[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 190 (Wednesday, December 12, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15218-S15224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the order 
before the Senate at the present time?


                           Amendment No. 3596

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 20 minutes of 
debate, evenly divided, on the Sessions amendment No. 3596.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will attempt to complete my remarks in 
less than the 10 minutes I have.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 3596

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to amend my 
amendment. We got a score today that indicated it would cost $1 million 
over 10 years. This would be an offset for that. So I send this 
modification to the amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed to amend the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have not 
seen the modification.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request 
that I be allowed to modify my amendment to allow for an offset for the 
$1 million cost over 10 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       (j) Offset.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act or an amendment made

[[Page S15219]]

     by this Act, for the period beginning on October 1, 2007, and 
     ending on September 30, 2011, each amount provided to carry 
     out administration for a program under this Act or an 
     amendment made by this Act is reduced by an amount necessary 
     to achieve a total reduction of $1,000,000.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will try to be succinct.
  Crop insurance is a critical part of farm policy in America. It is 
not working perfectly. A number of farmers do not like it and do not 
take it out. Many do take it out and are not happy with the way it 
works.
  We spend a lot of money on it. The Federal Government contributes 58 
percent of the premiums for crop insurance, totaling $3.2 billion a 
year.
  One of the goals of crop insurance was to eliminate ad hoc individual 
disaster relief bills when farm disasters occur. Yet, since 2002, we 
have averaged $1.3 billion in additional disaster relief to 
agriculture. So it has not met that goal.
  In 1999, the Alabama Farmers Federation, now affiliated with the 
National Farm Bureau, had a study of crop insurance. Farmers 
recommended--these were farmers--they recommended we adopt a system in 
which farmers, if they chose, could take the subsidy from the Federal 
Government, plus their own premium, and pay that into a farm disaster 
savings account and draw on that account if a disaster occurred--but 
only if they voluntarily chose to do so.
  I have studied that. I believe it is a good policy. I talked to 
Secretary Johanns when he was Secretary of Agriculture a few months 
ago. He tells me he thought it would be particularly good if we moved 
forward in this way as a pilot program.

  So I have offered this amendment which would call on the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to create farm savings accounts for insurance 
purposes, which would allow the Federal contribution to Federal crop 
insurance to go into that account, along with the farmer's 
contribution, but only for 1 percent of the farmers in America. That 
would limit it to a number of 20,000. Then we would try it out and see 
how it works. I think it could work very well for quite a number of 
farmers; I don't know how many. It certainly will not eliminate the 
need for crop insurance. Most farmers, I am sure, would want to have 
crop insurance.
  Under my amendment, farmers would have to have catastrophic 
insurance. Their crop insurance numbers would be a smaller amount to 
take care of the more routine financial losses that farmers incur. I 
think it is a good program. It has been thought out pretty carefully. 
We have worked with the Department of Agriculture, the Alabama Farm 
Bureau, the Farmers Federation. They support it strongly. The National 
Farm Bureau has not taken a position. So I think it is the kind of 
legislation we ought to consider, and I urge my colleagues to do so.
  In a few years, we will see how it is working. If it is not working, 
so be it. If it is working, we might want to make it permanent. So I 
ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor, reserving the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, we are constantly coming to the floor 
or going into committees and talking about the fact that when it comes 
to the complicated programs we deal with, it is critically important 
that Members, as well as our staffs, think outside the box and come up 
with new ideas, new concepts that make sense, where we can take 
bureaucratic programs and streamline them, make them better, make them 
easier, make them more, in this case, farmer friendly. For that reason 
I compliment the Senator from Alabama. I think he has come up with an 
excellent idea. It has the potential for providing something similar to 
an idea that was prevalent in the House several years ago that was 
proposed by a Congressman from Kansas, Kenny Hulshof, and that was to 
create farm savings accounts that the farmer could use to take excess 
money in good years and put it, tax-free, into a savings account and 
save it for a time down the road where he knows he was going to have a 
tough year and he would have that money available. That is exactly 
something along the lines of what Senator Sessions is talking about. I 
do think it is a great concept.
  The problem I have with the amendment right now is that we have had 
no hearings on it in the committee, and we are not sure of whether it 
can even be implemented as a part of this particular farm bill in 
conjunction with the crop insurance provisions that are in our bill. I 
have talked to my dear friend Senator Sessions. I have told him I 
regret I will have to vote against it, but a vote against it is not a 
vote against the concept or against the fact that he has now come in 
and has thought outside the box, and I think he has a very good concept 
that I would encourage the chairman to look at as we move in the next 
year into the implementation of this farm bill. Let's have some 
hearings. Let's get some economists, some crop insurance folks to think 
about it and see if we can't maybe even think about a stand-alone bill 
for it and not wait for the next farm bill.
  So I think it has merit. I just think trying to incorporate it into 
this bill presents complexities that I don't think we can accommodate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join my colleague and concur in his 
remarks on the Sessions amendment. For a lot of subjects before us we 
get good ideas, interesting ideas that come up via amendments on bills. 
This isn't the first time it has happened. As Senator Chambliss said, 
this idea has been talked about, floated around for a while. Senator 
Sessions has perhaps focused it more than I have seen in the past on 
the savings account idea.
  But I think Senator Chambliss is right. This is a very complicated 
subject. It involves a lot of different considerations and as well as 
interactions with other programs in agriculture. I would just say to my 
friend from Alabama that I would, with Senator Chambliss, be willing to 
have some hearings on this next year, and I invite the Senator to 
testify and bring some witnesses in, as Senator Chambliss says, some 
agricultural economists, some agricultural producers, and see what this 
proposal would do. If it has legs, if it has some merit, we could move 
it.
  Just because we pass a farm bill doesn't mean that our committee is 
dormant for 5 years. We will be holding hearings and working on 
legislation. The occupant of the chair, too, will be actively involved 
in a lot of those discussions next year as a valuable member of our 
committee.
  So I would just say to the Senator from Alabama, I am going to join 
Senator Chambliss in opposing the amendment. Not that I am absolutely, 
irrevocably opposed to it, but it is a little bit too much of a change 
on a bill now, without the kind of hearings and due diligence that we 
should apply to it. So I will oppose it. But I will say this to Senator 
Sessions: I look forward to having some hearings on it next year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his willingness 
to consider this. I do believe I have given a good bit of thought to 
it, and I have shared it with the committee for the last several or 
couple weeks. But at any rate, I urge my colleagues to support it, 
recognizing that it is a pilot program involving only 1 percent of the 
farmers in America, and from that pilot program, we may learn that we 
have a good program indeed. So I urge support for it.
  I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to speak briefly on my 
amendment, which is amendment No. 3810. I am going to reserve most of 
my time for tomorrow because some of my colleagues want to address this 
bill.
  Mr. President, America's farm safety net was created during the Great 
Depression. It was created to protect struggling family farmers from 
volatile prices and from volatile weather. I think the reasons for that 
safety net still remain today. That is why I am a strong supporter of 
this farm bill.
  I believe there are some forward thinking provisions in this farm 
bill, including with regard to energy, cellulosic energy--something 
near and

[[Page S15220]]

dear to my heart. We have worked hard on those provisions. The 
permanent disaster relief is so important for the farmers in my State. 
I think the safety net that helped our farmers in the 2002 farm bill 
and allowed them to take risks and revitalize a lot of the areas in 
this country are good. That is why I support this farm bill.
  But I also believe there is a need for reform in this farm bill. I 
believe the money that is set aside for a safety net for our farmers 
should be going to the hard-working farmers in this country and not to 
urban millionaires. When you look at what happened over the last few 
years, there are scandals. There are people who should not have gotten 
this money. There are art collectors in San Francisco and real estate 
developers in Florida. When we look at where the money went, I think we 
can conclude there are not a lot of farms in, say, the District of 
Columbia, where we stand today. Mr. President, $3.1 million in farm 
payments went to the District of Columbia, $4.2 million has gone to 
people living in Manhattan, and $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm 
payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210. The last time I checked, 
there is not a lot of farmland in those areas.
  I believe we can fix this problem. As Senator Dorgan said today, if 
we don't fix it ourselves, someone is going to fix it for us. I believe 
the people who live in farm States have an obligation to make sure 
these programs are appropriate and that they are going to the right 
people.
  That is why I am proud that in this last farm bill, as a member of 
the Agriculture Committee, we have included in this farm bill an end to 
the three-entity rule. We have eliminated it. It will cut down the 
abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals and married 
couples and to ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple 
corporations so they get multiple payments.
  I also support the Dorgan-Grassley amendment that puts some sensible 
limits on the total number of subsidies. But also I believe it is very 
important that we put some reasonable limits on income eligibility.
  Now, what we have here with our amendment is reasonable. Let me go 
through what the law is right now. Right now, the law, for full-time 
farmers, says if you get at least 75 percent of your income from 
farming, you have an unlimited amount of income and profit you can 
make, and you can still get Government subsidies. That is how it works. 
It says for part-time farmers, if you get $2.45 million--you may just 
be an investor in Beverly Hills--you can still make up to $2.5 million, 
and you get the subsidies. We know that with the budget problems this 
country is facing, we need to make some sensible reforms.
  The President has proposed a $200,000 limit on income for both part-
time and full-time farmers. The House-passed version has suggested a $1 
million limit on income for full-time farmers and a $500,000 limit for 
part-time farmers. So it is more generous than the administration, but 
it is still a big change from what the current law is. Our Senate bill 
that came out of committee, unfortunately, still allows for unlimited 
income for full-time farmers, and then basically for part-time farmers 
ends up after a number of years at $750,000.
  What our amendment does, the Klobuchar-Durbin-Brown amendment--and we 
have a number of people on the other side of the aisle who are going to 
be supporting this as well, as well as the Department of Agriculture. 
It simply says for full-time farmers, if you make in profit $750,000, 
at that point you are not going to get any more Government farm 
payments. Now, if you have a bad year, and disaster strikes and you go 
below that amount, you will be eligible for those payments. For part-
time farmers, some of the investors, the people who are making less 
than 66 percent of their income from farming, if you make $250,000, 
then, at that point, you are no longer eligible for these payments.
  Now, I don't think this is something outrageous. I think this is good 
policy. When I think about the farmers in my State, the average income 
of a farmer is $54,000. That is why as we look at this farm bill and 
what we want to do for the new and beginning farmers, we want to get 
more farmers involved in agriculture. We want to do more for nutrition, 
conservation, and most important to me, moving to this next generation 
of cellulosic ethanol, we have to acknowledge that at some point, 
multimillionaires who live in urban areas should not be getting these 
farm payments.
  So I am going to reserve the remainder of my time for tomorrow 
because my colleagues want to address this issue. I think we will have 
a good debate. But I wanted to put it in people's minds tonight so they 
can go back and talk to their staffs about how important it is and how 
sensible it is to put some reasonable income limits on this farm bill. 
Right now, our Senate bill has no income limits for full-time farmers 
and goes all the way up to $750,000 for part-time farmers. I believe we 
can do better and still strongly support the family farmers in this 
country. I support them. My State is sixth in the country for 
agriculture; No. 1 turkey producer in the country. We have a lot of 
corn. We have some great people who are revitalizing our State because 
of the hard work they did, and the 2002 farm bill helped them. We want 
to keep those strong reforms in place, keep the safety net in place, 
add the disaster relief, add the conservation focus, but we also want 
to have some reasonable reforms so the money goes where it should go, 
and that is to our hard-working farmers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. First of all, I would like to take just a moment--we had 
an amendment No. 3530 which I think the committee has agreed to accept 
and will come to later, but I wanted to spend a moment talking about 
it.
  Over the last 20 years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has paid 
out $1.1 billion to dead farmers. Forty percent of them have been dead 
over 7 years; 19 percent of them have been dead over 11 years. Yet they 
continued to pay them. I very much appreciate the chairman and ranking 
member for their consideration.
  What this will do is to make USDA go back and say: If you haven't 
gotten your estate settled in 2 years, you have to be talking to us 
rather than us continuing to make farm payments to people who are no 
longer alive. I appreciate their acceptance of that amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3632

  I wish to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 
3632.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. COBURN. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a fairly 
straightforward amendment. It fits with a lot of things they have done 
in this bill. This is about the EQIP program. This is about 
environmental capacity to save in terms of runoff, decrease load 
streams, and do a lot of things in terms of the environment, and the 
basic goals behind it are good. This amendment is very simple. All it 
says is that you ought to be a real farmer to get EQIP money.
  You ought to get two-thirds of your money from agriculture before you 
are eligible for getting this money. Why is that a problem? The problem 
is that our real farmers are not getting the vast majority of the 
money; it is our nonfarmers. If you buy 160 acres, what the marketing 
guy says is: I have a way for you to refence this land and build a new 
pond, and it will increase the value and you can turn around and sell 
it, except the American taxpayers pay for 40 percent of the 
improvements on it. You never have to run a head of cattle on it; you 
never have to raise a crop on it. You can just invest in the land and 
qualify. That is not the intended purpose for EQIP or why we created 
it. I believe EQIP funds ought to go for what they are intended. What 
this does is take the doctor who is play-farming or play-ranching and 
using American taxpayer money to improve the value of his land so he 
can turn around in a year and a half and sell it and make money. It 
doesn't save us anything in terms of the intended purpose of EQIP.
  All this says is that if you are a real farmer and you get two-thirds 
of your income from farming, agriculture, this would not apply to you. 
But if you are gaming the system, gaming EQIP to advantage yourself, 
and not as a person in production agriculture but as an investor in 
land or as a speculator in

[[Page S15221]]

land, you ought not to be able to use these moneys to increase the 
value. Fencing hardly improves the environment. Yet we spend money out 
of EQIP for farms and ranches that are small and are not owned by real 
farmers but gentlemen farmers who don't produce anything. Yet they go 
out and have fun on some land they own and they qualify. We ought not 
to be paying for that with American taxpayer money. It is 
straightforward. It says you ought to be a real farmer before we allow 
EQIP money to be used to improve the environmental conditions on your 
farm.
  There is a marked increase in the demand for these EQIP dollars. We 
see pivots. We can markedly decrease water consumption if we have 
modern pivots. We help farmers to put them in. We use less water, get 
less runoff, and do more no-till farming. So the demand for the dollars 
associated with EQIP, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, was 
designed for working farms and working ranches, not for the weekend 
farmer.
  The Environmental Quality Incentive Program emerged as the most 
important USDA program providing financial assistance for conservation 
on working farms and ranches and is measured by the number of 
participants and acres under contract--the largest financial assistance 
conservation program in all of USDA. Yet we have real farmers and 
ranchers who cannot get enough help to make a difference when it comes 
to the environment.
  I want real farmers who are really in it to produce agriculture to 
have this money available, and I don't want the American taxpayers 
paying for somebody else who has the money to do it already but is 
using their money to enhance the value of their property, and they are 
not real farmers, not real ranchers, they are not a vegetable farmer, 
they are not in production agriculture, they are not an orchard farmer, 
they are not in timber, but, in fact, they own 40 acres of timber, and 
therefore they qualify even though it is purely an investment and they 
have no intent to harvest a crop, but they are utilizing taxpayer 
money.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Iowa has 10 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, when I hear the Senator describe how the 
money is going out, of course it sounds bad. No one wants EQIP money 
going for doctors who buy a little bit of acreage and want to put in a 
pond and have a fishing hole. We don't want EQIP money going for that, 
and it should not go for that.
  But the way the amendment is drafted, it just says two-thirds of your 
income has to be from farming before you can qualify for EQIP. The 
problem with that is there are a lot of young, beginning farmers who 
are farming, but they are not making enough money from the farm to 
sustain themselves, and they and their spouse need to work at other 
jobs. They may have a night job and the spouse may have a job. Most of 
their income may not be from that farming venture, but the money they 
are earning is going into the farm and they are building up their farm 
asset base. I see this happening, and we don't want to discourage that. 
Those are the people who may need some EQIP money. They may need to 
build a fence for livestock production. That EQIP money ought to be 
there for them to do that. Maybe they are improving their land and they 
need a water-holding facility to provide livestock with water on an 
around-the-year basis. That happens in our State, and I am sure it 
happens in Oklahoma too. They may not be getting two-thirds of their 
income from farming for a while. Later, they may, as they build up 
their assets and become better farmers and they get more income from 
farming.
  So according to the Economic Research Service data, this amendment 
would bar EQIP contracts for 71.2 percent of all producers who receive 
them in 2006. You cannot say that 71 percent of all those people are 
these rich doctors putting in a fence and putting their horses out 
there. That may be a small part of these contracts, but it seems to me 
you are going after a lot of people who deserve EQIP contracts to go 
after some who don't deserve them.
  The farms that would still qualify under the Senator's amendment 
would tend to be relatively large farms--that is, with gross income on 
average over $654,000. Again, these are the producers that have a 
greater ability to pay for conservation. I repeat: the larger farms, 
where the producers get more than two-thirds of their income from 
farming, average over $654,000 in gross income. If you compare that to 
a beginning farmer, they would actually have more ability to pay for 
conservation on their own, but this amendment would hurt the younger 
farmers with lower incomes and second jobs to make ends meet.
  As I said, I just think this kind of a shotgun approach isn't the way 
to go. I wish there were some way to refine it to get at the very 
problem the Senator spoke about.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. If 72 percent of the people getting EQIP money today 
would not get the money, that means 72 percent of the people who are 
getting EQIP today get less than 66 percent of the money from 
agriculture. That is an even bigger problem. In fact, three quarters of 
the people who are eligible aren't primarily getting the vast majority 
of their income from agriculture. Yet we are sending three quarters of 
the money to those people. I see that as an even bigger problem.
  Would the chairman work with me to try to figure out a way to exclude 
those who are advantaging themselves and have no intention of working 
into an agriculture position as a lifestyle or as a primary vocation? 
Would he agree to work with me so we might come to a point where we can 
define the difference between those who are primarily interested in 
agriculture and building a young farm and excluding those who are using 
the American taxpayer money to improve the quality of their land so 
they can turn around and sell it?
  Mr. HARKIN. I could not agree with the Senator more. When I hear what 
he says, the answer is, yes, I wish we could figure out how we do that. 
We have not done that, and we should do that.
  On the 71 percent, that might sound alarming, but that says to me 
there are a lot of people out there farming who aren't making a lot of 
money on the farm. They do have some farm income, but think about it 
this way: people who may be bona fide farmers or ranchers, but they may 
have another business in town--maybe they are an elevator operator or 
something, but they are farmers.
  I think we have to be very careful about this. I think there are a 
lot of these people in that 71 percent--I haven't looked at the 
breakdown--who are these younger farmers and have to have some off-farm 
income to help make ends meet or maybe they need farm income to put 
away for college savings or something.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the chairman yield for another question?
  Mr. HARKIN. Sure.
  Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator think a certification as to intent by 
people who apply for EQIP that their primary vocation is either now or 
is intended to be agriculture would be a way in which we might 
accomplish the goal? I am willing to withdraw this amendment if we can 
work on that.
  Mr. HARKIN. That sounds interesting.
  Mr. COBURN. I don't want the small farmer to be excluded, but I think 
the amount of money going to nonfarmers is a lot greater than you think 
it is. It is not going to real farmers who have real needs and the vast 
majority of the acres where we are going to make the biggest difference 
on the environment. I ask if he would work with me between now and the 
time the bill comes out of conference to see if we cannot address that, 
and if he would do so, as well as the ranking member, I will ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I give the Senator my word. I want the same thing he 
wants. It burns me up, too, to see some of these people who buy acres 
and they get EQIP money to put up a nice pond or a horse shed. I agree 
with him. Maybe we can get our staffs and get people to think about how 
we might fashion this to exclude those people from the EQIP program. I 
would love to see that happen.

[[Page S15222]]

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, also, he knows I 
sympathize with him on this issue. We talked about it. He talked to me 
about a couple of specific instances that are just wrong. I talked 
earlier today about as hard as we try to prohibit abuses that crop up 
in farm programs, we know they are there. Whatever we can do to close 
the loopholes, I would like to do it here. Obviously, I am happy to 
continue to work with the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield further, maybe the Senator is 
onto something in terms of intent or what they are doing, coupled with, 
perhaps, the productive capacity and what that land is actually 
producing on an annualized basis.
  Mr. COBURN. I think we can work that out.


                     Amendment No. 3632, withdrawn

  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, and I will work 
with the chairman and ranking member on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate? Is there a unanimous consent request as far as further 
amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time having 
expired on the two amendments that were being debated, the time now 
occurs for a vote on the Sessions amendment.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Under the consent order, is it possible that a 
modification to the amendment be sent to the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will need further consent for 
that.


                    Amendment No. 3807, as Modified

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send to the 
desk a modification to my amendment No. 3807, as discussed with the 
chairman and ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 1362, between lines 19 and 20, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1107_. EXPENDITURE OF CERTAIN FUNDS.

       None of the funds made available or authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act or an amendment made by this Act 
     (including funds for any loan, grant, or payment under a 
     contract) may be expended for any activity relating to the 
     planning, construction, or maintenance of, travel to, or 
     lodging at a golf course, or resort.
       Strike section 6023.
       Strike section 6025 and insert the following:

     SEC. 6025. HISTORIC BARN PRESERVATION.

       Section 379A of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 2008o) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(4)--
       (A) by striking ``There are'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--There are''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Limitation.--If, at any time during the 2-year period 
     preceding the date on which funds are made available to carry 
     out this section, Congress has provided supplemental 
     agricultural assistance to agricultural producers or the 
     President has declared an agricultural-related emergency--
       ``(i) none of the funds made available to carry out this 
     section shall be used for the program under this section; and
       ``(ii) the funds made available to carry out this section 
     shall be--

       ``(I) used to carry out programs that address the 
     agricultural emergencies identified by Congress or the 
     President; or
       ``(II) returned to the Treasury of the United States for 
     debt reduction to offset the costs of the emergency 
     agricultural spending.''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Repeal.--If, during each of 5 consecutive fiscal 
     years, Congress has provided supplemental agricultural 
     assistance to agricultural producers or the President has 
     declared an agricultural-related emergency, this section is 
     repealed.''.

  Mr. COBURN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have had Senator Chambliss and Senator 
Harkin working on a number of amendments. Senator Coburn is not 
requiring a vote on his amendment. It has been withdrawn. So tonight 
under the order before the Senate, we have one vote on the Sessions 
amendment. After that, there will be no more votes tonight. The first 
vote in the morning will be at 9:15. We are going to have to keep to 
the time schedule in the morning because we have four people anxious to 
go other places tomorrow.


                    Amendment No. 3596, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3596, as modified, offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. 
McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 423 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Sununu
     Tester
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thune
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Lott
     McCain
     Menendez
     Obama
  The amendment (No. 3596), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are making good progress. Senator 
Chambliss and I have been working very hard today to get amendments up. 
I think we are down to just a few we will be voting on tomorrow, and we 
will do perhaps a little bit more work tonight. I would say to any 
Senator whose amendment is on the list who wants to debate it, we are 
here. They could debate the amendment tonight and get in order 
tomorrow. I have a couple of things I want to wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3830

  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for regular order with respect to amendment No. 
3830.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.

[[Page S15223]]

                Amendment No. 3844 to Amendment No. 3830

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--
  Mr. HARKIN. It is just a second-degree.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3844 to amendment No. 3830.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                           Amendment No. 3539

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3539. It is an 
amendment by Senator Durbin, No. 3539. I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending and without objection 
the amendment will be made the pending question.


                Amendment No. 3845 To Amendment No. 3539

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Kennedy, for 
     himself and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 3845 
     to amendment No. 3539.

  The amendment is as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 1170_. ACTION BY PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS BASED ON REPORT.

       (a) President.--Not later than 180 days after the date on 
     which the Congressional Bipartisan Food Safety Commission 
     established by section 11060(a)(1)(A) submits to the 
     President and Congress the report required under section 
     11060(b)(3), the President shall--
       (1) review the report; and
       (2) submit to Congress proposed legislation based on the 
     recommendations for statutory language contained in the 
     report, together with an explanation of the differences, if 
     any, between the recommendations for statutory language 
     contained in the report and the proposed legislation.
       (b) Congress.--On receipt of the proposed legislation 
     described in subsection (a), the appropriate committees of 
     Congress may hold such hearings and carry out such other 
     activities as are necessary for appropriate consideration of 
     the recommendations for statutory language contained in the 
     report and the proposed legislation.
       (c) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) it is vital for Congress to provide to food safety 
     agencies of the Federal Government, including the Department 
     of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, 
     additional resources and direction with respect to ensuring 
     the safety of the food supply of the United States;
       (2) additional inspectors are required to improve the 
     ability of the Federal Government to safeguard the food 
     supply of the United States;
       (3) because of the increasing volume of international trade 
     in food products, the Federal Government should give priority 
     to entering into agreements with trading partners of the 
     United States with respect to food safety; and
       (4) based on the report of the Commission referred to in 
     subsection (a) and the proposed legislation referred to in 
     subsection (b), Congress should work toward a comprehensive 
     legislative response to the issue of food safety.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the pending 
amendment offered by friend and colleague Senator Kennedy.
  This is an amendment that would make important changes to America's 
food safety policy.
  We clearly need to make a change. For far too long, we have gone 
without a comprehensive review of our food safety laws.
  Ancient statutes remain on the books, standards have not been 
updated, budgets have atrophied, and consumers have suffered from food 
borne illness.
  In 2007, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, added the food 
safety system to its ``High Risk List'' of government functions that 
pose a risk to the United States.
  The designation follows an extensive series of GAO, National 
Academies of Science, and inspector general reports calling for major 
improvements in our food safety system.
  This year alone, we have witnessed 48 recalls of contaminated 
products regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, Food 
Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, and more than 150 recalls of 
contaminated products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, 
FDA.
  Included in these statistics are recalls of more than 3 years of 
production of certain brands of peanut butter tainted with salmonella, 
a full year of production of ground beef tainted with E. coli, and more 
than 100 brands of popular cat and dog food.
  In the past 2 months alone, there have been recalls of 5 million 
units of frozen pizza and 1 million more pounds of beef tainted with E. 
coli.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 
there are approximately 76 million cases of food borne disease each 
year in the United States. While many of these cases are mild, CDC 
estimates that food borne illness causes 325,000 hospitalizations and 
5,000 deaths each year.
  The food industry is one of the most important sectors of the 
national economy, generating more than $1 trillion in economic activity 
annually and employing millions of American workers.
  Unfortunately, over the past several months, consumer confidence in 
the safety of our food supply has dropped precipitously, posing a risk 
to this sector of the economy.
  According to the Food Marketing Institute's 2007 survey of consumer 
confidence, the number of consumers confident in the safety of 
supermarket food declined from 82 percent in 2006 to 66 percent today--
the lowest point since 1989. The same survey shows that consumer 
confidence in restaurant food is even lower, at 43 percent.
  Although the United States continues to have one of the safest food 
supplies in the world, the authorities and standards we set and the 
investments in food safety we make are being surpassed by other major 
industrialized nations.
  A significant portion of the responsibility for this trend rests with 
Congress. While other countries have updated their food safety laws to 
reflect best available science, technology, and practices, we have 
allowed our statutes to become dated and obsolete.
  We have underfunded this critical government function.
  It is alarming that the safety of our food supply depends on ancient 
statutes that were written to address vastly different food safety 
challenges.
  The Federal Meat Inspection Act was passed in 1906 partly in response 
to Upton Sinclair's accounts of Chicago's meat packing plants in his 
novel ``The Jungle.''
  There has been only one major review of our meat laws and that 
occurred 40 years ago.
  The Poultry Products Inspection Act celebrates its 50th anniversary 
this year and the Egg Products Inspection Act is more than 35 years 
old.
  The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938 and has 
never been comprehensively reauthorized.
  This is the key statute used by the Food and Drug Administration to 
regulate about 80 percent of our food supply.
  Since then, although our understanding of food borne illness, 
preventative measures, microbiology, sanitation practices, and industry 
best practices has been transformed by developments in science and 
technology, the core principles of these statutes remain in place.
  Into this void has stepped an uncoordinated, irregular sweep of 
crises-specific legislation, such as the Infant Formula Act of 1980 and 
Import Milk Act, as well as dozens of regulatory efforts to improve the 
safety of specific products.
  Agencies have faced legal challenges as to whether they have the 
authority to implement some of these regulations.
  It is time that Congress stepped forward to exercise oversight and 
ensure that we comprehensively improve our food safety system.
  That is why my colleague Senator Kennedy and I are offering an 
amendment to the farm bill that would set a trajectory toward a 
comprehensive review of the laws that underpin our food safety system.
  Although food safety is one of the most dynamic functions of the 
federal government and relies heavily on developments in science, 
technology, and best practices, there is no mechanism for Congress to 
regularly review developments and reauthorize the agencies that perform 
these tasks.

[[Page S15224]]

  Already included in the bill we're considering is language that would 
create a Food Safety Commission, a mechanism for Congress, the 
administration, academia, industry, consumer groups, and others to work 
together on comprehensive food safety reform and recommend specific 
statutory language.
  The Commission is tasked with studying the in our current system and 
making specific legislative recommendations to the President and 
Congress on how to improve our laws.
  We have directed the Commission to do its work based on universally 
agreed upon principles--allocate resources according to risk, base 
policies on best available science, improve coordination of budgets and 
personnel.
  This amendment goes further than that language. It directs the 
President to review these recommendations and findings and report his 
or her recommendations back to Congress in a timely fashion.
  The language puts Congress on a track of holding hearings and moving 
such comprehensive food safety reform through the process.
  Lastly, the language contains sense-of-the-Senate language that it is 
the policy of the U.S. Senate to provide our food safety functions with 
adequate resources, that we increase the number of inspectors looking 
at food shipments, and that it is vital for Congress to move forward 
with comprehensive food safety reform.
  This amendment will compel the participation of all stakeholders in 
the Commission process and will compel Congress and the Administration 
to act on its recommendations.
  I offer this amendment and ask for my colleagues to support this 
effort to modernize our food safety system.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask that the second-degree amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3845) was agreed to.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask the amendment, No. 3539, as amended, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment No. 3539, as amended, was agreed to.


             CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED CONSERVATION PROGRAM

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to engage the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee in a colloquy.
  Mr. HARKIN. I am happy to yield to my friend from Maryland.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I, too, am happy to engage my friend from Maryland in 
discussion.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, all of us who represent Chesapeake Bay 
watershed States in the Senate are grateful that the bill reported out 
by the Agriculture Committee recognizes the very serious challenge that 
we have with excess nutrients and sediments in the bay. As I testified 
to your committee back in the spring, every year huge areas of the 
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries become ``dead zones,'' which 
occur when there isn't enough dissolved oxygen for aquatic life to 
thrive. Not all the excess nutrients that create these dead zones come 
from agriculture, but a substantial part of them do. The Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed Conservation Program in your bill will go a long way in 
assisting farmers in our States implement projects to better manage 
their nutrient-rich runoff. The new program represents a significant 
part of the $700 million annually that scientists and agricultural 
experts estimate is needed on the ground to bring the runoff to 
ecologically acceptable levels.
  My question is just to clarify the intent of the committee regarding 
this new program. Am I correct in my understanding that, although the 
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Conservation Program uses EQIP authorities, it 
has its own funding stream and therefore will not reduce the normal 
EQIP allocations to Maryland and the other Chesapeake Bay watershed 
States?
  Mr. HARKIN. That is correct, Senator. Section 2361 provides an 
additional funding stream totaling $165 million from 2007 through 2012 
to address the critical needs of the Chesapeake Bay. This funding is 
separate from EQIP and is not intended to offset funding allocated 
under that program.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the chairman for that clarification. I would like 
to ask the distinguished ranking member, the same question. Is it your 
understanding that the legislation before us today provides a unique 
funding stream for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Conservation Program 
without reducing the normal EQIP allocations to the Maryland and the 
other Chesapeake Bay watershed States?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am happy to confirm with the Senator from Maryland 
that he understands the provision correctly. The Chesapeake Bay 
Watershed Conservation Program is to be implemented by the NRCS in 
addition to EQIP or any other existing conservation program. The 
Chesapeake Bay basin is the watershed for our Nation's Capital and the 
Bay is a national treasure. The committee is providing this 
extraordinary support for this extraordinary watershed and its farmers.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the chairman and distinguished ranking member for 
their clarifications. I invite both of my friends to join me in 
visiting the farms of the Chesapeake region in the coming year so they 
can see for themselves how effectively and enthusiastically these 
needed funds are being used to benefit both our farmers and our 
treasured Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 2462 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________