yes to rural America, yes to rural communities that want to 
rebuild themselves, yes to the future of our energy security as we grow 
our way to

[[Page S14438]]

energy independence, yes to the future of our nutritional programs for 
America, yes to the future of those who want to protect the land and 
water of America.
  This is the right bill. It is important for people to come to the 
floor of this Chamber tomorrow morning and to cast their vote ``yes'' 
on the cloture motion before us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from 
Colorado for, as always, his excellent remarks. One of the many things 
he does for our Senate and our Democratic caucus in particular is 
constantly remind us of the problems in rural America. He has a link, 
coming from a great family tradition in rural America, a farming 
tradition, a tradition that has gone back centuries. When he speaks on 
these issues, many of us from more urbanized States listen. I thank him 
for his courtesy. Not that we don't have great farmers in New York--we 
do.
  I am here to talk on a different subject. I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        The Prime Lending Crisis

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the subprime 
lending crisis and the plan we are executing to address the foreclosure 
wave that threatens home ownership and our broader economy. Rampant 
predatory lending practices across this Nation have left millions of 
American homeowners stuck with unaffordable and unfair subprime loans. 
As a result, 2 million families now face the prospect of foreclosure 
and the loss of their homes over the next 2 years unless we take 
action. The number is going to get worse because the loans that were 
made in 2006 and this year, 2007, usually do not reset until 2008 and 
2009. Because so many people who accepted these loans--took these 
loans--were taken advantage of, the interest rate will skyrocket for 
them. Many of them will not be able to afford it.
  Foreclosures entail not only direct costs to the lenders and 
borrowers but also high spillover costs that are felt by neighboring 
homeowners, communities, and local governments in the form of lower 
home values, lost property tax revenue, and increased maintenance 
costs. A recent report by the majority staff of the Joint Economic 
Committee estimated that each foreclosure can cost $227,000 in direct 
and indirect costs. That is astounding. The homes on a street or in a 
neighborhood that has had foreclosures often go down in value. Even if 
you are perfectly safe, even if you have already paid your mortgage and 
have no intention of taking out another one, you are at risk because of 
this foreclosure crisis, in terms of the value of your home.
  The numbers mean that if the housing market slump continues through 
the next 2 years, as many economists estimate, approximately $103 
billion in housing wealth will be destroyed as these homes are 
foreclosed on; $103 billion in lost wealth at a time when our families 
can least afford it.
  In addition, States and local governments will lose nearly $1 billion 
in property tax revenue over the next 2 years as a result of the 
destruction of housing wealth caused by subprime foreclosures. That is 
$1 billion less funding for public schools and public safety, and that 
is the direct property tax loss. We are not talking about the other 
losses States and local governments will see as a result of the broader 
economic impact of the crisis.
  We are not talking about the financial burden that cities and towns 
all over the Nation will face to maintain vacant properties and to 
prevent crime near abandoned homes. We are also not talking about cost 
to the larger economy. When home values go down because of this crisis, 
consumers spend less. Consumer spending has been the engine of this 
economy. It accounts for about 70 percent of our GDP. Statistics show 
when home values go down, consumers spend less. So this is ricocheting 
from one end of the economy to the other. Again, even if you live in 
your home and paid off your mortgage, you will be affected by this 
unless we act.
  The frustrating thing is we know what to do here. We cannot make this 
crisis go away; there is no magic wand. It took years of neglect, years 
of ideological aversion to even commonsense regulation of the now-
unregulated mortgage brokers. But the frustrating thing--frustrating 
for this Member who has been talking about this for a long time--is we 
know what to do. This administration, when it comes to the subprime 
crisis, has remained like an ostrich with its head in the sand, not 
paying attention. Why? Why don't they see what everyone else sees?
  The reason is quite simple. We have ideologues who run this 
administration. Their view is Government should never be involved. Let 
the homeowner pay the price. Let the economy pay the price. Because to 
get the Government involved is bad.
  They can't prove that; that is their ideology. If there were ever a 
time when we needed some thoughtful, careful, moderate but directed 
Government intervention--not to bail out anybody; those people will pay 
the price, you read it in the financial pages of the newspapers right 
now--but to help our Nation out of this crisis at a time when other 
things such as high oil prices are hitting, makes eminent sense. The 
time to act is now, while we still have a chance to save these homes 
and strengthen our floundering housing market.
  I am proud to say today that my colleagues, we in the Senate, will 
have an opportunity to act and take action on two measures that are 
designed to use the tools of the Federal Government to assist in 
helping the 2 million subprime borrowers facing foreclosures with 
alternatives for loan workouts, refinancings, and modifications. I hope 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will agree with us that 
these actions are urgently necessary. To wait even 3 or 4 months will 
have this crisis grow in problems for those homeowners whose mortgages 
go up, for those financial institutions that have the mortgages but, to 
a far greater extent, to our economy--neighbors affected and consumer 
spending.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in 
helping take the urgent action that is needed now--not next month, not 
in February but now.
  First, we will take action to pass the FHA modernization bill. This 
legislation makes several important changes to FHA, including 
adjustments to its downpayment requirements, loan limits, and 
underwriting standards to give the FHA more flexibility to assist 
subprime borrowers with safe and sustainable refinancing alternatives 
before their loans reset to unaffordable rates. With these changes, FHA 
will be able to rescue tens of thousands of American families from the 
financial ruin of foreclosure.
  The legislation will also make improvements to FHA's counseling and 
foreclosure prevention programs to ensure that borrowers who have 
already faced the specter of the loss of their home will not have to go 
through the ordeal again. The FHA legislation is modest. It has 
bipartisan support. It has the support of the administration. What are 
we waiting for?
  Second, we are pushing the passage of the PROMISE Act, a bill to 
temporarily increase the portfolio caps on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
by their regulator.
  This is legislation I have introduced, along with Congressman Frank 
in the House. The bill will alleviate the predicted wave of 
foreclosures by giving Freddie and Fannie 10 percent more balance sheet 
capacity. But it does not just give them the balance sheet capacity and 
say: Do what you want with it; we hope some will go to help avoid 
foreclosures through refinancings.
  We say 85 percent of that increase must be dedicated to assisting 
subprime borrowers who are stuck in risky adjustable rate mortgages. 
The legislation is based on the premise that in troubled market times 
like these, when private firms are unwilling or incapable of providing 
the financing necessary to help subprime borrowers, it is appropriate 
and necessary for the government-sponsored enterprises to step in and 
provide liquidity. This is why we have GSEs. They are quasi-private, 
quasi-public. They have a certain and special responsibility when the 
Nation's economy is at risk. They are not the same as any private 
company whose job is to make money for its owners or its stockholders. 
But at the same time, they have the expertise of

[[Page S14439]]

the private sector and the clout of the private sector to get something 
done in an efficient and directed way.
  We have all heard that GSEs are the only game in town when it comes 
to secondary market trading, due to profound distrust of credit quality 
and rampant uncertainty about the rating agencies. We have to use the 
liquidity GSEs provide to target those subprime borrowers in need of a 
way to save their homes.
  What is frustrating is the administration is opposed to this 
legislation because they do not like Fannie and Freddie. They say: Let 
the markets take care of this in their own way. That is a lesson that 
was widely accepted in the 1890s and to some extent in the 1920s, but 
this is 2007. We know thoughtful, well-thought-out Government 
intervention, in a careful way, works and is needed. We also know if we 
do not have it, the booms and busts of the economy and to individuals 
will be far greater, and starting with Woodrow Wilson and then with 
Franklin Roosevelt and with Democratic and Republican Presidents alike 
since World War II, we have learned that at times Government 
intervention is called for, particularly when the private sector is 
unable to act. In this case, the private sector is clearly unable to 
act.
  Over the coming weeks, we also plan to pass $200 million in the 
Transportation-HUD appropriations bill for housing counseling 
organizations that specialize in foreclosure prevention. Here is 
another problem. A homeowner, and many of the homeowners who are in 
foreclosure or about to go in foreclosure, these are homeowners who 
could qualify for prime loans, but they were taken advantage of by 
rapacious mortgage brokers. And now they are stuck. But they are not 
really stuck, they have a revenue stream.
  People I have met, Mr. Ruggiero, the late Mr. Ruggiero, a subway 
motorman; Ms. Diaz, a clerk at a hospital for 35 years with a pension, 
they have the income. Mr. Ruggiero of Queens, Ms. Diaz of Staten 
Island, they have the income to refinance. The trouble is there is no 
one there to help them do it. They cannot do it on their own.
  There are no banks. Banks do not do this stuff in good part anymore. 
There are nonprofits, able, dedicated, capable, knowledgeable 
nonprofits that could come right in and fill the lurch.
  Now, you, Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio, and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, and I were able to persuade Senator Murray who, in her 
wisdom and always willingness to help, put first $100 million, then 
$200 million into the appropriations bill for housing counseling 
organizations that can provide this help.
  At a cost of as little as a few hundred dollars per borrower, housing 
counselors can prevent foreclosure that results in economic loss of 
$227,000 direct and indirect, on average. This is a highly cost-
effective investment. We urge the administration not to veto this 
emergency funding when the Senate passes it. If it is vetoed, and this 
crisis gets worse, a portion of the blame, a good portion, will be at 
the President's doorstep, plain and simple.
  I hope the President will not veto it. Most everyone who has looked 
at this legislation says it is needed. If we can do these three 
things--FHA reform, lifting the portfolio caps for Fannie and Freddie, 
and money for housing counseling--we will not end the subprime crisis, 
it is too deep already. But we can abate it, and we can get our country 
focused on moving again economically and on to so many other problems 
that face us.
  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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think this would be an opportune time to pass the farm 
bill. Does anybody object?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Look, we obviously are not going to do that, take 
advantage of this situation. But I must say, I am tempted after days 
and days of not being able to consider amendments on the farm bill that 
is critically important to this Nation's economy.
  We got the bill through the Agriculture Committee without a single 
dissenting vote. Twenty-one members of the Senate serve on the Senate 
Agriculture Committee. That is over one-fifth of the Senate. After 
months of difficult negotiations we reached conclusion.
  Now we are in this circumstance in which people want to offer 
amendments on everything from the Exxon Valdez to medical malpractice 
to immigration to labor issues to a whole series of things that have 
nothing to do with the farm bill.
  Now, we all understand that very often hundreds of amendments are 
filed on major bills that Senators have no intention of actually 
offering. Certainly, we know there are hundreds of amendments filed on 
this bill. But I say to my colleagues, this has now gone on for 10 
days. We have not considered one amendment. We have not considered a 
single amendment.
  At some point, one would hope there would be an accommodation. 
Typically, in a situation like this, the accommodation is that a 
certain number of amendments are offered by each side.
  That list is agreed to, entered into the Record, and votes are held. 
Typically on a farm bill there are about 20 amendments voted on, 20, 
22, 24. We could have been done with this bill by now. We could have 
been finished in the Senate. Then we would be in the conference 
committee to work out the differences between the House and Senate. But 
we are where we are.
  The reasonable way out of this is to proceed as Senator Reid offered 
last night. I heard him clearly. He said we would take only five 
amendments on this side. If they need more amendments on their side, he 
is open to considering their amendments, even some of them nonrelevant. 
He made very clear he would accept a certain number that are 
nonrelevant. I ask our colleagues on the other side, can't you come up 
with a list of amendments that you absolutely have to have voted on, 
including those nonrelevant amendments that you believe you have to 
have a vote on? Can't you do that? Couldn't we enter that into the 
Record and conclude work on this farm bill?
  Why is it important? Why does this farm bill matter? First, because 
we have a food policy in this country that is making a difference. How 
do we know that? Here is the first way we know it. Who pays the least 
for food in the world? It is our country. The numbers are very clear. 
We spend 10 percent of our disposable income on food; 5.8 percent is 
spent on food eaten at home; 4.1 percent is spent on food eaten away 
from home. So of the 10 percent of our disposable income that goes for 
food, about 60 percent of that is food eaten at home, so about 6 
percent.
  The comparable figure in these other countries is Japan, 14 percent 
of their income goes for food eaten at home; France, 15 percent; China, 
26 percent; Philippines, 38 percent; Indonesia, 55 percent. There is no 
country that comes even close to ours in terms of the percentage of 
income going for food eaten at home. Even when you factor in food eaten 
outside the home, we are far less than any other country in the world.
  Of course, as the Chair knows well, the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado, who is such a valued member of the Agriculture Committee, who 
also is an important member of the Finance Committee, these are not 
only agriculture provisions, these are provisions that come from the 
Finance Committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, provisions to 
provide an incentive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This bill 
is called the Food and Energy Security Act because it looks to both, 
and both are critically important. Agriculture is one place where we 
still export more than we import, one of the few places in the economy 
where that is true. On energy, it is one place where we could actually 
help dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It has been 
done in a fiscally responsible way.
  I hear the news broadcasts. I see what is written in some of the 
press. It is amazing that they don't have the basic facts of this 
legislation, and they don't present them to the American people.

[[Page S14440]]

  Let me show this chart. Commodity programs, which are a small 
fraction of this bill, are the support programs for the major 
commodities in this country. They draw all the criticism, all the heat. 
The fact is, commodity program costs are going way down. This red line 
shows what the Congressional Budget Office estimated would be the cost 
of commodity programs when the last farm bill was written. This red 
line is what they estimated the farm program would cost, the commodity 
parts of the farm bill. But look at what has actually happened. We are 
well below their estimates, not only for the current farm bill but look 
at the estimates going forward. The costs of the commodity program are 
down dramatically from the past farm bill, from the projections that 
were made at the time the last farm bill was written. As a share of 
total Federal spending, it is also down.
  According to estimates when the last farm bill was written, the total 
farm bill passed in 2002 would take 2.33 percent of total Federal 
spending and the commodity programs would take .75 of 1 percent. Now as 
we look to this new farm bill and what the Congressional Budget Office 
is saying--these are not my numbers or Ag Committee numbers--they say 
the Food and Energy Security Act costs will be down to less than 2 
percent of total Federal spending. In fact, 1.87 percent of total 
Federal spending. And the commodity programs, the things that draw the 
controversy, are down to one-quarter of 1 percent of total Federal 
spending.
  I have not seen that statistic written in a single Washington Post 
column. I have not seen it on any of the television broadcasts, not 
one. They are supposed to be giving the American people the information 
they need upon which to base a decision, and they are not telling 
people that the farm program is being reduced as a share of Federal 
spending or the commodity program is one-third of what it was estimated 
to be when the last farm bill was written. I don't see a single column 
telling the American people that fact. I don't see a single broadcast 
that allows that fact to be told to the American people. The Food and 
Energy Security Act as a share of total Federal spending is going down, 
not up. The commodity programs are going down, not up, as a share of 
total Federal spending.
  The other thing they seem to forget about is where does the money go? 
This pie chart shows where it is going. Almost two-thirds of the money, 
66 percent, is going for nutrition. That is not just farm States; that 
is in every State. Every State has school lunch. Every State has food 
stamps. Every State has food banks. Every State, every community 
benefits by the nutrition spending in this bill. It is nearly two-
thirds of the total. I don't see that reported by a single news source. 
I haven't seen any of them report that basic fact. I haven't seen 
any of them say 9 percent of the money is going for conservation of 
natural resources. That is money that goes to every State of the 
Nation. I don't see any of them reporting that less than 14 percent of 
the money is going for commodity programs.

  The fact is, this legislation is important to the Nation. It is 
important to the agriculture sector, no doubt, but it is also 
critically important to our energy security to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. It is critically important to our economy. It is 
critically important to our continuing competitiveness, because the 
Europeans, our major competitors, are spending more than three times as 
much to provide support to their producers as we provide to ours. What 
are we supposed to say to our producers? You go out there and compete 
against the French and the German farmer, and while you are at it, go 
compete against the French Government and the German Government too. 
That is not a fair fight. Our farmers and ranchers can take on anybody. 
They are happy to compete against the French and the Germans. But they 
can't be expected to take on the French Government and the German 
Government as well. That is exactly what is happening in world 
agriculture. The Europeans are providing three times as much direct 
support to their producers as we provide ours. That is a fact. Those 
are not my numbers. Those are the numbers from the OECD, the 
international scorekeeper that keeps track of competitive positions.
  What happens if we pull the rug out from under our producers when 
they are faced already with a more than 3-to-1 disadvantage going up 
against our biggest competitors? What happens? Two words: Mass 
bankruptcy. That is what would happen. Farm income would plummet in 
this country. Cash flow would dry up. Farm and ranch families would be 
forced off the land. America would experience in agriculture what we 
have already experienced in so many other economic sectors. We would 
become dependent on the kindness of strangers for our food. We are 
already dependent on the kindness of strangers for our money because we 
are borrowing so much money, because we are not being fiscally 
responsible. We already are dependent for 60 percent of our energy on 
foreign countries. Sixty percent of our oil comes from abroad. We are 
headed for 70 percent on energy if we fail to act.
  The Food and Energy Security Act is one place we could make a 
meaningful difference in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Why? 
Because it encourages and provides incentives for the development of 
ethanol, and ethanol not just from corn but ethanol from cellulose, 
things such as switchgrass and wood fiber. Because we know we cannot 
attain the goals this Congress and this President have set for the 
country in alternative fuels by only relying on corn for ethanol. We 
will have to have a breakthrough on the use of cellulosity. There are 
other provisions to encourage the use of biodiesel fuel as well as 
ethanol.
  We look around the world. We don't have to look far to see other 
countries that have made significant progress in reducing their 
dependence on foreign oil by looking at alternative fuels. Look at the 
case of Brazil. Brazil, a number of years ago, was 80 percent dependent 
on foreign energy. Just as we are 60 percent on foreign energy today, 
they were 80 percent dependent. Today they are on the brink of energy 
independence. That is startling. They have gone from 80 percent 
dependence on foreign energy to virtual energy independence. They have 
done it over a 20-year period. They have done it by focusing on ethanol 
and flexible fuel vehicles, and what a difference it is making to their 
country. Look at their economy. It is soaring. Think how different our 
country would be if instead of spending $270 billion a year importing 
foreign energy we were spending that money here at home, helping to 
grow our way out of this energy crisis. We could do it. Instead of 
maintaining this dependence on the Middle East, how about looking to 
the Midwest? How about having a circumstance in which a President could 
wake up in the morning and know he didn't have to worry or she didn't 
have to worry about what was going to happen in the Middle East and how 
that might threaten the energy security of our country, because that 
person might know we no longer were dependent on Saudi Arabia, on 
Kuwait, on Venezuela; that instead we were able to produce the energy 
here at home.
  This isn't a fantasy. It is a possibility. But it is only going to 
happen if we take steps. Some of the steps that are needed to be taken 
are in this legislation, this legislation that is going nowhere over 
some argument that the other side ought to be able to offer a whole 
bunch of amendments on things that have absolutely nothing to do with 
food and energy security. Medical malpractice, Exxon Valdez, the 
alternative minimum tax--those have nothing to do with the farm bill. 
But those are amendments that are pending on the other side.
  A final point I want to make is from an article in the Wall Street 
Journal from September 28 of this year. The headline of this chart is 
``Farm Productivity Spurs Global Economy.''
  Somehow, something has happened in this country. We have forgotten 
about our roots. We have forgotten about where we came from. We have 
forgotten about what has helped America be strong. Right at the core of 
our strength and our success has been an incredibly productive 
agricultural sector--farm and ranch families all across this country 
who have dramatically increased their productivity through technology 
and through their own good work.
  But look at what it means not just to us but around the world. This, 
again, is

[[Page S14441]]

from the Wall Street Journal of September:

       The prospect for a long boom is riveting economists because 
     the declining real price of grain has long been one of the 
     unsung forces behind the development of the global economy. 
     Thanks to steadily improving seeds, synthetic fertilizer and 
     more powerful farm equipment, the productivity of farmers in 
     the West and Asia has stayed so far ahead of population 
     growth that prices of corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation, 
     had dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 
     1974. Among other things, falling grain prices made food more 
     affordable for the world's poor, helping shrink the 
     percentage of the world's population that is malnourished.

  How did all this happen? If the farm policy of this country, which is 
the dominant agricultural producer in the world, is so flawed--as is 
repeated hour after hour by every broadcast station in this country and 
repeated in newspaper column after newspaper column--how is it we have 
had this incredible success and it has gone completely or virtually 
unnoticed by the major media? Could it be that maybe they have not done 
a very good job of telling the American people the full story? Could it 
be that they have been so eager to find fault with every corner and 
every piece of farm legislation because they kind of at heart look down 
on people who work the land? I hate to say it, but I think now we are 
getting at the truth. I think there is a deep arrogance among some 
about people--farm and ranch families--who are out there, and they want 
to somehow believe they are superior to them. They want to believe they 
are farming the mailbox and that there are all these endless abuses.
  It is fascinating, if there are all these endless abuses, why do the 
reform proposals that have been presented and have been suggested raise 
so little money? If there is this rampant abuse, as is presented in the 
popular media, why do all the measures to reform the system save so 
little money? How could that be? Could it be because the abuses that do 
exist--and there are abuses--could it be that they are the exception 
rather than the rule? Could it be that we actually have an agricultural 
policy in this country that has worked so remarkably well that the 
price of grain, corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation, has dropped 75 
percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 1974? Could it be that we 
have an agricultural policy in this country that has worked beyond 
anyone's fondest dreams? Could it be that those who put this policy in 
place actually knew what they were doing? Could it be that one of the 
reasons for America's remarkable success and agricultural abundance and 
low food prices relative to every other country in the world is because 
we have been doing something right? Could that be?
  Maybe it is. Maybe that is the real story the popular media has not 
written or broadcast. Maybe they have failed to see that part of 
America's success story is America's agricultural policy--a policy that 
now can extend not only to food security--and, by the way, has anybody 
been watching lately what happens when we become dependent on foreign 
countries for our food supply? Has anybody been watching the questions 
of food safety from not only food but other products coming from 
foreign countries?
  Is anybody paying attention to the energy opportunity that is in this 
legislation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help further 
strengthen this incredible country?
  It is easy to criticize. It is easy to point the finger. It is easy 
to castigate. It is easy to act superior. It is hard to produce 
something that builds a better future for our people. That is hard.
  I will just ask those who have been such constant critics: Can't you 
open your mind just a little bit and acknowledge what is clearly the 
larger truth? The larger truth is, we have the cheapest food as a 
percentage of income in the history of the world. The truth is, we have 
the most abundant and the safest food supplies of any nation in the 
history of mankind. The truth is, the cost of this program is going 
down as a share of the total Federal budget--and in the case of the 
commodity programs, going down dramatically. The truth is, we have an 
opportunity to improve the energy security for our country. The truth 
is, we have a chance to strengthen the economy and to make this a much 
more secure country. Right now, that opportunity is being missed.
  Look at this Chamber. This is the Thursday before we are supposed to 
leave for 2 weeks for Thanksgiving. I hope when people sit around those 
family tables across America enjoying the bounty of our country, they 
think, for just a moment: Where did that bounty come from? It did not 
just come from the grocery store. I am talking about who grew the 
crops, who raised the livestock, who raised the poultry we are going to 
enjoy around that dining room table. Where did it come from? How much 
does it cost in relationship to what others are paying around the 
world?
  What is the further opportunity we have to reduce our dependence on 
foreign energy? Isn't part of it--a significant part of it--anchored in 
the rural communities of America, a place where we could help grow our 
way out of this dependence on foreign energy by producing it right here 
at home?
  I hope Americans will think about this. I hope even some of our 
critics in the media will think--gee, maybe shouldn't they report the 
full story? Maybe should just one article talk about the positive 
things that have happened? I know the good news is not news according 
to the news media, but I do not know how the American people can be 
expected to make a fair and objective decision on the merits of this 
legislation or the food policy of the country if they are not given the 
whole story--the whole story--not just the things they can make into a 
headline and castigate people.
  I hope for just a moment our colleagues will reflect: Does this 
process--here we are, it is Thursday at 12:40 p.m. Eastern time, and I 
am the only one here, other than the distinguished Presiding Officer, 
who is a Member of this body.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. And me.
  Mr. CONRAD. And Senator Nelson.
  Let me say that I hope our colleagues will think very carefully about 
how we break this gridlock. This does not reflect well on the body. 
This does not reflect well on the Senate of the United States that we 
are not able to move forward on legislation that came out of the 
committee without a single dissenting vote and we have been stuck here 
for 10 days doing nothing. I hope we are going to prove we are better 
than this when we return.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to say to my colleague 
from North Dakota what an absolute delight he is to speak with such 
passion, as he does, about things he knows so much about and how he can 
explain it in understandable terms.
  Farm bills are one of the most complicated things in the world 
because of the balancing of all the different interests, with these 
elaborate farm support programs, that you have to have a Ph.D. in 
mathematics, sometimes, to understand. Senator Conrad is someone who 
speaks so eloquently and yet so simply in explaining it. He comes from 
the land, and he represents a lot of those who earn their living from 
the land, as does this Senator from Florida.
  Most people think of Florida as Disney World and high tech and the 
space center and so forth. People would be amazed that Florida 
agriculture is--next to the service industry, which is tourism--just 
about equal to any other industry as the second largest economic impact 
interest on our State. Our beef cattle industry is huge. Our citrus 
industry is huge. So it is with a great deal of passion, like Senator 
Conrad, that I take the floor to try to articulate the importance of a 
farm bill to the people in our State as well as has been articulated by 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  Now, I wish to talk not just about the farm bill. I want to talk 
about a major amendment that is pending, and that is the Lugar-
Lautenberg amendment in taking a completely fresh look at how we 
protect the Nation's agriculture. I am very happy to be an original 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  No doubt, farmers are facing difficulties. We rely on them for our 
food. Senator Conrad said it best: In this time of thanksgiving, as we 
sit around a table of bounty, we should be grateful we live in a land 
where our basic food and nutrition is met for most Americans. And I say 
``most Americans'' because some do not.

[[Page S14442]]

  Because we have an effective farming industry, it demands we continue 
to be good stewards of the land and the water. We rely on those farmers 
to persevere during times of natural disaster and uncertainty, where 
major natural disasters, such as hurricanes, can completely eliminate 
the citrus crop in Florida, which threatens their very solvency. Then, 
at the same time, we are asking them not to give in to the pressures, 
the financial pressures to sell their land for development. This is 
particularly acute in a State such as Florida where the land value has 
risen so much that it almost does not make economic sense for the 
farmers to continue to farm their land.
  These farmers are providing our food to our citizens--and not only to 
America but to the world. We must provide farmers a safety net in the 
many programs we do here in the farm bill, in other natural disaster 
bills--a safety net for their times of uncertainty. We have a system 
that works for many, but this system in a State such as Florida doesn't 
work for all. In fact, a majority of our Florida farmers are not 
eligible to participate in a lot of these farm programs that receive 
the lion's share of the payments in the bill we are going to vote on. 
This system, as I said, is so complicated it is nuanced. Many of the 
programs in the farm bill were started as a temporary fix of the 
immediate problem that the country was facing at the time, but then 
they get extended time and time again. Then, contrary to their original 
intent, they become permanent, and some of them have become corrupted--
some of those programs--by people who exploit them.

  OK. It is time for us to step back and take a fresh look at this and 
determine how we can best support our farmers. I believe the Lugar-
Lautenberg approach I have joined is an amendment that does that. The 
amendment is going to flow out of the normal farm program and it would 
provide every farmer in this country who chooses to participate with 
farm insurance, which would be provided at no cost. Farmers then would 
have a guarantee that their revenue would reach a certain threshold 
based on local conditions instead of national standards. This is a 
remarkable shift from the way we do business now. But it means we 
eliminate the direct payments to farmers whose land hasn't been farmed 
in years or who are selling their crops at record high prices. Instead, 
under this amendment, we are going to provide them with a safety net to 
fall back on if their farm revenues suddenly drop or if a bad year 
hits. Guess how much money it is going to save. Upwards of $4 billion. 
Even by giving the farm insurance at no cost to the farmer, it is going 
to save billions of dollars.
  The Senate bill we now have on the floor has parts of it that are 
very good. It increases money for nutrition programs which are going to 
make a tangible difference in the lives of those on food stamps. It has 
a tangible increase for the conservation programs which will make 
significant strides in protecting our lands and watersheds. But this 
amendment I am talking about, the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment, goes even 
further. It fully funds the nutrition programs across 10 years--not 
just 5 as in the committee bill--and it expands programs such as the 
simplified summer food program. It accounts for an additional $150 
million each year to provide for school lunches, and some of those 
school lunches are going to children--hungry children--in the 
developing world. It increases the conservation spending by $1 billion. 
At the end of the day, the amendment saves billions of dollars by 
taking out the antiquated direct payments program.
  My State of Florida has more acres of orange and grapefruit groves 
than any other State and it ranks among the top five when it comes to 
growing vegetables, not even speaking about what I already told my 
colleagues; you would be surprised among the beef cattle industry how 
big we are. Until this year, the needs of specialty crops such as 
citrus and vegetables were barely mentioned in farm legislation. The 
committee bill we are now debating finally addresses this part of 
agriculture that is so near and dear to our hearts, and so much of a 
staple for us in Florida, by making tremendous advances in research, 
pest and disease mitigation, technical assistance, and block grants. I 
give sincere thanks to Chairman Harkin and his committee for what they 
have done, but guess what. The Lugar-Lautenberg amendment goes even 
further. It provides over $750 million more to specialty crops and 
still manages to save $20 billion. I said $4 billion earlier. I said 
billions. That is true. We are talking about $20 billion of savings in 
overall support for agriculture by taking this farmers' insurance 
program at no cost to the farmers.
  Specialty crops certainly aren't just important to Florida. Fruits 
and vegetables are an absolute necessity of healthy eating everywhere, 
and this Lugar-Lautenberg amendment gives an additional $200 million to 
the Women, Infants and Children Farmers Market Nutrition Program which 
makes fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables a part of their daily 
diets--daily diets of women and young children who can't afford them. 
Not only is it going to make our children grow up strong and healthy, 
but it also supports the local farmers. There is also an extra $250 
million in this amendment for a similar program that serves low-income 
senior citizens.
  I have been on this Senate floor time and time again to call 
attention to the plight of one of our great national, international, 
and natural treasures: the Florida Everglades. I am happy to tell my 
colleagues there is an important step in this Lugar-Lautenberg 
amendment in conserving the endangered Everglades, as it includes $35 
million that can be used to complement efforts undertaken by the State 
of Florida to restore the northern part of the Everglades system, which 
is the area that is so located that pollutes so much of the rest of the 
Everglades as the water flows south, because it is the area north of 
Lake Okeechobee that is critical to the larger ecosystem further to the 
south. While this is a small part of what is needed to preserve the 
overall Everglades and to restore the Everglades, it is another 
opportunity we can do something about, in helping clean up that water 
that is flowing into Lake Okeechobee that ultimately flows south into 
the Florida Everglades.
  This amendment is a fresh, effective way of how we can do business in 
agriculture, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Colorado
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam 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. Madam President, I come back to the floor this afternoon 
at 1:35 p.m. eastern time just to remind my colleagues about the 
importance of the issue we are working on. This farm bill, which is the 
Farm, Fuel, Security Act, is something that is very important to the 
future of America.
  We are knocking on the door of Thanksgiving for all Americans, where 
we will all be giving thanks for the bounty we produce in this country 
for our families and for the lives we live in this wonderful and free 
America. But without the hard work of farmers and ranchers throughout 
this country, that very food supply which will give us that great joy 
during this holiday would not be there.
  This is one time every 5 years--one time every 5 years--where the 
Members of the Senate get to stand up and take stock of the importance 
of our farmers and ranchers and rural America and the importance of 
nutrition for our young people in our schools and those who are the 
most vulnerable, those on food stamps, and the importance of dealing 
with protecting our land and water and dealing with the future energy 
supply needs of America. So as we approach this Thanksgiving 
celebration, it is important for all of us to think back, to reflect 
upon what is happening in the Senate today.
  Some 10 days after we started this farm bill, and after 3 years of 
hard labor with both Democrats and Republicans to get us to this farm 
bill, we are now stuck in this procedural impasse we find ourselves in. 
I think it is a shame that we are where we are. I

[[Page S14443]]

think it is a shame that we are not able to move forward.
  Last night I heard the majority leader, Senator Reid, come to the 
floor and say: This farm bill is important. Senator Reid said: I want 
to get a farm bill. He said: We will offer, on the Democratic side, to 
limit the number of amendments to five. With some almost 300 amendments 
filed on this bill, Senator Reid said: We will limit the number of 
Democratic amendments to five, and we will give you, if you want twice 
as many amendments, we will give you twice as many amendments. Yet no 
deal.
  Why no deal? Why no deal? Why can't we even agree on a subset of 
amendments we can debate on the floor and then vote on them and move 
forward on this farm bill? Is it that there is a slow walk, a stall 
underway because some Members in this Chamber don't want a farm bill? 
Are there some Members in this Chamber who do not want a farm bill?
  There is a reality, and the reality is that it is possible for us to 
still get a farm bill. It is still possible for us to get a farm bill. 
We can move together tomorrow and get 60 votes on the cloture vote. We 
can have Republicans joining Democrats to get those 60 votes, and then 
we will move forward with a procedure under the postcloture rules of 
the Senate to address a series of germane amendments that will improve 
the bill. So we could still get a farm bill.
  The question is, Do the members of the minority in the Senate today 
want to get a farm bill or do they not? Are the politics being pushed 
going to triumph over public purpose, which we have tried to address in 
this farm bill? Are they going to allow politics to triumph over that 
public purpose?
  I would hope not. And I would hope when we come together in the 
Senate to vote on the cloture motion tomorrow, that there is a 
resounding yes that we are going to move forward and complete this farm 
bill; that we are going to enter into the postcloture period where we 
will address the germane amendments to this legislation, and at the end 
of the day we will have a farm bill that can be passed and then sent to 
the President for his signature.
  Madam 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. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             UNSAFE IMPORTS

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, as the holiday season approaches and 
parents are buying toys and other consumer products for their children, 
I would like to put that in the context of what has happened with our 
economy, what has happened with our trade policy, and what has happened 
with the breakdown of the part of our Government--the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture--that is there for one simple reason; that 
is, to protect our people. The Environmental Protection Agency is there 
to make sure our air and water are clean, the Food and Drug 
Administration is there to make sure our pharmaceutical supplies and 
food supplies are safe, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is there to 
make sure other food coming across our borders and food that is 
produced in this country is safe, and the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission is charged by this Congress, by our Government, to make sure 
our consumer products are safe.
  Through the last many years--exacerbated, made worse by the policies 
of the incumbent, the present administration--we have established a 
situation that is almost a perfect storm for bad outcomes.
  Last year, in 2006, we imported about $288 billion worth of goods 
from China. Tens of millions of dollars of those goods were toys, 
toothpaste, dog food, and other kinds of consumer products. When you 
buy tens of billions of dollars of consumer products from China, you 
understand implicitly that those products are made and manufactured and 
produced in a country that puts little emphasis on safe drinking water, 
clean air, food safety, purity in pharmaceuticals, and consumer product 
safety. So when you buy tens of billions of dollars of goods produced 
in China, you can bet there is a good chance much of their food or 
ingredients might be contaminated, much of their toys and tires can be 
defective.
  Put on top of that the fact that many U.S. companies go to China as 
they outsource jobs and they close down production facilities in St. 
Louis, in Independence, in Kansas City in the State of the Presiding 
Officer, or in Cleveland, in Dayton, in Gallipolis and Steubenville and 
Lima in my State. They close down production and outsource these jobs 
to China.
  These American companies then subcontract with Chinese companies to 
make these products. When they subcontract with these Chinese 
companies, knowing that production in China is not as safe, either for 
the worker or for the safety of the product, knowing that production in 
China can often mean contaminated food products and vitamins and 
toothpaste and dog food, and at the same time understand those American 
companies that are subcontracting with these Chinese companies, Chinese 
subcontractors, the American companies are pushing them to cut costs--
you have to cut these costs, you have to cut these corners, you have to 
make these products cheaper--when you do that, it should not come as a 
surprise to Americans, or to our Government, that you are more likely 
to get tires that are defective, more likely to get contaminated 
toothpaste or inulin in apple juice, you are more likely to get 
products that simply don't work as well, and you are more likely to get 
lead-based paint coating our toys. Why? Lead-based paint is cheaper to 
buy, less expensive to apply, it is shinier, and it dries faster.
  When American companies--without mentioning any names of American toy 
manufacturers--push their Chinese subcontractors to make it cheaper, to 
cut costs, to save money for these companies, it is almost inevitable 
that these products are going to have lead-based paint, are going to 
have other kinds of consumer safety problems. You have them made in 
China with a nonexistent safety regulatory mechanism, made by companies 
subcontracting with United States companies that are telling them to 
cut costs, and then these products come into the United States.
  What happens here? President Bush has weakened the whole regulatory 
structure. What does that mean? What he has done is dismantled a lot of 
the protections of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. 
EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of 
Agriculture.
  Again, why are we surprised when Jeffrey Weidenheimer, a professor at 
Ashland University in my State, at my request tested 22 toys bought in 
the local store 10 miles from where I grew up and found 3 of them had 
excessively, dangerously high lead content? Six hundred parts per 
million is what we as a country have established as a safe amount of 
lead--600 parts per million is safe. One of the products he tested, a 
Frankenstein drinking mug for children, had 39,000 parts per million.
  Why does that happen? Because Nancy Nord and the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission aren't doing their job. They have half the budget 
they had 20 years ago, and the budget has continued to be cut by 
President Bush. They have weaker rules, and they have a Consumer 
Product Safety Commission chair who simply says: We are doing the best 
we can with what we have. Chairwoman Nord has come in front of the 
Commerce Committee and said: I do not need a budget increase; things 
are just fine in my agency. She also has lobbied against the 
legislation from my seatmate, Senator Pryor, who has introduced 
legislation that will strengthen the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission.

  The solution to all this, without great detail, is to begin to change 
our trade policy. So if we are going to buy tens of billions of dollars 
of toothpaste and dog food and apple juice and other food products and 
vitamins and toys and tires from the People's Republic of China, from 
that Communist regime, that also means they are going to have to begin 
to follow better safety regimens for the products they produce. It

[[Page S14444]]

means American companies that import have to be responsible. If you are 
an American company and you go to China, you hire a subcontractor, and 
you bring those products back into the United States, it is up to you, 
in your corporate and your personal responsibility, to guarantee the 
safety of those products.
  It means a better Consumer Product Safety Commission. It means that 
Nancy Nord should step aside, the Chairwoman of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission. It means the President of the United States, who has 
shown little interest in that agency except to weaken and defund it, 
needs, actually, to appoint four new Commissioners. There are only two 
there now; they have five spots. The President, for whatever reason, 
has not replaced them. He needs to appoint a new chair to this 
Commission. Nancy Nord has shown she is both indifferent to making this 
Commission work and, frankly, has too great a bias to the companies she 
is supposed to police. She has traveled with them. She has traveled 
with them at their expense and done all kinds of things and clearly has 
not shown any real interest in making our Consumer Product Safety 
Commission work.
  It is up to us as Members of the Senate, Members of the House, this 
Government--it is up to us. Our first responsibility is to protect our 
people, and that means in terms of the air we breathe, the water we 
drink, the food we eat, the consumer products we use, and the toys that 
are in our children's bedrooms and playrooms. The road is clear, the 
road we should drive down. Nancy Nord should go.
  Beyond Nancy Nord's resignation, we need the President's 
attentiveness to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Senate 
needs to pass the legislation from Senator Pryor, and we need to move 
forward.
  I yield the floor. 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. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Commerce-Justice Appropriations

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I regret to report that the 
conference committee for the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations 
bill has been indefinitely postponed. I wanted to take just a few 
minutes and say from my point of view why it has been postponed and to 
express my hope that it can be put back on track soon, in the regular 
order, and that we can move ahead and deal with it.
  The Commerce-Justice appropriations bill includes funding for the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It includes 
appropriations for NASA, for the National Science Foundation, and the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
  Here is what has happened. It is important for my colleagues to know 
this. The reason the Appropriations Committee conference has been 
postponed is because the Speaker of the House objects to an amendment 
which I offered in the Appropriations Committee, which was adopted by 
the committee, adopted by the full Senate, and which the House of 
Representatives instructed its conferees to approve. I have been told 
that unless I agree not to bring the amendment up in conference, the 
conference will not meet.
  Let me describe the amendment. I believe most Americans will be 
surprised to learn what its subject is. The amendment I offered in the 
Senate Appropriations Committee is an amendment to make clear that it 
is not against the Federal law for an employer to require an employee 
to speak English on the job. Let me say that again. My amendment, which 
was adopted by this Senate, was to make it clear that it is not against 
the Federal law for an employer to require an employee to speak English 
on the job. That was adopted by the Appropriations Committee. Among 
those voting for it were the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Byrd, and the ranking Republican member, Senator Cochran. When 
it went to the House, there were two votes on it, but the second vote 
had the House, as a majority, instructing its conferees to agree with 
the Senate position and make it the Federal law.
  Why did I offer such an amendment? I offered the amendment because 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal agency, has 
determined that it is illegal for an employer in this country to 
require employees to speak in English while working. As a result, the 
EEOC has sued the Salvation Army, for example, for damages because one 
of the Salvation Army thrift stores in Boston required its employees to 
speak English on the job. The EEOC says this is a discrimination in 
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It says, in effect, that 
unless the Salvation Army can prove this is a business necessity, it 
can't require its employees to speak English.
  In plain English, this means that thousands of small businesses 
across America--the shoe shop, the drugstore, the gas station--any 
company would have to be prepared to make their case to the Federal 
agency--and perhaps hire a lawyer--to show there is some special reason 
to justify requiring their employees to speak our country's common 
language on the job. I believe this is a gross distortion of the Civil 
Rights Act, and it is a complete misunderstanding of what it means to 
be an American.
  I do not say this lightly. Since the 1960s, in Tennessee, at a time 
when it was not popular, I have supported, I believe, and voted for, 
when I have been in a position to do it, every major piece of civil 
rights legislation that has come down the road from the early days. I 
believe in that passionately. I remember the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 
the Voting Rights Act and all those important pieces of Federal and 
State legislation which have made a difference to equal rights in our 
country. But I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act intended to say that it is discrimination for a shoe shop owner to 
say to his or her employee: I want you to be able to speak America's 
common language on the job. That is why I put forward an amendment to 
stop the EEOC from filing these lawsuits.
  That is why the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed on June 28 to 
approve my amendment. That is why the full Senate on October 16 passed 
a bill including my amendment. That is why the full House of 
Representatives voted to instruct its conferees to agree with the 
Senate on November 8. That is why, I believe, that the Senate-House 
conference on this appropriations bill should include the amendment in 
the conference report so it can become law.
  Let me step back for a minute and try to put this small amendment in 
a larger perspective. Our country's greatest accomplishment is not our 
diversity. Our diversity is magnificent. It is a source of great 
strength. Our country's greatest accomplishment is that we have turned 
all that magnificent diversity into one country. It is no accident that 
on the wall above the Presiding Officer are a few words that were our 
original national motto: E Pluribus Unum, one from many, not many from 
one.
  Looking around the world, it is worth remembering that it is 
virtually impossible to become Chinese, or to become Japanese, or to 
become German, or to become French. But if you want to be a citizen of 
the United States of America, you must become an American. Becoming an 
American is not based on race. It cannot be based upon where your 
grandparents came from. It cannot be based upon your native religion or 
your native language. Our Constitution makes those things clear. In our 
country, becoming an American begins with swearing allegiance to this 
country. It is based upon learning American history so one can know the 
principles in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
  The late Albert Shanker, the head of the American Federation of 
Teachers, was once asked what is the rationale for a public school in 
America? He answered: The rationale for public schools is that they 
were created in the late part of the 19th century to help mostly 
immigrant children learn the three Rs and what it means to be an

[[Page S14445]]

American, with the hope that they would go home and teach their parents 
the principles in the Constitution and the Declaration that unite us.
  Our unity is based upon learning our common language, English, so we 
can speak to one another, live together more easily, and do business 
with one another. We have spent the last 40 years in our country 
celebrating diversity at the expense of unity. It is easy to do that. 
We need to spend the next several years working hard to build more 
unity from our magnificent diversity. That is much harder to do. One 
way to create that unity is to value, not devalue, our common language, 
English. That is why in this body I have advocated amendments which 
have been adopted to help new Americans who are legally here have 
scholarships so they can learn our common language.
  I have worked with other Members of this body on the other side of 
the aisle to take a look at our adult education programs which are the 
source of funding for programs to help adults learn English. There are 
lines in Boston and lines in Nashville of people who want to learn 
English. We should be helping them to learn English. We could not spend 
too much on such a program.
  That is why with No Child Left Behind, one of the major revisions we 
need to do is related to children who need more help learning English, 
because that is their chance in their school to learn our common 
language, to learn our country's principles and then to be even more 
successful.
  Not long ago, before Ken Burns's epic film series on World War II 
came on television, my wife and I went to the Library of Congress to 
hear him speak and to see a preview of the film. He was talking, of 
course, about World War II and that period of time. It was during World 
War II, he said, that America had more unity than at any other time in 
our history, which caused me to think, as I think it must have caused 
millions of Americans to think: What have we done with that unity since 
World War II? Our pulling together since then, our working as one 
country has been the foundation of most of our great accomplishments.
  That is the reason we have the greatest universities, that is the 
reason we have the strongest economy, that is the reason we still have 
the country with the greatest opportunity. Quoting the late Arthur 
Schlesinger, in Schlesinger's 1990s book which was called ``The 
Disuniting of America,'' Ken Burns told us that: Perhaps what we need 
in America today is a little less pluribus and a little more unum.
  I believe Ken Burns's quote of Arthur Schlesinger is right about 
that. One way to make sure we have a little more unum, a little more of 
the kind of national unity that is our country's greatest 
accomplishment, is to make certain we value our common language, that 
we help children learn it, that we help new Americans learn it, that we 
help adults who do not know it to learn it, and that we not devalue it 
by allowing a Federal agency to say it is a violation of Federal law 
for an employer in America to require an employee to speak English on 
the job.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________