[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 192 (Friday, December 14, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15622-S15641]
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 legislative 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.
Chambliss (for Cornyn) amendment No. 3687 (to amendment No.
3500), to prevent duplicative payments for agricultural
disaster assistance already covered by the agricultural
disaster relief trust fund.
Chambliss (for Coburn) modified amendment No. 3807 (to
amendment No. 3500), to
[[Page S15623]]
ensure the priority of the farm bill remains farmers by
eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture spending on
golf courses, junkets, cheese centers, and aging barns.
Salazar amendment No. 3616 (to amendment No. 3500), to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives
for the production of all cellulosic biofuels.
Thune (for McConnell) amendment No. 3821 (to amendment No.
3500), to promote the nutritional health of school children,
with an offset.
Thune (for Roberts/Brownback) amendment No. 3549 (to
amendment No. 3500), to modify a provision relating to
regulations.
Domenici amendment No. 3614 (to amendment No. 3500), to
reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in
clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources.
Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3674 (to amendment No.
3500), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross
income.
Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3822 (to amendment No.
3500), to provide nearly $1,000,000,000 in critical home
heating assistance to low-income families and senior citizens
for the 2007-2008 winter season, and reduce the Federal
deficit by eliminating wasteful farm subsidies.
Thune (for Grassley/Kohl) amendment No. 3823 (to amendment
No. 3500), to provide for the review of agriculture mergers
and acquisitions by the Department of Justice.
Thune (for Stevens) amendment No. 3569 (to amendment No.
3500), to make commercial fishermen eligible for certain
operating loans.
Thune (for Bond) amendment No. 3771 (to amendment No.
3500), to amend title 7, United States Code, to include
provisions relating to rulemaking.
Sanders amendment No. 3826 (to amendment No. 3822), to
provide for payments under subsections (a) through (e) of
section 2604 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of
1981, and restore supplemental agricultural disaster
assistance from the agricultural disaster relief trust fund.
Harkin/Murkowski amendment No. 3639 (to amendment No.
3500), to improve nutrition standards for foods and beverages
sold in schools.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an amendment
that will improve the nutrition and health of our Nation's school
children.
Annually, the United States spends approximately $300 million for
nutrition education for the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC Program
and $500 million for nutrition education in conjunction with the Food
Stamp Program. However, there is virtually no funding being dedicated
to nutrition education in our Nation's schools.
You might ask why nutrition education in the school setting is
important. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
16 percent of children between 6 and 19 years old are overweight or
obese--a number that has tripled since 1980. Experts agree that the
lack of physical activity and poor eating habits contribute to this
epidemic. While national guidelines recommend 150 minutes of physical
activity each week for elementary children and 225 minutes for older
children, few schools meet these criteria. In addition, studies have
shown that children who eat well-balanced meals at school are more
likely to practice lifelong healthy eating and help their families make
smart meal choices.
Accordingly, my amendment provides $18 million to States to educate
schoolchildren on the importance of consuming a nutritious diet as well
as increasing their level of physical activity. Funds will be directed
to the Team Nutrition Network, which is administered by the USDA, and
then distributed to the States in the form of a grant.
In addition, this amendment also calls on USDA to conduct periodic
surveys of foods purchased by school food authorities participating in
the National School Lunch Program. According to USDA, the most recent
data on school food purchases are a decade old. New data would help
USDA to provide guidance to schools to create meals that conform to the
most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, better manage the types
and varieties of foods procured by USDA on behalf of schools, and
assess the economic impact of school food purchase on various commodity
sectors.
During my tenure in the U.S. Senate, I have been a strong advocate
for nutrition programs, especially those that are targeted at our
Nation's children. During the last farm bill, I proposed an amendment
that directed a portion of loan rates to increase food stamp benefits
for the disabled and working families with children. This was a small
price to help provide for some of the neediest in our Nation.
In addition, I have introduced legislation in past Congresses that
would have encouraged the increased consumption of calcium-rich milk by
school children, provided grants to schools to make available healthy
food choices, and expanded the School Breakfast Program.
Federal nutrition programs are an important safety net for our
country, especially our Nation's children. I hope my colleagues
understand the importance of addressing this issue, and I urge them to
support my amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the passage of
the 2007 farm bill reauthorization. First, I would like to thank
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss and their staff for their
tireless efforts to compile comprehensive farm legislation that
addresses many differing interests. I truly benefited from their
guidance on agriculture matters and look forward to working with them
on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.
The passage of this legislation is a testament to the will of the
Senate to sustain our Nation's agriculture industry. A product of much
negotiation and compromise, this bill contains true reform and provides
for our Nation through improvements in nutrition, conservation, rural
development and energy programs.
I applaud the Senate's commitment to maintaining and improving the
current safety net for producers. It is vital that we continue to
support these programs so that our producers can remain competitive
globally and survive here in the United States. As a matter of national
security, we must support programs that will ensure a reliable and
constant food supply for all Americans.
The Senate-passed language touches the lives of millions of Americans
who benefit from food assistance, conservation and land stewardship,
rural development, and energy programs. I am especially pleased by the
provisions relating to energy programs and our farming community. I
believe that our producers can play an important role in addressing
climate change. This bill takes important strides towards the
protection of our environment through the authorization of energy
programs that build on the potential of cellulose-based ethanol as an
alternative energy source.
This legislation is the product of many months of negotiations and
undoubtedly the sacrifices of many in order to arrive at this juncture.
I am hopeful that the Conference Committee will produce a conference
report similar to the Senate version of the farm bill, and that the
Senate considers it in a timely manner so that all Americans can
benefit from these programs at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish today to state my support of the
Senate farm bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
measure. While this bill is not perfect, I believe that it contains
strong agriculture policy that will advance a number of initiatives
important to Great Plains production agriculture and to farmers and
ranchers across America.
I would like to first thank my good friend from Iowa, Tom Harkin,
who, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, shepherded this
fine bill through the committee consideration process. Chairman Harkin
has been considerate to the contribution of the Great Plains region to
our nation's agriculture economy and national food security, and this
product reflects that recognition.
I am also pleased that this bill reflects many of the priorities that
were shared with me not only in roundtable discussions in South Dakota
with interested stakeholders, but also through letters, e-mails and
phone calls from people in my home State.
I would like to take this time to speak to some of the provisions
contained in this legislation, and why these provisions will be good
for South Dakota agriculture. To begin with title I, this measure
offers strong commodity safety nets, which is arguably the anchor of
the omnibus Federal Farm Bill that Congress reauthorizes every 5 years.
Under this legislation, our commodity payment structure is retained,
with modest, albeit important, increases made to the loan rates
[[Page S15624]]
and target prices for many commodities. Among those commodities seeing
improvements under this bill are sorghum--target price increase to
$2.63/bu.--barley--loan rate increase to $1.95/bu. as well as a target
price increase to $2.63/bu.--oats--increase in loan rate to $1.39/bu.
and increase in target price to $1.83/bu.--wheat--loan rate increase to
$2.94/bu. and target price increase to $4.20/bu.--soybeans--target
price increase to $6.00/bu.--oilseeds--loan rate increase to $10.09/
cwt. and target price increase to $12.74/cwt.--and wool and honey--
established loan rates are $1.20/lb. and $.72/lb., respectively--in
addition to desirable target prices and loan rates for dry peas,
lentils, and chickpeas.
Producers will also have a choice for participation in the Average
Crop Revenue, ACR, program, under which payments will be made when the
State revenue for a covered commodity is less than the average
guarantee for that particular commodity. I do retain concerns for the
implementation of this particular program because of the drastic
disparity in county-based revenue in my home State of South Dakota. I
am, however, pleased that the basic farm safety net from the 2002
measure remains intact, and that the ACR program was delinked from crop
insurance during committee consideration.
Under this package, our farmers and ranchers across the nation will
also benefit from a structured response to emergency agriculture
disaster. This structured response program also will not, I am very
pleased to say, function as a disincentive for investing in coverage
under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, FCIA, and the Non-Insured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program, NAP. The United States Department of
Agriculture, USDA, and White House have been less than friendly toward
our efforts to secure meaningful disaster assistance, going so far as
to issue multiple veto threats against emergency spending initiatives
because they contained meaningful relief for farmers and ranchers. The
White House claimed that farmers and ranchers across America were
generating remarkable revenue and enjoying tremendous profits, which
clearly demonstrates this administration's disconnect with agricultural
communities throughout the United States. Agriculture disaster is like
any other natural disaster, and I am very proud to have pushed with my
Senate colleagues for the proposal included in this bill.
As the author of the COOL provision included in the 2002 farm bill, I
am pleased to see that this bill contains a very critically important
compromise on mandatory Country of Origin Labeling, COOL, that will
allow for streamlined, commonsense implementation, which is something
that the USDA has been unable to accomplish in the 5-plus years since
the enactment of the 2002 farm bill. The USDA has mercilessly botched
the rulemaking process on this consumer right-to-know and producer
marketing program, promulgating unworkable regulations that would
burden farmers and ranchers as well as retailers.
The COOL compromise language included in the committee version of the
farm bill, which was passed unanimously by that body, allows, for
example, for the use of records for origin verification which are part
of daily business, in addition to allowing State, region or locality of
the United States information as being sufficient to identify the
United States as the point of origin. These implementation guidelines
are important to ensure that producers or retailers are not saddled
with unnecessary costs or recordkeeping burdens that the USDA would
have preferred, and that we can deliver a program that in excess of 91
percent of American consumers want.
The Senate version of the farm bill also contains another measure
which I have championed for years, pertaining to the livestock sector.
I am pleased that the ban on packer ownership of livestock was included
in the en bloc amendments during committee consideration of the bill,
which speaks to the significant support this measure retains within the
Senate. The livestock industry is faced with ever-increasing horizontal
concentration and vertical integration, and our independent farmers and
ranchers are confronted with a shrinking number of opportunities for
price discovery and product promotion. The packer ban would rectify
this very negative and troubling transition in the livestock industry.
The packer ban adopted by the committee would ensure that packers
cannot own livestock more than 14 days prior to slaughter. There are a
number of reasonable exceptions to this prohibition, including packers
that own only one slaughtering facility, packers that are not required
to participate in the Mandatory Price Reporting, MPR, program, and for
cooperatives. The packer ban would ensure that farmers and ranchers are
materially engaged with the management of their livestock.
I offered the packer ban during consideration of the 2002 farm bill
on the Senate floor, and it was adopted by the body of the Senate. It
was, unfortunately, stripped out of the final bill during conference
consideration, as was the ``competition title'' included in the Senate
version of the bill. Our livestock producers have waited long enough
for these provisions, and I will continue to work with the Chairman of
the Agriculture Committee to see the packer ban passed into law. It is
good policy.
In that same vein, I am pleased to see several other competition
provisions that are included in this bill. This farm bill would ensure
that contracts are fairer for growers, in that producers must agree and
consent to arbitration before it may be used for dispute settlement.
The bill also allows for the creation of a Special Counsel for
Agricultural Competition within USDA. Both prosecutions and
investigations will be combined within one office, and the counsel will
oversee enforcement activities in coordinating with the Department of
Justice and Federal Trade Commission. It is my hope that this counsel
will serve to offer a greater level of transparency and that we may, in
fact, see justice served with respect to egregious misdeeds in our
livestock sector.
I am, however, greatly disappointed about the exclusion of Dorgan-
Grassley amendment No. 3695, of which I cosponsored, to enact
commonsense, meaningful farm program payment limitations.
The current farm program payment structure has, quite simply, failed
rural America. Approximately 71 percent of our farm benefits are
absorbed by only 10 percent of the farming community. Our omnibus farm
bill is intended to promote programs that function as a safety net for
farmers, in contrast to the cash cow they have become for a few
producers. I do not favor eliminating our farm program benefits, but
rather prefer that they are targeted to small and medium sized
producers instead of large agribusiness.
The farm bill also includes a forward-looking energy title to grow
dedicated energy crops and capture the ingenuity of agriculture
producers to use biomass for energy production. The title invests in
the applied agriculture research already occurring at State
universities and land-grant colleges. Importantly, the bill also
balances the increasing demand to use working lands for energy
production with safeguards for protecting air, land, and water quality.
The bill establishes a loan guarantee and competitive grant program
to jump-start the construction of biorefineries producing renewable
fuels from dedicated energy crops. To meet the ambitious goal of
producing 36 billion gallons of renewable biofuels in 2022, the farm
bill establishes a program to provide access to capital for the
construction of pilot and demonstration-scale biorefineries to produce
advanced biofuels. Up to 80 percent of the costs of eligible projects
could be covered through a loan guarantee. Also, the programs intent is
clear that eligible projects include the conversion of existing fossil-
fuel biorefineries powered by natural gas for loan guarantees and
competitive grants to repower these facilities using renewable energy
resources. South Dakota is a leader in producing ethanol from grains,
but there is the long-term promise of using biomass and dedicated
energy crops for producing advanced biofuels at a fraction of the
energy input requirement. I am glad that the program will include a
focus on biorefineries converting fuel generation sources for producing
advanced biofuels. This section in the bill is essential toward our
ability to significantly expand renewable fuel production.
The farm bill also builds on the 2002 act by providing $345 million
in mandatory funding to enable biorefineries to
[[Page S15625]]
make greater purchase of renewable biomass for advanced biofuel. These
payments will increase the purchase of feedstocks for next generation
biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol.
I am glad that the bill harnesses the expertise of land grant
Institutions by reauthorizing the Sun grant initiative and providing a
modest amount of dedicated funding for carrying out program goals.
Since 2005, the Sun grant Initiative has enhanced coordination between
the Department of Energy and the United States Department of
Agriculture to assess and improve resource availability and feedstock
economics. The research and applications pursued through Sun grant is
crucial toward the eventual commercialization of dedicated energy
crops. Assessing the potential availability of energy feedstocks within
geographic regions can target which energy crops are optimal for
biofuel production. In the Midwest and Great Plains that might mean
cultivation of switchgrass while in the Southeast, poplar trees or
other fast-growing biomass may be optimal. Ultimately the research
conducted by the regional Sun grant centers will go a long way in
answering these regional questions and determining how best over the
long-term to produce fuel from non-grain biomass.
The conservation title included in this bill will encourage sound
land stewardship and land management practices. I requested, for
example, that the Senate version of the farm bill extend the
Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, and this program was extended with a
39.2 million acre cap through 2012. The Grasslands Reserve Program was
also included in the chairman's mark and extended at a $240 million
authorized level. I supported the payment limitations cap that would
have increased the authorization for this program, and while it is
unfortunate that this program wasn't expanded, I will continue to work
with my colleagues to push for adequate funding.
The Wetlands Reserve Program was reauthorized in the bill at 250,000
through 2012, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program was
extended out with baseline funding. The program would provide for 75
percent cost-share, with the exception that beginning and young farmers
or socially disadvantaged farmers would receive 90 percent cost-share
or 15 percent above prevailing rates.
In several of my farm bill meetings, it was expressed to me that USDA
local work groups should be exempted from the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, FACA, by folding them into the State Technical
Committees. USDA local work groups coordinate USDA programs with other
Federal, State and tribal programs. FACA prohibits nongovernment
individuals, including farmers, from the USDA working group formal
decisionmaking process, whereas the State Technical Committee is
exempted from FACA. The farm bill includes this change, allowing for
farmers to be an integral and important part of the formal
decisionmaking process.
The Senate version of the farm bill contains a Sodsaver program, to
ensure that our nation's native grasslands remain intact. The program
would prohibit crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act or
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program payments on broken, native
sod indefinitely, allowing for exceptions with plots under 5 acres and
discretionary exemption by the Secretary of Agriculture for parcels
between 5 and 20 acres.
When we talk about the farm bill, we naturally tend to focus on the
provisions that affect our Nation's agricultural producers. I am
pleased to note that we have crafted a farm bill that will also greatly
improve Federal policy in the area of rural development, whose purpose
is to improve the quality of life for citizens of rural areas who are
not directly engaged in traditional agricultural production. With a
bill that benefits our producers and as well as those who make a living
off the farm, I believe citizens in the rural portions of our great
Nation can look forward to many brighter days ahead.
Last year, I announced my Hometown Prosperity Plan, which is an
economic development agenda that lays out my priorities for advancing
South Dakota's economy from the Federal level. The strategies in my
plan provided a framework for my priorities in the rural development
title of the 2007 farm bill. These priorities include: (1) ``Promoting
Partnerships,'' or encouraging greater regional economic cooperation to
enhance competitiveness; (2) ``Emphasizing Entrepreneurship,'' or
placing more emphasis on cultivating the creation of new businesses, as
a supplement to the traditional strategy of luring existing businesses
from elsewhere; (3) ``Investing in the Public Good'' by directing
Federal funds to projects that yield a positive return in the form of
higher standards of living, more jobs, and more prosperity; and (4)
``Protecting Pocketbooks'' by combating trends that sap economic
strength, such as rising health care costs, rising fuel prices, and
stagnant wages.
In the spring of this year, as Chairman Harkin was assembling his
proposals for the rural development portion of the farm bill, I wrote
to him to outline my rural development priorities. I was pleased to
find a great deal of common ground in our respective priorities, which
is not surprising, since our two States share a border and many common
characteristics. Senator Harkin, the Agriculture Committee, and
ultimately the full Senate, have produced a farm bill that would enact
many of the proposals in my Hometown Prosperity Plan, and I would like
to highlight a few of those.
One of the ways I proposed to act on the strategy of ``promoting
partnerships'' was to relaunch the Northern Great Plains Regional
Authority, which was created in the 2002 farm bill. The authority is a
voluntary organization modeled after the successful Appalachian
Regional Commission. Its mission is to enhance economic development by
promoting greater interstate economic cooperation and collaboration
across North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. The
organization was created by Congress with the blessing of the
President, and is authorized to receive $30 million each year for 5
years to boost the competitiveness of our region. Unfortunately, the
President inexplicably changed his mind about the organization, and has
blocked its operation and most of its funding. The 2007 farm bill would
modify the organization's governance structure to allow the
organization to begin operating even without active support from the
President.
In addition to promoting economic partnerships between states, we can
also improve our economic performance through greater cooperation
between rural communities within our respective states. The new farm
bill would stimulate this kind of cooperation through the new Rural
Collaborative Investment Program, RCIP. Under this program, communities
within a region could receive Federal funds to leverage matching
private contributions in support of regional economic planning and
projects.
My strategy of ``investing in the public good'' means providing
Federal investments in activities the pay themselves back with
increased rural prosperity and quality of life. This farm bill would
increase the volume and quality of our investments in the public good
by extending, refining, and expanding several existing grant and loan
programs operated by USDA rural development. These include community
facilities grants and loans, water and wastewater infrastructure grants
and loans, the rural business enterprise grants, rural business
opportunity grants, value added agriculture development grants,
intermediary relending, distance learning and telemedicine grants and
loans, and the broadband access program, among others. These programs
have proven their effectiveness in improving the quality of life for
rural citizens across South Dakota, and they would have an even great
impact if we enact the farm bill approved by the Senate.
A great deal of research now demonstrates that my strategy of
``emphasizing entrepreneurship'' is one of the most effective ways we
can generate new private-sector job growth in our rural communities.
One of the ways I proposed to act on this strategy was by providing
incentives for greater private-sector equity investment in rural
business through the Rural Business Investment Program, RBIP.
Unfortunately, venture capital and other forms of equity are relatively
scarce in rural States, and the RBIP was created in
[[Page S15626]]
the 2002 Farm Bill to address this scarcity. It was modeled on a
similar program operated successfully by SBA. Unfortunately, overly
complicated implementation rules have prevented this program from
achieving its potential of luring more private investment to fast-
growing companies in rural America. By modifying and streamlining the
program, the new farm bill will catalyze more private investment and
more rapid private-sector job creation in rural communities.
Another way to emphasize entrepreneurship is by stimulating more
business startups through microlending. Many would-be entrepreneurs in
local areas cannot get access to the small quantities of capital needed
to implement sound concepts for new businesses. The delivery of
``microloans'' to these individuals is a proven way of creating more
small businesses. Because microloan programs require small quantities
of capital, and the loans are repaid, the programs are also highly
cost-effective. The farm bill's new Rural Microenterprise Assistance
Program would help to reverse the loss of rural population that results
from inadequate economic opportunities.
Among other things, my strategy of ``protecting pocket books'' means
taking action to address economic trends that sap our economic
strength, such as exploding health care costs. One way we will do that
in this farm bill is by providing federal funds for conversion to
electronic records at rural hospitals. Keeping these hospitals viable
helps rural citizens avoid lengthy trips to health care facilities in
far-away cities. And computerizing medical records at those hospitals
should increase their efficiency and reduce costs to consumers. Between
this initiative, and our extension of the Distance Learning and
Telemedicine grant and loan program, I believe we can help to reverse
the rising healthcare costs that are especially hard on the pocketbooks
of rural citizens.
In any piece of legislation as comprehensive and far-reaching as a
farm bill, there are always components whose final form leaves room for
improvement. Unfortunately, that maxim holds true in the case of the
farm bill approved by my Senate colleagues and me. Nevertheless, on the
whole I am pleased with this bill in general and its rural development
components in particular. By enacting many proposals from my Hometown
Prosperity Plan, this bill would improve the economy and quality of
life in the rural communities that South Dakotans call home. I
appreciate my Senate colleagues' support for these initiatives, and am
hopeful that we can realize their promise by enacting this bill into
law.
We live in a country of great abundance, yet millions of Americans go
to bed hungry each night. With more than 39 million people in the
United States participating in federally supported nutrition programs
each year, it is crucial that the farm bill contains a nutrition title
that not only feeds the hungry, but also works toward ending hunger,
preventing obesity and improving diets. Given the budgetary constraints
that our Senate Agriculture Committee faced in crafting this farm bill,
I applaud them for writing a strong nutrition title, which will well
serve America's nutrition needs for years to come.
I was extremely pleased that the Food Stamp Program has been
modernized to meet the many needs that low-income families face every
day. Roughly 58,000 South Dakotans currently receiving food stamp
benefits each month will now be able to buy more food with their
benefits and will be able to better afford child care. Families will
also be able to save for their futures, while still remaining eligible
for the program by exempting tax-preferred education and retirement
accounts from counting against the asset limit.
As many of America's low-income seniors are being forced to choose
between much-needed prescription drugs and paying their bills, sadly,
many are left unable to afford an adequate and nutritious diet. The
Commodity Supplemental Food Program, CSFP, helps to fill in the
nutrition gaps in participants' diets by providing nutritious items
that they might not otherwise be able to afford. I worked closely with
members of the Senate Agriculture Committee to ensure that more seniors
will be eligible to participate in this important program by changing
the eligibility guidelines from 130 percent to 185 percent to reflect
the poverty guidelines of all other Federal nutrition programs. Once
the five new states that have applied to participate in CSFP receive
funding, then all States can apply to go up to 185 percent Federal
poverty level, FPL, if they so choose. In addition, the preference
requirement for women, infants and children in the application process
was eliminated, allowing senior citizens equal access to the program.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, is another vital
program in our Nation's fight against hunger. With food banks across
the country experiencing critical food shortages and an increasing
number of Americans in need of emergency food assistance, the increase
in funding from $140 million to $250 million is especially crucial.
We must do all that we can to ensure our children grow up healthy,
regardless of their family's income and I believe that expanding the
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, FFVP, in all 50 States works toward
that goal. Since 2004, students on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in
South Dakota have received fresh fruits and vegetables through the FFVP
pilot program. I am pleased that these students and others across the
nation will now have regular access to fresh fruits and vegetables.
I was disappointed to see that the elimination of reduced price, ERP,
category was not included in the nutrition title of the Farm Bill. The
President's budget decisions have forced the Senate majority leadership
to concentrate nutrition funding on existing programs, leaving little
or no funding for new initiatives, such as eliminating the reduced
price category from the school lunch program.
This farm bill also strengthens the Food Distribution Program on
Indian Reservations, FDPIR, program by ensuring that tribes will be
able to obtain traditional foods, such as bison, in their food
packages. I have long fought for more traditional food options for our
tribes and I am pleased that Chairman Harkin included my request in the
chairman's mark.
This farm bill is a strong proposal for South Dakota, for the Great
Plains region and for the American agricultural community. While
reauthorization is a critically important prong of our farm bill
policy, our Federal farm programs are only as strong as the dollars put
behind them. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and
more specifically, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee,
I am well positioned to fight for South Dakota priorities and to
deliver promised farm bill programs into our rural communities. The
dollars I work to obtain in this bill are vitally important, for
example, to continuing agriculture research within my home State and at
South Dakota State University, my home State's land grant university.
As we work our way through the budgetary constraints with which
Congress is faced, I will continue to promote our nation's farming and
ranching agenda.
Mr. President, farmers and ranchers have been anxiously awaiting a
new farm bill so they can make important management decisions in this
coming year, and I am hopeful that the Senate and House can meet
quickly in this next congressional session to iron out the differences
between the two measures.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, food safety is very much on the minds of
many Americans today, and the reason is as obvious as the newspaper
headlines in recent months.
From the Washington Post on November 29th: ``Bad Pet Food May Have
Killed Nearly 350.''
From the October 31 New York Times: ``Chinese Chemicals Flow
Unchecked to Market.''
From The Associated Press on September 27: ``Hamburgers may be
tainted with E. Coli.''
Suddenly, there is a danger that E. coli is present in many typical
foods. An E. coli outbreak in spinach last summer killed 3 people and
sickened more than 200 others. In recent months, E. coli has lead to
the recall of over 20 million pounds of ground meat. We have also had
salmonella in peanut butter and snack food and botulism in a chili
product. Even unlabeled allergens can routinely lead to the recall of
food. These examples, and the sharp decline of consumer confidence in
food
[[Page S15627]]
safety, make clear that Congress must act quickly to deal with the
problem.
The FDA Science Board issued an alarming report last month,
concluding that the ``FDA does not have the capacity to ensure the
safety of food for the nation.''
In his years in both the House and now the Senate, Senator Durbin has
been a leader in efforts to improve food safety--from his Safe Food Act
to the Human and Pet Food Safety Act. He offered a food safety
amendment on the FDA bill last May that we accepted 94 to 0, and it was
included in the final bill approved by Congress and signed by the
President in September. I commend his working with us to produce an
amendment to the farm bill to address the issue now with the new
urgency it requires.
Because of the work of Senator Durbin, the farm bill includes a
commission to investigate food safety and make recommendations to the
President and Congress, including specific legislative proposals and
budget estimates. The amendment we have offered builds on the work of
the commission. It requires the President to submit a legislative
proposal in response to the commission's recommendations, with Congress
following up with appropriate action. It also includes a sense-of-the-
Senate provision that the Congress must approve more resources for food
safety, must work for a comprehensive response on the issue, and that
the Federal Government must work cooperatively with foreign governments
to improve the safety of imported food.
I agree with Senator Durbin that we need make more effective progress
on food safety. Both the European Union and Japan have stronger food
safety programs than we do. Most significantly, they have much stronger
programs on imported food, combining inspections in the country of
origin and the testing of imported foods. We should be able to do at
least as well.
Federal food safety agencies need power to identify food safety
problems more quickly and respond more effectively, especially to
prevent outbreaks in food. Every aspect of the food industry must have
an effective plan in place to prevent hazards in the food it grows,
prepares, or markets.
A hearing in the HELP Committee earlier this month began this
process. I am committed to achieving a comprehensive response to food
safety, and I look forward to working with Senator Enzi, Senator
Durbin, Senator Harkin, and my other colleagues on the committee to
develop that proposal early in the new year. Our amendment to the farm
bill will require the President to follow up in 2009 or early 2010 with
a further legislative proposal if additional efforts are needed to
improve the safety of our food supply.
Every day, parents across the Nation prepare breakfast, lunch, and
dinner for their children. They expect these meals to nourish their
children, not sicken them. Action by Congress is essential to avoid the
risk that a fruit served for breakfast is contaminated with salmonella
or that the meat or cheese added to a lunch sandwich is contaminated
with listeria or that fish served for dinner contains antibiotic
residues or that the lettuce and other fresh produce in a salad is
contaminated with E. coli.
We all must act together, and I am grateful to Senator Durbin and the
managers of the farm bill, Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, for
working with us to make this amendment possible.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleague from
Illinois, Senator Durbin, for his hard work to improve his food safety
amendment No. 3539, which was accepted earlier this week. I had
concerns with this amendment as introduced because I think we should
focus on real solutions, not just abandon our current processes. I
appreciate my colleague's willingness to listen to my concerns and
those of Senator Kennedy and work to address them. In this time of
partisan bickering, I am gratified to see that cooperation is indeed
possible.
Our food safety system is the best in the world. We have an
incredible variety of foods available to us, at relatively low prices,
and with a generally excellent track record for safety. But things
aren't perfect, and I think we have plenty of work to do to make things
even better. The HELP Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FDA,
held a very informative hearing on food safety 1 week ago. We got some
great recommendations from stakeholders during that hearing, and we
plan to use those recommendations and the recent reports from HHS and
FDA to develop bipartisan legislation.
Going back a little further, during floor debate on the FDA bill in
May, Senator Durbin and I, along with Senator Kennedy, worked on a food
safety amendment that was accepted 94 to 0. At that time, I pledged to
work with my colleagues on a comprehensive response to food safety. I
stand by that commitment.
I know that our staffs have met on food safety and work well
together. It is important that we get this right and that we get it
done. We can make real progress on real legislation to reform the food
safety system.
Let's keep working together. We can have real reform on this and on
other important issues such as health care. I look forward to working
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve victory for
the American people on these important topics.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, per rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of
the Senate, I certify that I proposed an amendment to H.R. 2419, the
farm bill, that addresses income averaging for amounts received in
connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation. This amendment is a
limited tax benefit.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to give my reasons for
supporting the Senate passage of H.R. 2419, The Farm, Nutrition, and
Bioenergy Act of 2007, also known as the 2007 farm bill. I am voting
for it notwithstanding the subsidies that have grown since the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, and I believe moving toward a free
market for agriculture is highly desirable.
Many constituents in my home State of Pennsylvania have contacted me
to express support for final passage of the 5-year 2007 farm bill as
soon as possible. Agriculture is Pennsylvania's No. 1 industry,
contributing about $45 billion to the economy through production, food
processing, marketing, transportation and manufacturing. Since taking
office in 1981, I have fought hard for agriculture and nutrition
programs.
The many provisions in the bill that are beneficial to Pennsylvania
include the Milk Income Loss Contract program for our dairy producers,
increased funding for specialty crops, increased funding for nutrition
programs, and increased funding for conservation programs. While other
regions have received more money in previous farm bills through subsidy
programs for cotton, rice, wheat, soybean, and corn, this farm bill
directs more money to agriculture products in Pennsylvania than
previous farm bills.
The MILC program provides countercyclical payments to our dairy
producers when the price of milk falls below a set trigger price. Since
its inception in the 2002 farm bill, it has provided more than $220
million to our Pennsylvania dairy farmers. Although I worked hard to
ensure that any dairy provisions addressed costs of production, there
was resistance from Senators from other regions in the United States.
The bill also requires mandatory price reporting of sales transactions
of dairy commodities and calls for a study of collapsing the dairy
class system and a study of advance pricing. These provisions will help
create an open, transparent dairy market benefiting dairy farmers and
consumers.
Pennsylvania's specialty crop producers that include mushrooms,
apples, freestone peaches, and grapes will get the assistance they need
to market their products. The bill provides about $2.2 billion in
research and marketing programs funding. This is the most ever set
aside in a farm bill to assist these farmers who are left out of
traditional Federal farm programs.
The bill includes about $197.5 billion for nutrition programs, as
compared to about $178.158 billion in the previous 2002 farm bill. The
bill also includes $1 billion to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Program, FFVP, nationwide over 5 years to reach nearly 4.5 million low-
income children. FFVP allows schools to offer and promote free fresh
fruits and vegetables during the day.
Finally, the bill includes increased money for conservation programs
to help farmers use environmentally friendly farming practices. There
is
[[Page S15628]]
about $22 billion for conservation programs, which is about $5 billion
more than the 2002 farm bill. More specifically, the bill has $165
million for conservation programs in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,
which includes large sections of Pennsylvania.
Taken together, these important programs benefit Pennsylvania.
Therefore, I support this farm bill.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about
agricultural inspection at the Department of Homeland Security.
I believe there is a serious problem with agriculture inspections at
the Department of Homeland Security.
The causes are many. The stakes are high. The impact is potentially
devastating.
Here are the facts--documented in a 2006 GAO report, a 2007
Congressional Research Service memorandum, and a 2007 report prepared
for the House Committee on Agriculture.
Agriculture inspection at several key American points of entry has
significantly decreased. Inspections decreased in Miami by 12.7
percent, in Boston by 17.9 percent, and San Francisco by 21.4 percent;
the number of quarantine significant pest interceptions has declined by
31 percent since its high of nearly 74,000 in 2002; 22 percent of
agricultural specialists' time is spent on duties other than
agriculture inspection; and agriculture inspection at DHS is
subordinate to the Department's other priorities for drug and weapons
enforcement.
As the senior Senator from California, the largest agriculture State
in the Nation--a $32 billion industry--I cannot stand by while three
infestations of Medfly have occurred in my State just this year.
And other States have similar problems. Florida has seen a 29-percent
increase in pest outbreaks over the last 4 years.
It was my intention to offer an amendment to move the agriculture
inspection function back to the USDA--and I want to thank my lead
cosponsors on this amendment, Senator Martinez and Senator Casey.
However, I recognize there is strong objection to considering my
amendment in the Senate.
I have had multiple discussions with Secretary Chertoff on this
issue, and he has agreed to take action to improve agriculture
inspection.
Specifically, he has agreed to create a new Deputy Executive Director
for Agriculture Operational Oversight that is responsible for: managing
the joint Customs and Border Protection and USDA Agriculture Quality
Assurance program; monitoring agricultural inspection performance for
risk and efficiency; securing appropriate staffing and budget
allocation for agriculture inspection; ensuring that all directives and
policies specific to the agricultural programs are executed in
compliance with the agriculture mission; and ensuring there is open
dialogue with State and Federal counterparts to assure agricultural
inspection activities are being properly handled at ports of entry.
Additionally, he has assured me that the agriculture inspectors' time
will no longer be used for anything other than agriculture inspection.
So in light of those commitments, I have agreed to defer the
amendment.
I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the
December 13 letter from Secretary Chertoff, and the accompanying two
documents, which are copies of the two memoranda from the U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, establishing the actions to which we have
agreed.
But I will watch carefully to see that what the Secretary has agreed
to is implemented in the Department.
I want to thank the California Farm Bureau, the American Farm Bureau,
the State Departments of Agriculture and their association, the
Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, and the many farm organizations that
supported this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the documents
to which I have referred and the list of these organizations that wrote
in support.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
Washington, DC, December 13. 2007.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I appreciate the discussions we
have had over the last few weeks concerning the agricultural
mission within U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). I
want to inform you of two actions the Department of Homeland
Security is taking to address the concerns you have raised.
First, at my direction, the Assistant Commissioner of Field
Operations at CBP has sent a memo to all field offices
(attached) reaffirming that the Agriculture Specialists are
to be specifically assigned to agricultural inspection
activities and will be dedicated to the mission of protecting
the Nation's food supply and agricultural industry from
pests, diseases. and related bio-threats, absent exigent
operational circumstances. To promote consistent
implementation of this policy, the memo also outlines
measures that CBP is taking to ensure that the activities of
Agriculture Specialists are accurately recorded in CBP's
Overtime and Scheduling System.
Second, as of January 2, 2008, a new position will he
established within CBP to improve oversight of the
agricultural mission across all CBP field offices. Named the
Deputy Executive Director, Agriculture Operational Oversight,
the new position will report to the Executive Director for
Agriculture Programs and Trade liaison at CBP headquarters.
The Deputy Executive Director will be charged with ensuring a
more consistent application of agriculture inspection policy
across all ports. The position will also serve as a primary
point of contact for Joint Agency Task Force coordination
issues for the Department, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) within the Department of
Agriculture and stakeholders, and it will be responsible for
outreach to Federal and State officials on border inspection
issues. The Deputy Executive Director will oversee the Joint
CBP/APHIS Agriculture Quality Assurance program and monitor
agricultural performance measures for risk and efficiency.
This office will also ensure compliance with all directives
and policies specific to the agricultural programs, to
include conducting field audits and reviews of Agriculture
Specialist activities, and correcting deficiencies. In
addition, the Deputy Executive Director will work to ensure
that Agriculture Specialists have the equipment and resources
needed to perform the agricultural inspection function. (A
memo to field offices describing the new position in more
detail is attached.)
I greatly appreciate your engagement on these critical
issues, and I look forward to continuing our discussions with
respect to your questions on agricultural referrals to
secondary inspection. The measures we are undertaking are a
direct result of our constructive dialogue, your dedication
to the agricultural community, the essential work done by CBP
Agriculture Specialists, and the desire to protect American
agriculture from harmful pests and diseases.
Sincerely,
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary.
____
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection,
Washington, DC, December 10, 2007.
Memorandum for: Directors, Field Operations; Director,
PreClearance.
From: Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
Subject: Utilization of Agriculture Specialists and Related
Time and Attendance Information (TC-FY-08-0222).
The purpose of this memorandum is two-fold, first, to
ensure that Agriculture Specialists (CBPAS) are performing
inspectional activities directly related to the protection of
American agriculture; and second to provide clear guidance on
the utilization of Cost Management Information System (CMIS)
codes housed within COSS that are specifically designed for
use by CBPAS.
Directors, Field Operations must ensure that CBPAS are
assigned to agricultural inspectional activities at the
individual ports of entry. It is imperative that assignments
for these employees are dedicated to the mission of
protecting the Nation's food supply and agricultural industry
from pests and diseases absent exigent operational
circumstances.
Clear guidance on the use of CMIS codes are housed in the
Customs and Border Protection Overtime and Scheduling System
(COSS) and are structured to reflect the range of operational
functions combined within CBP. CMIS codes are focused on
Customs, Immigration- and Agriculture-related functionality
to reflect and define the totality of services offered by
CBP. CMIS aids the Agency in aligning the personnel labor
information in COSS to CBP financial reporting requirements.
Further, CMIS enhances the Agency's ability to track User
Fee-related activity costs, provide more accurate cost
information to external parties (i.e. Congress), and help to
establish baseline cost information necessary for developing
and monitoring annual budgets.
CBPAS perform the mission of protecting American
agriculture from harmful pests and diseases. Further, this
work must be accurately recorded in COSS using the
appropriate CMIS codes. To accomplish this, Directors of
Field Operations (DFOs) shall ensure that CBPAS are assigned
and utilized in alignment with that mission.
[[Page S15629]]
As part of the continuing Unified COSS Location Rotation
Process (UCLRP) (TC-06-1630), Directors, Field Operations
(DFO) are responsible for monitoring and overseeing this
process to ensure agriculture-related work activities are
accurately recorded. For your convenience, the UCLRP tasking
and CMIS codes are posted to the CBPnet under the OFO tab. As
part of the UCLRP, DFOs must continue to complete the
quarterly analysis and submit findings to Headquarters for
analysis.
For clarification, CMIS codes beginning with the letter
``Q'' should be utilized to capture agriculture-related
activities. The role of the CBPAS is to interpret and enforce
agricultural regulatory requirements through agricultural
inspections of travelers and cargo. Appropriate activities
are listed in the CBPAS position description and in Appendix
2 and 3 of the DHS--USDA Memorandum of Agreement of 2003
(attached).
I am directing all DFOs to ensure that CBPAS are assigned
to agricultural inspectional activities at the individual
ports of entry. Assignments for these employees must be
dedicated to the mission of protecting the Nation's food
supply and agriculture industry from pests and diseases,
absent exigent operational circumstances.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
have a member of your staff contact Ava Fleming.
Thomas S. Winkowski.
____
From: Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
Subject: Establishment of Deputy Executive Director,
Agriculture Operational Oversight, Agriculture Programs &
Trade Liaison (APTL).
This memorandum addresses the establishment of a Deputy
Executive Director position in the Agriculture Operational
Oversight position within the Agriculture Programs & Trade
Liaison (APTL) division within Customs and Border protection
(CBP) Office of Field Operations (OFO).
In order to address the concerns of agricultural
stakeholders and to provide better operational oversight for
the Agricultural Mission within CBP, I am creating a new
Deputy Executive Director, Agriculture Operational Oversight
position in APTL. The Deputy Executive Director will report
to the Executive Director for APTL.
BENEFITS OF CREATING NEW POSITION
CBP is creating a new position and office in OFO
Headquarters that will be charged with further coordinating
agricultural activities. Establishing this position will
result in more consistent application of agriculture
inspection policy across all ports. It will also provide a
primary point of contact for Joint Agency Task Force (JATF)
coordination issues for APHIS, USDA, UHS, and agriculture
industry stakeholders.
Program improvements that will be realized are coordination
and implementation of the JATF Action Plans, Agriculture
Partnership Council and stakeholder outreach. This position
will oversee the Joint CBP/APHIS Agriculture Quality
Assurance program and monitor agricultural performance
measures for risk and efficiency. It will allow CBP to
utilize trend analysis and redirect targeting and resources
to areas of highest risk. The office will also ensure that
all directives and policies specific to the agricultural
programs are executed and in compliance with CBP agriculture
mission.
To enhance operational oversight this office will ensure
resources are available for agriculture programs in the
field. This specific responsibility will ensure that all
Agricultural Specialists will have all the equipment and
other resources needed to facilitate and improve the
agricultural inspection function. Additionally, this Deputy
Executive Director will ensure appropriate staffing levels
and budget allocation for agricultural programs as well as
initiate and monitor special agricultural operations. The
Deputy Executive Director will meet regularly with state and
federal counterparts to maximize efficiencies. Emphasis will
be placed on ensuring that CBPAS are specifically assigned to
agricultural inspectional activities at the individual ports
of entry.
The new office will issue memoranda, musters, and conduct
conference calls, to clarify the expected activities, duties,
functions, roles and responsibilities of the Agricultural
Specialist (AS) in conducting CBP's mission. This individual
will ensure that AS accurately record agriculture inspection
activities in the CBP Overtime and Scheduling System (COSS).
This will better align the personnel labor information in
COSS to CBP financial reporting requirements. Furthermore,
the Deputy Executive Director will enhance the Agency's
ability to track User Fee-related activity costs and help
establish baseline cost information necessary for developing
and monitoring annual budgets. He will visit and conduct
field audits and reviews of the AS activities and compliance
with the CBP Agricultural commitment.
CHAIN OF COMMAND
The new Deputy Executive Director will work through the
current chain of command in the field and is not in the
supervisory chain for field Agriculture Specialists.
TIMEFRAME FOR CREATION OF NEW POSITION
The new Deputy Executive Director will be in place and the
office will be operational no later than January 2, 2008.
____
American Beekeeping Federation.
American Farm Bureau Federation.
American Feed Industry Association.
American Mushroom Institute.
American Nursery and Landscape Association.
American Sheep Industry Association.
American Society for Horticultural Science.
Association of Floriculture Professionals.
Cherry Marketing Institute.
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
National Association of Wheat Growers.
National Chicken Council.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
National Farmers Union.
National Milk Producers Federation.
National Pork Producers Council.
National Potato Council.
National Watermelon Association.
Nectarine Administrative Committee.
Peach Commodity Committee.
Produce Marketing Association.
Society of American Florists.
United Egg Producers.
United Fresh Produce Association.
U.S. Apple Association.
Winegrape Growers of America.
Blue Diamond Growers.
CalCot Ltd.
California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers.
California Association of Wheat Growers.
California Association of Winegrape Growers.
California Avocado Commission.
California Citrus Mutual.
California Fresh Fig Growers Association.
California Grape and Tree Fruit League.
California Plum Marketing Board.
California Strawberry Commission.
California Table Grape Commission.
California Tree Fruit Agreements.
California Tree Fruit Marketing Board.
Empire State Potato Growers, Inc.
Florida Citrus Mutual.
Florida Citrus Packers Association.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association.
Florida Strawberry Growers Association.
Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association.
Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation.
Holly Tree Farm.
Idaho Grower-Shipper Association.
Idaho Potato Commission.
Indian River Citrus League.
Maine Potato Board.
Miami-Dade County.
Michigan Apple Committee.
Michigan Agri-Business Association.
Michigan Bean Shippers Association.
Michigan Corn Growers Association.
Muddy Lake Cattle Company.
New York Wine & Grape Foundation.
New Mexico Department of Agriculture.
North Carolina Wine & Grape Council.
Northern Plains Potato Growers Association.
Northwest Horticultural Council.
Ohio Apple Growers.
Ohio Wine Producers Association.
Oregon Potato Commission.
Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Farmers Organization.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau.
Pennsylvania Farmers Union.
Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery Association.
Pennsylvania Pork Producers.
Pennsylvania Vegetable Growers Association.
Peace River Valley Citrus Growers Association.
Potato Growers of Idaho.
South East Dairy Farmers Association.
Sunkist Growers.
Sun-Maid Growers of California.
Texas Citrus Mutual.
Texas Produce Association.
Texas Wine and Grape Growers Association.
Virginia Apple Growers Association.
Washington Apple Commission.
Washington State Potato Commission.
Western Growers Association.
Western United Dairymen.
WineAmerica.
Wine Association of Georgia.
Winegrowers Association of Georgia.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am pleased that Chairman Harkin has
included a proposal of mine in his amendment. Under my proposal,
eligible elementary and secondary schools can offer grain products to
students.
Grains are a critical part of a healthy diet. They are an excellent
source of fiber. The 2005 dietary guidelines for Americans recommend
that Americans consume three or more (2-ounce) ounce-equivalents of
whole grain products per day. A diet that includes higher levels of
fiber-containing grain products provides many health benefits, such as
reducing the risk of coronary heart disease. This proposal helps
improve the diet and health of our children.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I would like to take a few minutes
to speak about a piece of legislation essential to Washington State and
its agricultural community--the 2007 farm bill. This bill is the result
of an incredible amount of hard work by many different people. In
particular, I
[[Page S15630]]
would like to extend my gratitude to the Senate Agriculture Committee
chair, Tom Harkin, and ranking member Saxby Chambliss and their staff
for the strong, bipartisan bill passed out of committee and to Senator
Debbie Stabenow and her staff for their tireless work on behalf of this
Nation's fruit and vegetable growers. These individuals, along with
many others, have created a carefully crafted compromise, resulting in
the best farm bill in Washington State history.
Washington is blessed with a wide and diverse agricultural economy.
We lead the Nation in the production of 14 agricultural crops,
including red raspberries, apples, hops, sweet cherries, pears, and
concord grapes. We rank second nationwide in the production of
asparagus, third in the production of dry peas and lentils, and fourth
in the production of wheat and barley. Washington's dairy industry
makes up over 14 percent of our agricultural economy, and we are second
nationwide in the export of fruits and vegetables. Washington's
agricultural products are pivotal to the Nation and the agriculture
industry is pivotal to Washington. From provisions dealing with
specialty crops to dairy to commodities and pulse crops, all of this
farm bill has a direct impact on my State and the many hard-working
farmers and producers living in it.
I was very pleased to work with Senator Baucus and others on the
Finance Committee to authorize the agriculture disaster relief trust
fund. The trust fund is a historic attempt to deal with agricultural
disasters in a logical and deliberate manner before they happen, as
opposed to cobbling together ad hoc relief after disaster strikes. I am
particularly pleased with the focus on pest and disease management for
our specialty crop growers. The fund also includes mandatory funding
for the Tree Assistance Program--a program that helps growers replace
the trees upon which their crop is grown after disaster strikes. I am
pleased that my amendment that will help in the implementation of this
program and ensure that growers have access to the funds that have been
provided for them was accepted during floor consideration. I am
confident that it will be a significant improvement for growers in
Washington and across the country.
This bill also includes a critical program for Washington asparagus
growers--the Asparagus Market Loss Program. While the Andean Trade
Preferences Act and Peru Trade Promotion Agreement are likely to have a
significant positive effect on many different agricultural products,
they have led to devastation in the asparagus industry. Since the
passage of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, Washington has lost 21,000
of its 30,000 acres dedicated to asparagus, and all three of
Washington's asparagus canning facilities have now moved to Peru. In
the past 17 years, the $200 million Washington asparagus industry has
been reduced to a $75 million industry. This is the reason that I
worked so hard with Senators Stabenow and Murray to include the $15
million market loss program dedicated to asparagus growers in the farm
bill. This program will support domestic asparagus producers, helping
them plant and harvest more efficiently and remain competitive in the
international marketplace.
It is also important to remember that a farm bill is about more than
farms. It is also about addressing the Nation's nutrition needs and
finding ways to best conserve our land. As one of the pilot States for
the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Washington can attest to the
positive impact created by this innovative program. Not only does this
program provide fresh and nutritious food for our schoolchildren, but
in doing so, it creates a domestic market for our fruit and vegetable
growers. Well-nourished children are given a greater opportunity to
succeed in school, and children who are provided fresh fruit and
vegetables as opposed to chips, cookies, and other junk foods, have a
head start in fighting the epidemic of childhood obesity. The $1.1
billion provided for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program in this bill
will extend this program to 100 schools in each State so that children
across the country can benefit from the nutritious snacks provided by
America's farmers. This program is a key piece of the overall nutrition
focus in this bill. From children's advocates to the religious
community to college students and health organizations, I have heard
from a wide variety of constituents on the importance of nutrition
programs, and I am pleased this bill prioritizes our country's
nutrition needs.
In addition to agriculture and nutrition, the farm bill's
conservation title is a high priority for Washington and
Washingtonians. From the shimmering Puget Sound and the majestic
Cascade Mountains, to the breathtaking Columbia River Gorge and amber
fields of our southeast counties, my State of Washington prides itself
on its diverse and iconic natural beauty. Protecting that natural
beauty is a top priority for me and is why I am pleased at this bill's
funding for popular conservation programs such as the Conservation
Reserve Program and measures to make popular programs like the
Conservation Security Program more accessible and easier to use for our
wheat farmers, specialty crop growers, and other producers.
Additionally, this bill provides for biomass and bioenergy research
programs and focuses in part on cellulosic feedstock, which is key for
Washington's farmers. These research programs are not only critical to
the creation of new, clean energy sources and reducing our dependence
on foreign oil, they provide another valuable domestic market for our
farmers. By focusing our efforts on expanding the involvement of our
farmers in creating clean renewable energy, we are helping our farmers,
helping our environment, and being good stewards of the taxpayer
dollar. I commend the Agriculture Committee on a strong conservation
title. I will look to find ways in which it can be strengthened even
further and will vote against any attempt to weaken it.
From a historic investment in specialty crop programs to the
significantly improved nutrition title and the strong conservation
title, the committee bill before us today is the best bill for
Washington in memory. Once again, thank you to Senators Harkin and
Chambliss for their work on this strong, bipartisan bill. I strongly
urge all Senators to vote in favor of final passage.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the 2007 farm
bill. I want to thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss for
putting together a bill that starts us down the road toward Federal
policies that support small family farms, policies that protect our
environment, and policies that provide adequate nourishment for our
most needy families.
It is, however, unfortunate that every serious effort on the floor to
move this bill further down the road of reform was defeated. The FRESH
Act, Dorgan-Grassley, Senator Brown's crop insurance reforms, and
Senator Klobuchar's amendment all would have moved us away from
outdated costly farm programs toward more funds for conservation,
nutrition, and help for small farms. Then, after these defeats, the
last reform amendment proposed by Senator Feingold and myself was
denied floor time after we had been promised a slot.
Yesterday was certainly a sad day in the Senate. First Big Oil
stopped the Senate from taking oil subsidies to pay for renewable
energy, and then Big Agriculture successfully blocked all efforts to
make a more balanced and fair farm bill that helps small farmers
instead of mega factory farms.
In order for the Nation's farming economy to thrive, we need look no
further than the successes of New Jersey. My home State has sensibly
promoted healthy foods, local foods, environmentally friendly farming
practices, and small family farms. As it turns out, these four things
could not fit together more perfectly.
The problem for small farmers is how to compete with the giant
factory farms for food processing or grocery store contracts.
Tragically, the answer is that far too often they cannot compete, and
they are forced to sell the family farm. Over the last 5 years, the
number of small farms has decreased nationwide by over 80,000. Over
80,000 families had to sell their land to factory farms or to
developers and choose a different line of work. The decline of the
small farm means depressed rural economies, more suburban sprawl, and a
loss of a way of life.
But in my home State of New Jersey the number of small farms has
actually
[[Page S15631]]
risen by 400 farms. So how is it that New Jersey has been able to
increase the number of small farms while the rest of the country has
seen such a steep decline? There are two answers.
The first is that the State has a robust program to preserve
farmland. With help from the Farmland Protection Program, the State
purchases the right to develop a farmer's land, so farmers get the
added income they need to keep the family farm and resist the
temptation of developers or large factory farmers. Farmers want to stay
farmers, and farming communities want to remain farming communities.
Smart conservation programs allow this to happen and can help preserve
a way of life. To date, New Jersey has preserved more than 1,500
farms covering approximately 157,000 acres. Unfortunately, this bill
does not add any new money for this essential farmland protection
program, and efforts to do so on the floor were thwarted.
The second reason small family farms are flourishing in New Jersey is
the expansion of farmers' markets. We have nearly 100 farm markets in
my home State, and we add about five or six more every year. These
markets give our farmers access directly to the consumers. This keeps
more money in farmers' pockets by eliminating the need to do business
through food distributors.
And farm markets do not just benefit farmers, but they also greatly
benefit urban communities that have limited access to healthy foods.
Farm markets allow our city dwellers to enjoy the freshest blueberries,
peppers, cranberries, and peaches straight from the field.
So in this way New Jersey has created a system whereby small farmers
flourish, open spaces are preserved, and citizens get better access to
healthy foods. It is a win-win-win situation that must be continued and
encouraged in New Jersey and across the Nation.
That is why I regret we could not have done more in this bill but am
pleased to see some small reforms that will help lead the country in
this direction. I specifically want to applaud the Agriculture
Committee for adopting a few policies that were in my Healthy Farms,
Foods and Fuels Act of 2007.
First, the farm bill of 2007 expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Program to every State in the country and targets benefits to low-
income children. During a long school day, children often need a snack
to keep them nourished and keep their minds focused on their
schoolwork. Instead of filling up with candy or sodas, this innovative
program provides children fresh fruits and vegetables. It is a
healthier option that will lead to healthier habits in school and at
home.
Another program expanded in my bill and here in the 2007 farm bill is
the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program. After all, it is not just
children who often lack access to healthy foods. The Senior Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program awards grants to State governments to provide
low-income seniors with coupons that can be exchanged for healthy foods
at farm markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture
programs.
One last point of agreement between my Healthy Farms bill and the
2007 farm bill that I want to point out is the restoration of the
authority of schools to buy local foods in the School Lunch Program. By
preferentially buying local foods, communities can support their local
farms while giving their children fresher and more nutritious food
options.
These three programs are great starting points for the Nation to
emulate the great successes I have seen in New Jersey. These
reforms will lead to a healthier, more profitable, and greener American
farm economy.
Another thing I want to applaud the Agriculture Committee for is what
they have done for specialty crop farmers. For the first time,
specialty crops were given their own title in the bill. Specialty crops
are the fruits, vegetables, and other crops that keep America healthy
and constitute half of the Nation's agricultural cash receipts but have
received little recognition in previous farm bills. This farm bill is
different, with over $3 billion to fund specialty crops provisions. New
Jersey is a national leader in growing specialty crops such as
blueberries, cranberries, peppers, peaches, and spinach, and these
provisions will be a huge help to farmers in my home State.
While the bill that left committee was a great step in the right
direction, there were several areas that needed improving.
One was the definition of the term ``rural area.'' The original text
changed the definition of ``rural area'' in a way that would have
unfairly excluded many communities from rural development programs. But
by working with my staff and the staffs of several of my colleagues in
the Northeast, I think we have come to an agreement with Chairman
Harkin that is much more equitable.
A second issue Chairman Harkin was kind enough to work with us on,
was to include a study that will advance our understanding of the
benefits of local food production. This comprehensive study will
chronicle the impact of localized food production on our environment,
our economy, and nutrition. In addition, the study will document the
barriers for small farmers to participate in a local food economy and
suggest ways to overcome these barriers. I hope this study can provide
a roadmap for our country to follow in the next farm bill.
But I am sorry to say that it looks as if bold reform will have to
wait until the next farm bill. The amendments that would have reformed
the direct payment system and used those savings for national
priorities on nutrition and conservation all failed to pass the Senate.
Our country is ready to transition toward farm policies that
concentrate on small farmers, on healthy specialty crops, and on
conservation. I am hopeful that one day soon, small, sustainable farms
will be the rule, rather than the exception.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect
that I would have voted for the Senate farm bill today.
The bill produced by Senator Harkin's Agriculture Committee takes
many positive steps to level the playing field in American agriculture
by recognizing the importance of specialty crops to the Nation's
economy.
California is the Nation's largest agricultural State, with more than
350 different crops worth $32 billion per year. Yet our State has been
largely overlooked when it comes to the billions in Federal support for
agriculture.
The Senate bill provides important funding for programs that will
benefit California's growers, ranchers, consumers, and families.
I first would like to thank Chairman Harkin for including a number of
provisions I authored into the farm bill.
The bill includes a version of the Pollinator Protection Act and
provides $100 million over 5 years for high-priority research dedicated
to maintaining and protecting our honey bee and native pollinator
populations. There has been a loss of about 25 percent of the Nation's
honey bee population, and it is estimated that crops that depend on a
healthy bee population are valued near $18 billion, and these funds
will help give scientists the resources they need to determine the
causes of colony collapse disorder and to work on protecting bee
health.
The bill also includes my Early Pest Detection and Surveillance Act,
and authorizes $200 million over 5 years to give USDA the authority to
enter into cooperative funding agreements with States to enhance their
pest detection and surveillance programs, increase inspections at
domestic points of entry, and create pest eradication and prevention
programs.
With the assistance of consumer groups and labor unions, I was able
to negotiate a compromise that prevented a rollback of 40-year-old meat
inspection laws. The House version of the farm bill included dangerous
language that would have threatened the safety of meat and poultry, but
working with Senator Harkin, we were able to reach a compromise that
protects the integrity of the federal meat inspection process.
I also worked with Chairman Harkin to include an avocado marketing
order agreement, a $2 million authorization for a National study on
biofuels infrastructure, language prioritizing edible schoolyards
programs in schools under the Community Foods Program, and a
[[Page S15632]]
$15 million asparagus market loss program.
The Senate also accepted two important amendments that I offered to
the bill during floor consideration.
The first amendment provides USDA with a framework under the existing
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to allocate funds
toward air quality mitigation efforts in agricultural communities with
poor air quality. In rural areas around the country, smog and soot are
threatening public health, fouling communities, and reducing crop
productivity from pollution generated on farms. This amendment will
provide farmers in high-priority agricultural areas with the tools to
adopt new practices that reduce air pollution on farms.
The Klamath River Basin and the Sacramento/San Joaquin watershed have
been identified by conservation groups as being watersheds most in need
of watershed assistance programs. The Senate accepted an amendment that
recognizes these areas in California, as well as a number of other
regional watersheds throughout the country, and prioritizes funding for
these watersheds under the Regional Watershed Enhancement Program.
This farm bill provides a significant amount of new funding for
programs important to the specialty crops industry. Specialty crops now
account for nearly 50 percent of the Nation's farm gate, and this bill
recognizes the industry's importance.
Included in the Senate bill is mandatory funding for specialty crops
block grants, organic farmers, farmers market programs, trade
assistance and foreign market access programs, the community foods
program, and important specialty crops and organics research.
The bill also provides $1.1 billion in funding for the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Snack Program, expanding participation in the program to
all 50 States. This program provides a critically important strategy in
the fight to prevent and reduce childhood obesity by providing 4.5
million low-income elementary schoolchildren in 5,000 schools
nationwide the ability to receive a fresh fruit or vegetable snack
every day at school.
Numerous studies have indicated that eating fruits and vegetables can
prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and hypertension, in
addition to obesity. Yet less than one out of every six children eats
the USDA recommended amount of fresh fruit, and only one out of five
children eats the recommended amount of vegetables. The funding
included in the farm bill will ensure that schools in California and in
every State in the Nation can implement this important child nutrition
program.
Also included in the nutrition title are provisions that update and
modernize the food stamp assistance program. Updates to food stamp
assistance, like ending benefit erosion, increasing minimum benefit
amounts, and simplifying income reporting for seniors and the disabled,
are long overdue and will help provide more assistance to disadvantaged
families.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program also receives an important
funding increase to $250 million per year, which will allow the
Nation's food banks to have more of an impact on those in need.
The farm bill also provides an important opportunity to protect the
Nation's natural resources and its open space. Farmers can enroll in a
number of conservation programs that allow them to provide habitat
protection for native species, protect wetlands and grasslands, and
undertake initiatives to make their farms more environmentally
friendly.
But the last farm bill has not done enough to provide farmers with
the resources they need to fully participate in conservation
activities.
In 2004, California had a $143 million backlog in payments and
enrollments in conservation programs due to lack of funding and acreage
caps. An average of 4,000 farmers and landowners in California are
rejected each year when they apply to USDA conservation programs.
Sixty-eight percent of California's farmers seeking EQIP funding turned
away.
Nationwide, $18 billion worth of conservation applications have gone
unfunded during the life of the 2002 farm bill.
As a result of not enough funding for conservation programs,
California is rapidly losing thousands of acres of farmland and open
space. Ninety-five percent of the wetlands in the Central Valley have
been lost, and 171,000 acres of farmland were lost in California from
2002 to 2004.
The Senate bill takes important steps to provide farmers with more
access to conservation programs, but I was disappointed that during
consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, amendments to provide
more funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the
Grasslands Reserve Program did not pass.
The farm bill also authorizes a number of programs that will benefit
California's rural communities, such as low-interest loans to rural
electric cooperatives for renewable energy production and grants and
loan guarantees to develop broadband access in rural areas.
Lastly, I am pleased that the bill contains over $1 billion in
investments for farm-based energy, including the development of
cellulosic ethanol. While corn ethanol has proven to be a useful
alternative fuel, I worry about its impact on corn prices related to
the livestock industry, especially in light of the fact that
alternative fuels can be created by a number of other agricultural
sources, many of which are produced in California. The farm bill takes
steps to provide incentives for the development of cellulosic ethanol.
This farm bill is important for California's farmers, families, and
for the State's economy, and I am pleased to be supporting it.
TAX CREDIT BONDS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the managers' amendment to the farm bill
contains a deal that raises my eyebrows. The proposal creates a half
billion dollars in strippable, tradable, ``forestry tax-credit bonds''
that can be issued by a State or tax-exempt entity. Property must be
approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as subject to a ``native
fish habitat conservation plan.'' So far, we can only find one plan
that qualifies for this proposal. The proposal also completely unwinds
the arbitrage rules that were placed on these tax-credit bonds last
year to prevent abuses.
Most Americans do not know what tax-credit bonds are or even that
they exist. Essentially, these are bonds in which the federal
government pays ``interest'' in the form of credits against Federal
income tax liability. Issuers borrow at a zero percent interest rate.
The Federal tax subsidy provided to the holder of a tax credit bond is
even greater than the benefit derived from tax-exempt municipal bonds.
That is because a tax credit can be used to offset, on a dollar-for-
dollar basis, a holder's current year tax liability. With tax credit
bonds, the Federal Government bears virtually all of the cost of
borrowing--in the form of forgone revenue--even if the bonds are issued
by a non-Federal entity such as a State or local government. So, in
short, this is a rich deal.
When the tax credit bond program was initiated, the arbitrage rules
did not apply. However, we became aware of arbitrage abuses in 2006. In
response, Congress enacted arbitrage restrictions for these bonds. They
are the same restrictions that already apply to tax-exempt municipal
bonds. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 enacted the first rules relating to
arbitrage. Congress was concerned that permitting interest exemption
for arbitrage bonds represented a waste of the Federal subsidy.
One of the concerns Congress addressed was the use of sinking funds
to exploit the difference between tax-exempt and taxable rates. The
best way to understand these rules is to use an example. Let's assume
City X needs to borrow $10,000 to finance a project. City X could issue
bonds that pay no principal or interest until year 10 and fund its year
10 liability by depositing amounts into a special fund--a ``sinking
fund''--that will build up over time and be used to pay off the
interest and principal in the 10th year.
In the absence of arbitrage restrictions, City X can invest amounts
in the sinking fund over the term of the bonds at a higher yield than
the yield on the bonds--remember that tax-exempt bonds accrue interest
at zero percent. This would allow City X to earn more than is needed to
pay both the principal and interest on the bonds at maturity. This is a
subsidy funded by the
[[Page S15633]]
Federal government and paid for by tax increases on Americans.
The tax credit bond program already provides a richer subsidy than
the long standing tax exempt bond program. This proposal further
enriches this program, at the expense of taxpayers, and opens the door
for future abuse. This provision may set a dangerous precedent and
unwind all of the good work that was done to ensure that arbitrage
abuses of tax credit bonds were curtailed.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I wish to speak in favor of the farm
bill, which looks close to a vote. Many of my colleagues have already
expressed how important this legislation is to our country and rural
communities. I could not agree more with their statements and was
pleased to see the Senate finally begin legislating by considering
amendments. I would also like to thank again Chairman Harkin, Ranking
Member Chambliss, and the members of the Agriculture Committee for
their hard work on this bill.
Wyoming's agricultural community has always provided me with great
advice on how to approach our Nation's farm policy. Consistently, I
hear that livestock producers and growers want to move in a direction
that provides greater access to competitive markets and limits
Government barriers to conducting business. You see, the producers I
have spoken with believe their checks should come from an auctioneer or
buyer, not the Government. This is certainly a challenging goal
recognizing the competing global pressures on our Nation's farmers and
ranchers. However, I can say that the Senate has been able to inject
some commonsense reforms in this bill.
The livestock title is a great example of how you can go a long way
on a small budget. Reforms include a ban on packer ownership, improved
language on mandatory price reporting, better enforcement mechanisms
for the Packers and Stockyards Act, and efforts to improve how
antitrust claims are arbitrated. Language in this title will implement
country-of-origin labeling by September 30, 2008, something I have been
working on with my colleagues since I came to the Senate in 1997. Also,
the livestock title contains a ban on packer ownership and creates a
special counsel in USDA for coordinating investigations of
anticompetitive behaviors, two measures that will significantly improve
the enforcement of the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act.
Although I am pleased to see that this farm bill contains a livestock
title, I will say I am disappointed that the Senate wasn't able to
include a number of additional measures that would have promoted
competition in the livestock market. Earlier this week, we considered
the business justification amendment that would have leveled the
playing field for producers seeking recourse from anticompetitive
marketing practices. This amendment failed to reach the threshold for
passage, but I expect to continue working with my colleagues to adopt
this measure in the future.
I did not have the opportunity to offer my amendment on captive
supply reform, but I look forward to continuing my work on this
proposal. Senate Agriculture Committee hearings and numerous reports
have continued to indicate there is a need to improve the enforcement
of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The livestock industry has changed
significantly since the early days of the 20th century. The Senate
cannot fail to overlook these changes and how they adversely affect our
Nation's independent livestock producers.
As a former small business owner, I appreciate another measure in
this bill that promotes the ability for independent livestock producers
to market their products beyond the borders of their respective States.
The ban on State-inspected meat is a major barrier to small ranchers
seeking to promote their products, most of which are valued-added and
premium products, to buyers in neighboring States. State meat-packing
facilities have inspection regimes just as stringent as federally
supervised plants, and in the case of Wyoming better standards than
those at the Federal level. The United States already allows meat
products into our country from other nations to move freely across
State lines on the promise that their products comply with our Federal
standards. Why not allow meat products guaranteed to Federal
specifications to also cross State lines? I trust that as the
legislation advances I will be able to work with my colleagues to keep
this provision in the bill.
One provision in this bill that has gotten the attention of many
rural landowners is a fix to an attack on farmers and ranchers. The
Department of Homeland Security recently promulgated rules that
classify propane as a ``chemical of interest'' and would require
individuals to register certain amounts of the liquefied gas at a great
cost to the rural landowner. I appreciate the efforts of the Department
to protect our Nation from security threats, but these rules come at
the expense of ranchers and farmers who store large amounts of propane
for their operations. I am pleased to see language in this bill that
exempts rural land owners from this rule while also serving the
interests of our national security.
Wyoming's vast open spaces benefit greatly from the working lands
programs in this legislation. Producers in Wyoming continually seek
better tools that allow them to improve the productivity of their
operation while ensuring that future generations can enjoy the
landscape we enjoy today. Although I would have preferred to see more
enrollable acres and funding for programs such as EQIP and the
Grassland Reserve Program, I am confident that the package before the
Senate will continue the success of these popular programs.
Recognizing these improvements, I can say that I hoped to have
additional reforms included that would allow our farmers and ranchers
to transition from existing farm support programs. The Grassley-Dorgan
amendment would have made significant advances in ensuring that crop
assistance goes to the family farms most in need of support.
Additionally, the Senate had the opportunity to save money in this farm
bill through the substitute amendment to the commodity title offered by
my colleague, Senator Lugar. I ask that my colleagues consider reducing
the spending levels of this bill as the farm bill advances to
conference.
Mr. President, Wyoming's independent ranchers and farmers work hard
to produce agricultural products for our country, and they deserve a
farm bill that promotes competitive markets and seeks to reform farm
support programs. The Senate has been able to put together a reasonable
farm bill with realistic improvements in both of these areas. Saying
that, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the farm bill and continue
thinking about the future of agriculture and our rural communities.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the 2007 U.S. farm
bill, a tremendously important piece of legislation that will set the
course of our Nation's agricultural policy for the next 5 years. My
colleagues and their staffs have spent months preparing it, hammering
out its details, and weighing its implications for America's farmers.
It is an immense piece of legislation; and obviously, in any bill of
this size, any Senator will find provisions with which he or she will
disagree. I am no different. Certainly there are pieces I would like to
see crafted differently. But on the whole, I think it is a strong bill
and a good compromise between countless different interests, and I am
deeply grateful to my many colleagues who have worked so hard on it. I
am pleased that it has gained such strong bipartisan approval because I
believe it successfully meets the needs both of our farmers and of our
country as a whole.
First, it maintains a strong safety net for all American farmers.
With the safety net extended through the 2012 crop-year, and target
prices and insurance rates adjusted accordingly, this farm bill
protects struggling farmers whose livelihoods can be threatened by
abrupt shifts in the agricultural market. These farmers provide, in
many ways, the backbone of our economy; and this bill gives them the
security they deserve. This legislation also encourages those farmers
by expanding programs that will help get them off
[[Page S15634]]
the ground; and it opens up opportunity with aid to historically
disadvantaged farmers. The bill provides a strengthened safety net for
dairy farmers, and for the first time ever, specialty crop producers
are included within its protections.
While I applaud my colleagues, Senators Lugar and Lautenberg, for
their efforts to reform title I and boost funding for critically
important nutrition and conservation programs, I do not believe that
eliminating all direct payments is the best way to advance this goal.
This would represent a drastic turn away from decades of farm policy
that has given our Nation an abundant and stable domestic food supply.
With so many of our Nation's farmers operating on razor-thin margins, I
worry that eliminating direct payments could seriously undermine the
farm safety net. I do, however, fully support the amendment offered
yesterday by Senators Dorgan and Grassley to place a cap on subsidy
payments. This would have helped to ensure that payments are targeted
at those farmers who truly need them, and I am disappointed that the
amendment failed to gain the 60 votes required for its adoption.
I am, however, very pleased that this bill provides more than $1
billion in new money for important conservation programs that help
farmers act as responsible stewards of the land they work. It enrolls
millions of new acres in the Conservation Stewardship Program; supports
programs that protect wildlife, game, and wetlands; and creates
incentives for farmers to preserve their soil and conserve their water.
Provisions like these reflect a growing awareness of the vital
importance of environmental stewardship and give farmers the resources
to live out this laudable mission.
Lastly, the bill supports consumers along with producers, especially
those American families struggling on the verge of hunger or food
insecurity. When all is said and done, this bill will direct nearly $5
billion in new money to nutrition programs such as food stamps. Mr.
President, half of America's food stamp recipients are children--and I
am gratified that the Senate has done a good deal to provide for them
in this legislation by increasing both eligibility and benefits.
Finally, the bill allocates $1 billion to extend to all 50 States a
program that provides fresh fruits and vegetables to underprivileged
schools. I have seen the success of the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
Program firsthand, in its Connecticut pilot test. I know how vital
fresh produce is to the health of all Americans; in the case of
underprivileged schoolchildren, those who need it the most have often
gotten it the least--and I am glad this bill goes a long way toward
correcting that disparity.
In sum, Mr. President, I am satisfied that the farm bill embodies a
great deal of social responsibility. It takes steps to protect our
struggling farmers, our threatened environment, and our undernourished
families and children. With those worthy goals in mind, I am deeply
gratified the Senate has passed this important bill.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, by passing the farm bill today, the
Senate took an important step towards renewing our Nation's commitment
to helping our farming communities and strengthening Rural America's
involvement in our Nation's energy future.
This legislation provides robust new funding for conservation,
nutrition, specialty crops, and rural development. It authorizes
hundreds of millions of dollars in renewable energy initiatives to be
undertaken by family farmers working to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. It maintains a strong safety net for those farmers for the
next 5 years. It creates a new permanent disaster assistance program so
that farmers need not rely on the unpredictability of Congress to
approve emergency funding. And it includes important provisions to
increase market transparency for livestock producers in the meat
processing industry.
I am especially proud that this legislation contains my proposal to
ensure that thousands of African-American farmers will have an
opportunity to have their discrimination claims reviewed under the
Pigford settlement. For far too long, this country's hardworking black
farmers were discriminated against by our own Government, and this
legislation offers a chance for us to continue righting those wrongs.
There is a time to debate, and a time to act, and the timely
completion of this farm bill is necessary so that farmers have the
certainty they need to begin their preparations for the new crop year.
Although the farm bill has many provisions to laud, I am disappointed
in the failure of the Senate to enact stronger payment caps to ensure
that assistance is better targeted to family farmers who need the help
and away from big agribusinesses that often use these payments as a
superfluous source of revenues. I am disappointed that interests in the
crop insurance industry were successful in weakening an optional
revenue insurance program authored by my distinguished colleague from
Illinois, Senator Durbin, a forward-thinking and innovative pilot
program designed to test a new kind of safety net mechanism for
farmers.
I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue, and will
continue to work with him to stand up for America's family
farmers.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the passage of the 2007 farm
bill, which includes many important programs that benefit Michigan and
the Nation as a whole. Agriculture is Michigan's second largest
industry, and few States have such a diversity of agricultural crops.
As leading producers of traditional crops, such as corn, wheat and
soybeans, as well as specialty crops, such as apples, asparagus, beans,
blueberries and cherries, Michigan's farmers have a wide variety of
needs, and I am pleased that this farm bill contains a range of
measures that will benefit farmers throughout the State.
For too long, the farm bill has not included proper support for the
specialty crops that are such a vital part of Michigan's agricultural
economy. I am pleased that this bill will provide significantly more
assistance to specialty crop growers than we have seen in the past,
while protecting both specialty crop growers and traditional farmers by
providing disaster assistance and revenue protections in the event of
catastrophic crop losses. With measures such as specialty crop block
grants, increased incentives for organic farming, funding for specialty
crops research initiatives, and technical assistance programs, the farm
bill will provide much needed support for the specialty crop community
throughout Michigan.
I was pleased that the Senate supported the inclusion in this bill of
funding for the Asparagus Market Loss Program. This program will
provide transitional assistance to asparagus farmers that suffered
substantial market losses due to the Andean Trade Preferences Act,
ATPA. In addition, this bill includes funding for the Market Access
Program, which will help domestic farmers export their goods to foreign
markets, thus helping to alleviate our international trade deficit.
The farm bill includes strong measures to improve conservation
efforts on American farms. These programs, which are aimed at both
working lands and lands taken out of production, help protect and
improve soil quality, prevent erosion, benefit water quality, and
preserve and restore habitats. This legislation will expand the amount
of land that will benefit from conservation assistance by increasing
the Comprehensive Stewardship Program by millions of acres, and
reauthorizing the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve
Program to protect environmentally sensitive lands.
This bill will strengthen nutrition programs by providing additional
funding to our Nation's critical food programs over the next 5 years.
Nutrition programs, such as the Food Stamp Program, provide assistance
to children, low-income working families, seniors, and persons with
disabilities. It is of vital importance that we continue these food
benefits for our Nation's least fortunate and most vulnerable.
I am pleased that this bill also includes tax incentives that will
encourage continued development of biofuels and provisions to spur the
increased production of renewable fuels. Cellulosic ethanol, in
particular, offers great potential for reducing oil consumption and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the collective effect of the
provisions in the farm bill, and the
[[Page S15635]]
recently passed Energy bill will provide an additional and necessary
boost to production of these fuels.
This bill passed by the Senate today includes modest reforms to our
current producer protection programs. It eliminates some loopholes that
have allowed producers to circumvent existing payment limits and lowers
the adjusted gross income, AGI, limit for commodity programs from the
current level of $2.5 million to $1 million in 2009 and $750,000 for
2010 and beyond. However, these reforms do not go far enough. During
debate on the farm bill, I supported a number of amendments that would
have provided additional reforms to our agricultural subsidy programs
and would have redirected this funding to vital nutrition and
conservation programs. Unfortunately, none of these reforms were
adopted. I am hopeful that we can work to enact these reforms when the
Senate next considers farm legislation.
This farm bill is a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation which
includes many programs that are beneficial to Michigan's communities.
While this bill is not perfect, I believe the combination of additional
assistance for specialty crops, enhanced conservation spending, and the
increased nutrition funding included in this bill warrants support. I
am pleased the Senate was able to work in a bipartisan manner to pass a
strong farm bill to benefit our Nation's farmers and rural communities.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about an
amendment on illegal logging that I sponsored. This amendment is based
on S. 1930, the Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007, which I introduced
along with Senator Alexander and 23 bipartisan colleagues. First,
however, I want to thank Senator Harkin, Senator Chambliss, and their
staffs for working with me and my staff, to include this amendment in
the farm bill. I am very pleased that this amendment has been included
in the Senate farm bill and I look forward to working with the House to
make this important legislation law.
This legislation would strike a critical blow to illegal logging by
extending the enforcement capacity of the Lacey Act to include
illegally harvested timber. Illegal logging destroys ecosystems, harms
often poor and rural communities, forces American businesses and
workers to compete against unfairly low-cost forest products made from
illegally sourced fiber, and contributes to carbon emissions.
The Combat Illegal Logging Act changes the incentives that drive
trade in illegal timber. This legislation will raise the risks for
illegal trade without harming legal trade and will be an important step
toward leveling a playing field currently stacked against the U.S.
forest products industry and importers and retailers committed to
trading in legal wood products. Furthermore, it will also bring the
power of the U.S. market to bear on fighting the illegal logging
problem and will reinforce work being done with U.S. tax dollars to
improve governance in forest-rich developing countries.
My amendment enjoys the support of a very broad coalition that
includes members of the U.S. forest products industry, conservation
community and organized labor, and has already received bipartisan
support from many of our colleagues and I am very pleased that it was
included in the farm bill with wide support. S. 1930 has 23 bipartisan
cosponsors, many of which joined me in sponsoring this bill as an
amendment to the farm bill. These include Senators Alexander, Bingaman,
Kerry, Snowe, Feingold, Sununu, Baucus, Dodd, Stabenow, Biden, Murray,
Cantwell, Salazar, and Gregg.
This bill is the culmination of hundreds of hours of work by
stakeholders that might not naturally be seen as allies. The principal
negotiators of the compromise--the American Forest & Paper Association,
the Hardwood Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency--
deserve a tremendous amount of credit for sticking with this and
finding a solution that everyone could support. And as the bill has
evolved we have picked up more and more supporters.
Organizations endorsing this bill include: American Forest & Paper
Association, American Home Furnishings Alliance, Center for
International Environmental Law, Conservation International, Defenders
of Wildlife, Dogwood Alliance, Environmental Investigation Agency,
ForestEthics, Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, Greenpeace,
Hardwood Federation, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, International Wood
Products Association, Lowe's Home Improvement, National Association of
Home Builders, National Lumber and Building Material Dealers
Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association, National
Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rainforest
Action Network, Rainforest Alliance, Sierra Club, Society of American
Foresters, Sustainable Furniture Council, The Nature Conservancy,
Tropical Forest Trust, United Steelworkers, Wildlife Conservation
Society, and the World Wildlife Fund.
I again want to thank Senator Harkin, Senator Chambliss and their
staffs for working with me and my staff to include my amendment in this
farm bill. This will be a huge victory in the fight against illegal
logging.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the passage of the
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007, which also included an
amendment that added the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan
Improvements Act. This vital amendment will equip the Small Business
Administration, SBA, with the ability to provide a more comprehensive
and aggressive response for future disasters. I especially thank
Senator Kerry, chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, and Senators Vitter and Landrieu for their steadfast
efforts in championing this disaster legislation and ensuring its
success. I would be remiss to not also mention, and thank, Senators
Harkin and Chambliss for their tremendous leadership on the farm bill.
As we learned all too well in the aftermath of the devastating 2005
gulf coast hurricanes, it is imperative that government programs on the
frontlines are fully prepared when called upon to aid disaster victims.
The SBA's Disaster Loan program faced significant challenges in the
wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Unfortunately, the agency made
numerous well-documented mistakes and abdicated its responsibilities,
leaving many disaster victims waiting months for loans to be processed
or money to be disbursed.
Disaster legislation passed today will help ensure that the SBA
continues to assist the country's small business community with the
same dedication to excellence found in the entrepreneurs it serves. I
am hopeful that with the passage of this legislation, the Agency will
be better prepared, and not repeat the errors of its past.
In my former capacity as chair and now as ranking member of the
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, reforming and
improving the SBA's Disaster Loan program has been one of my top
priorities. I have personally visited the gulf region, chaired multiple
hearings, and repeatedly sent staff to the affected areas to oversee
the SBA's disaster response. In addition, the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship unanimously passed disaster legislation
in each of the last two Congresses.
This disaster provision was a product of consensus and compromise.
Over the last 2 years, the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship has worked hand-in-glove to craft bipartisan disaster
legislation that will help the SBA respond effectively and swiftly to
future disasters.
Specifically the legislation: establishes a private disaster loan
program to be used in the aftermath of catastrophic disasters, allowing
banks to make loans directly to victims with an 85-percent government
guarantee; creates a new expedited disaster assistance business loan
program to provide short-term relief to businesses damaged or destroyed
in catastrophic disasters while they await other Federal assistance or
insurance payments; creates a new presidential declaration of
``Catastrophic National Disaster,'' which will allow the SBA to issue
nationwide economic injury disaster loans to small businesses affected
by a large-scale disaster; provides key tools for processing disaster
loan applications more quickly, such as working with qualified private
contractors to
[[Page S15636]]
process the loans and requiring the SBA to report to Congress on how
the application process can be improved; and increases the maximum size
of a disaster loan from $1.5 million to $2 million and allows nonprofit
groups to be eligible for disaster loans.
I commend my fellow Senators for passing the farm bill, which
included this crucial disaster loan provision. The President should
quickly sign this legislation into law so our country will be better
prepared to respond to potential disasters.
Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, we have put a couple of good days
together now.
Yesterday was a good step forward with the Energy bill. Now we are
about to achieve something else.
It is no mystery why: When the majority decided to work with us on
Energy, we achieved a consensus. And when they decided to work with us
on the farm bill, same thing.
This bill contains some very good things. And for that we all owe a
lot to Senator Chambliss. And I want to thank him for his outstanding
work on this bill and for his patience. This one required a lot of it.
And I also want to thank the majority leader and Chairman Harkin for
seeing this legislation through.
I am proud to represent one of the Nation's most important
agricultural States and so many family farms, which enrich and sustain
not only Kentucky but the entire Nation.
Kentucky farmers are the best in the country. And the families who
run them and the rest of the people of the Commonwealth will all
benefit from this bill's new investment in nutrition, renewable energy,
and rural development programs, as well as additional incentives for
conservation of natural resources.
We have had some real accomplishments this week--some genuine results
achieved through cooperation.
And at the risk of repeating myself, I think there is a lesson here.
Unless we find a commonsense, bipartisan path forward on legislation,
we all end up empty handed.
But today, we will not have done that. And that, I think, is a very
good thing.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I support the 2007 farm bill. I would like
to begin by thanking the chairman, Tom Harkin, for his hard work and
determination on this bill. I also would like to thank Senator Saxby
Chambliss for his efforts on this bill. Lastly, I would like to
recognize Senators Baucus and Grassley for putting together a tax
package to provide funding for agricultural disasters and other
functions in the bill.
Farm bills are not easy to move through the legislative process. A
good farm bill must balance a host of competing funding priorities and
the policies and priorities of shifting alliances of regional
interests. This farm bill was further complicated by a shrinking
baseline due to projected increases in commodity prices and the pay-go
rules put into place at the beginning of the 110th Congress. The
chairman had a smaller pool of dollars for this bill compared to the
2002 farm bill.
Through many hours of hard work, traveling the country, holding
hearings, and writing the bill, a solid compromise package emerged.
This is by and large a good bill, but it could be better.
I am sure the chairman wishes he could have done more on
conservation, energy, nutrition, and reform than was possible given the
funding constraints and the priorities of the committee. However,
Chairman Harkin and the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee
should be proud of what is in this package.
A couple of notable achievements were made. First and foremost, I
thank Chairman Harkin and the members of the committee for including an
optional Average Crop Revenue Program in the bill. The ACR is a State-
level revenue countercyclical program that provides income support when
farmer revenue dips below expected revenue.
This is a market-oriented reform that targets taxpayer support to
producers in need. Rather than being based on target prices alone like
the current programs, this program protects producers against both
yield and price declines, which combine to form a more accurate picture
of a producer's viability. It is a better safety net for farmers.
Because it is based on market prices rather than politically determined
target prices, and is targeted to those who suffer losses, it is more
defensible to taxpayers.
The program has broad bipartisan support. The administration supports
a revenue countercyclical program and Senators Chambliss, Conrad,
Thune, and others spoke in favor of the concept in the Senate
Agriculture Committee. The program also generates significant savings
that Chairman Harkin was able to use to improve commodity programs and
provide resources to conservation, nutrition, and energy programs.
This is a proposal that closely resembles a bill Senator Brown and I
offered this summer. Senators Brown and Harkin were leaders in
developing this model and moving it through the committee process.
Part of the ACR savings are used for improving our nutrition
programs. The farm bill's nutrition programs are critical for helping
alleviate hunger. In 2005, 35 million people lived in food-insecure
households, including 12.4 million children. Of these individuals, 7.6
million adults and 3.2 million children lived in households with very
low food security.
I thank the chairman for making some changes to the Food Stamp
Program and other nutrition programs that will allow more Americans to
participate in these programs. For example, the bill modifies
eligibility criteria and allocations for nutrition that have not been
updated in 30 years. For example, under current law food stamp
beneficiaries can own no more than $2,000, a number that has gone
unchanged since 1977. It is a disincentive for people to save and
unnecessarily makes many who should participate ineligible. This bill
raises the asset level to $3,500, allowing 23,000 newly eligible
individuals to participate in the Food Stamp Program by 2012 and
115,000 by 2017.
In addition, the bill increases the minimum food stamp benefit from
$10 per month to $18 per month by 2012. Like the asset test, the
minimum benefit has not kept pace with inflation. It has not been
adjusted for inflation in almost 30 years, meaning that households that
receive it can purchase only about one-third as much food as they could
have in 1979.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, approximately 615,000
households, or 738,000 people, will receive higher benefits under this
provision, nearly most of them seniors or people with disabilities.
Lastly, the bill provides $250 million per year for the Emergency
Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, the program used by 25 million people
each year to avoid going hungry. This funding will allow food pantries
and soup kitchens to provide food to individuals who don't qualify for
food stamps or can't stretch their benefits to avoid going to bed
hungry.
The most dynamic part of agriculture is the development of a robust
biofuels market and the expansion of renewable forms of energy. Our
farms and small towns have the potential to help free America from our
dependence on imported oil. This bill builds on that trend and makes
important investments in technologies that will strengthen our ability
to produce renewable energy. Overall, the bill invests $1.3 billion
over the baseline, which is a step forward but short of the $2.4
billion invested by the House.
It moves us toward producing fuels from cellulosic biomass by
investing in programs to help farmers transition to biomass crop
production, harvesting, and storage. It also provides $300 million in
grants and loan guarantees for the development of biorefineries and
biomass conversion facilities.
The energy title contains $245 million for feedstock costs for
cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel and adds $230 million for section 9006
grants and loan guarantees for solar, wind, and methane digesters.
Lastly, the bill commissions a study on ethanol pipelines and adds $25
million for E-85 infrastructure.
The bill makes major investments in conservation. The bill provides
about $4 billion over baseline for important conservation programs that
protect wildlife and water quality and prevent soil erosion. Included
in this funding is $1.2 billion for the Conservation Security Program
and the reauthorization of the Wetlands Reserve Program. The
[[Page S15637]]
bill also extends the Grasslands Reserve Program and reauthorizes the
important conservation and wildlife programs.
In other titles, I was glad to see the bill make modest gains in
trade promotion. The bill also increases the authorization for the
McGovern-Dole program, although it does not provide mandatory funding
for the program.
On food safety, the bill contains a Food Safety Commission that I
helped author with Chairman Harkin and Senator Chambliss.
The bill also contains a rural broadband mapping and access bill
based on the success of Connect Kentucky. It would expand this type of
program to other States.
This bill could be better in a number of different areas. It provides
about $1 billion less in energy funding than the House bill. I think
that could be improved given the importance of this area.
It also does not go far enough in terms of targeting payments and
income support to producers in need of assistance. The investigative
reports of the past several years have shown us that millionaires,
deceased landowners, and others who shouldn't qualify for Government
support receive payments year in and year out.
Because of rules governing loan deficiency payments, producers can
evade payment limits. Two-thirds of payments go to about 10 percent of
producers. Taxpayers provide $5.2 billion in the form of direct
payments to farmers every year regardless of whether a producer has a
good year or a bad year.
Not only is this indefensible in a time of budget deficits and high
commodity prices, it makes our commodity support programs less
sustainable for producers that really require some assistance. Now, the
compromise worked out by Senators Lincoln, Conrad, and Chambliss does
some good things--it eliminates the three-entity rule and anonymous
certificates, which are both very real improvements in the program.
Unfortunately, this bill does not go far enough.
While it does lower the means test for eligibility for payments from
the current level of $2.5 million to $750,000, many very wealthy
producers will be able to circumvent this soft cap. I am disappointed
that amendments offered by my colleagues, Senators Dorgan, Brown, and
Klobuchar, that would have tightened payment eligibility failed to pass
on the floor. I also would have hoped we could have improved the ACR
Program to provide producers with an even better option, and hope my
colleagues will work to improve it in conference.
Overall, though, this is a very good bill. I again thank the chairman
and ranking member for their hard work.
Amendment No. 3855
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the managers' package of amendments is at
the desk. Under the previous order, I ask that it be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the managers'
package is agreed to.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, 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. 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. Mr. President, under the cloture rules, I had an
amendment for which now it looks like there is the opportunity to have
a point of order raised against it, so I am not going to even call up
the amendment. I will spend a few minutes talking about it. I know
everybody wants to get out of town. I will spend some time talking
about it, and I will take as short an amount of time as possible.
It was an amendment to eliminate things that are already being done
in this country through the Agriculture Department. For example,
specialty cheeses, they have grown by 15 to 20 percent per year. We
have 16 different marketing agencies the Government, in one way or
another, is already funding.
We spend $2.5 million a year in Wisconsin already through the Ag
Department. We are going to spend $1.6 million with the Vermont cheese
marketing program for artesian cheeses. Yet in this bill we are
authorizing another program. This amendment was designed to take that
out.
Also, this amendment deals with areas in terms of USDA loans for golf
courses, for resorts, for entertainment complexes, to businesses that
have nothing to do with agriculture, to businesses that have assets in
excess of $60 billion apiece.
So the idea of the amendment was to, first of all, refine where we
are loaning the taxpayers' money to businesses and, also, to look at
the $1.6 billion the USDA has lost on $15 billion in the last 5 years
on loan foreclosures to these types of areas and to redirect this into
an area where we are getting better value for the taxpayers' money.
I am concerned we actually drafted this amendment, as the committee
had asked us to do it, and now we find a point of order will be raised
against it following the committee's recommendations.
So I appreciate the good work of Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss
on this bill and the way they have worked with us. My hope is we can
get a final farm bill through conference and take care of the needs of
this country.
I am somewhat depressed in the fact that there is a lot of wasteful
spending we have put into this bill and we are not going to have an
opportunity to amend that.
With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. 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. CHAMBLISS. 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. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the
Senate?
Is it appropriate for me to make some comments on the underlying bill
while we are awaiting the next action?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be appropriate.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, today, the Senate provides certainty to
America's farmers and ranchers, conservationists, school lunch program
beneficiaries, environmentalists, and rural communities all across this
great land. Today, the Senate sets aside partisanship in favor of
assisting those in need. Today, we honor our commitment to the American
agriculture sector with the passage of the Food and Energy Security Act
of 2007.
The bipartisan bill before us today is the culmination of years of
hard work on the part of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the
millions of constituents we work so hard to represent with dignity and
purpose. As in any great endeavor, this accomplishment is the fruit of
the labor of so many.
As we approach final passage of the Food and Energy Security Act of
2007, I would like to take a moment to express my thanks and
appreciation to everyone who has made this historic day possible.
First, let me extend my appreciation to the chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, Senator Tom Harkin.
Tom, you have truly been a leader throughout this process. You have
demonstrated a bipartisan work ethic that is essential to this body's
work. You have been a true friend and have been extremely cooperative
with me. I appreciate that.
Furthermore, each and every member of the Senate Agriculture
Committee has played a critical role in crafting this bill and
formulating the fiscally responsible policy contained in this farm
bill.
Every Senator, regardless of party affiliation or the region of the
country they are fortunate to represent, came together to produce a
farm bill that will carry our agriculture sector into the next 5 years
of prosperity. I would be remiss if I did not extend my praise to two
other members of the committee. First of all, Senator Blanche Lincoln.
Senator Lincoln has been a dear friend since our days in the House. We
have had the opportunity to work together on several different
agriculture measures. I am extremely appreciative for the work she has
done on this particular bill.
[[Page S15638]]
My friend, Kent Conrad, what a great champion for agriculture he has
been. I would have to say that in my 13 years in public service, I have
never served with a finer individual or legislator than Kent Conrad,
nor will I in however long I remain in public service. To Kent and to
the services he has rendered as chairman of the Budget Committee, as
well as a member of the Agriculture Committee on this endeavor, I
appreciate it.
There are a number of other folks whom I wish to acknowledge.
I would also like to thank those individuals whose work behind the
scenes was instrumental to the passage of this farm bill. I cannot say
enough about my staff director, Martha Scott Poindexter. She is the
type of staff who you want in the trenches with you, and I am fortunate
to have her on my team. Without her efforts, we would not be here
today. Also, I would like to thank the chief counsel of the committee,
Vernie Hubert. Vernie's vast knowledge of farm policy was indispensable
throughout this process. All of my staff deserves a great deal of
recognition and I extend my thanks to: Hayden Milberg, Cameron Bruett,
Kate Coler, Betsy Croker, Anne Hazlett, Christy Seyfert, Dawn Stump,
Patty Lawrence, Alan Mackey, Erin Hamm, Matt Coley, Jane Anna Harris,
and Carlisle Clarke.
I would also like to recognize Senator Harkin's staff director, Mark
Halverson and his entire staff; Jim Miller and Tom Mahr from Senator
Conrad's staff; Robert Holifield from Senator Lincoln's staff; Megan
Hauck from Senator McConnell's staff; and Ann Wright from the majority
leader's office. Their leadership and commitment helped to ensure final
passage of this critical legislation.
I am extremely proud of the legislation before us today and the
example it provides to the American people of what can be accomplished
when we focus on the needs of those we serve. While not every Member
may be pleased with each and every provision in this bill; I am certain
that we can all agree that the Senate has taken up an honorable
endeavor in securing the future of American agriculture. The
investments in this bill will not only benefit our farmers and
ranchers, but will promote prosperity far beyond the farm gate.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for final passage.
Inside the Beltway, everyone knows that the Congressional Budget
Office is a critical part of the legislative process and provides us
with the information to make informed and balanced decisions. Sometimes
their decisions frustrate us and the complex nature of their work
sometimes confuses us. Nonetheless, they are professionals and their
commitment to public service should be commended.
Every time we embark on a farm bill, the ag team at CBO is called
upon to make very difficult decisions and to analyze policy that is
based on hypothetical assumptions.
I would like to personally thank Jim Langley, Greg Hitz, Dave Hull,
Kathleen Fitzgerald, Dan Hoople, Megan Carroll, and Kathy Gramp for
their hard work this past year. They all have been extremely responsive
to my staff and helpful answering our questions.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Chambliss for his very
kind remarks. I want to say how much I have enjoyed working with him on
this legislation. If there were ever a challenge putting together this
farm bill, this has been it. Senator Chambliss has been a tremendous
partner as we put this legislation together. He has been a consummate
professional. The staff has been superb. I also thank the chairman for
his vision and his leadership in bringing a bill to the American people
that is good for taxpayers, that is good for our farm and ranch
families, that is good for the economy. I see the chairman is here and
perhaps ready to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we will very shortly go to final passage
of this bill. I will ask unanimous consent shortly to wrap that up. But
first, again, I want to respond in kind to someone I didn't know
until--well, we knew each other sort of slightly when he was in the
House and I was in the Senate during the last farm bill, when we did
that one, and then he came over and he took over as chairman of the
Agriculture Committee here and did a great job. In fact, I say to
Senator Chambliss that we wouldn't be here today were it not for his
leadership of the Agriculture Committee in the previous years where he
traveled the country and chaired hearings all over the United States.
He came to Iowa and I appreciated that very much. He laid the
groundwork for what we did this year.
He has become a friend and a close worker. I can say honestly that in
the development of this farm bill, Senator Chambliss and his staff
worked very closely with us. I can't think of any one instance in which
we were surprised or anything came up that we didn't know about. I hope
that worked both ways. We had a very open relationship on this, and I
thank Senator Chambliss for his many kindnesses and for working so
closely with me personally and with others on the committee, and
working with his side of the aisle to bring us to this point today. It
has been a great relationship. I look forward to going to conference
and getting this bill worked out as soon as possible after the first of
the year, and I look forward to getting this done, hopefully even
before the end of January.
I also thank all of the members of the committee. We have a great
committee. I can honestly say this farm bill has the imprint of every
single member of our committee. There is something in here that each
one on both sides of the aisle contributed to, either specifically or
generically, whether it is energy or conservation or farm income
protection or specialty crops or nutrition--literally every person on
this committee had his or her hand in developing it. So we have a great
committee. I am very proud of every single member on this committee.
I also want to recognize and thank members of our committee who, as
leaders on other committees, were instrumental in completing this bill.
Senator Conrad, played a key role as chairman of the Budget Committee
and senior member of our committee. Senator Baucus, the chairman of the
Finance Committee, and Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican member
of that committee, worked to obtain critical funding for this
legislation and helped shape it in our committee.
The bill we are passing today, the Food and Energy Security Act, is a
solid, forward-looking, fiscally responsible bill. It conforms to a
strict budget allocation and pay-as-you-go budget rules, yet still
addresses the varied geographical and philosophical views of Senators
in a very balanced way. This is my seventh farm bill, and as I've said
many times before: farm bills are bipartisan, not partisan. There are
regional, philosophical and other differences, to be sure. It is a very
bipartisan bill. We obviously had regional concerns, budgetary concerns
and differences of views, but I think we have answered those in a very
balanced way.
We do so much in conservation and nutrition, specialty crops, energy
initiatives, disaster assistance and crop insurance programs, stronger
income protection and promoting new opportunities for farmers and rural
communities in this country. This is a bill that is good for farmers
and ranchers. We have provisions in here for young, beginning farmers.
We have provisions in here to help people transition to organic
farming. We have major new investments in initiatives to help producers
of specialty crops. And we continue and improve income protection for
dairy producers.
I wanted to say thank you to Senator Chambliss and all of the members
of the committee, and I also want to recognize all of the committee
staff members because these staff members have worked very hard and
they deserve recognition for the passage of this bill here today.
First and foremost, I thank our very capable staff director, Mark
Halverson. Mark is a farmer in his own right, farms in my State of Iowa
and works here, so he combines it all. He is a lawyer, he is a
professional staff person, and he does actually farm. So he brings a
lot of expertise and has been a guiding hand in all of this.
I thank Martha Scott Poindexter, the chief of staff on the Republican
side,
[[Page S15639]]
for all of her guidance and for all of her great work. I thank you very
personally, Martha Scott. Thank you.
And, I say thank you to Todd Batta, who did so much on credit and
forestry; Richard Bender, on rural development; Eldon Boes, who did so
much on energy; Phil Buchan, on conservation; Dan Christenson, on
nutrition and specialty crops; Kate Cyrul, our communications director;
Katharine Ferguson, who does some of everything, covering issues and
keeping our committee on track; John Ferrell, on livestock; Kerri
Johannsen, on energy; Susan Keith, our general counsel, who has now
worked her second farm bill with us and covers all of the commodity
title. Then there is Peter Kelley, who set up all of our hearings; Amy
Lowenthal, our counsel; Tina May, again on conservation; Stephanie
Mercier, who did so much work on crop insurance and on trade; Derek
Miller, who put together a great nutrition title; Adela Ramos, who did
all of our title work on the research title and food safety; Jonathan
Urban, who worked hard on getting the reauthorization of the Commodity
Exchange Act last night; and, of course, Dave White, who has done so
much work on conservation.
I also thank our chief clerks, Bob Sturm, of course, and Jessie
Williams. As we know, Bob has retired, but he comes back once in a
while to help and we appreciate that; and we appreciate Jessie
Williams' hard work.
I would also like to mention all of the staff on the Republican side.
I thank Martha Scott Poindexter, the chief of staff on the Republican
side; Vernie Hubert, Hayden Milberg, Cameron Bruett, Kate Coler, Betsy
Croker, Anne Hazlett, Christy Seyfert, Dawn Stump, Patty Lawrence, Alan
Mackey, Erin Hamm, Matt Coley, Jane Anna Harris, and Carlisle Clarke.
They are all good, dedicated people who worked very hard on this bill.
I now wish to propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous
consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn, that no further
amendments be in order, that the substitute amendment, as amended, be
agreed to, the bill--Mr. President, I am told the managers' package
still has not been worked out. I had assumed it was. It still has not.
So we are going to have to wait a few more minutes to get the managers'
package put together and make sure it is agreed to.
With that, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, as I understand the situation--and
I stand to be corrected if I am wrong--we have a managers' package at
the desk, which has been cleared on both sides; that the amendments
which were objected to previously now are put back in; that there is an
amendment in that package which sets a lower program level in a USDA
program offsetting those amendments. With that, I understand the
managers' package is acceptable; am I correct?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, that is correct. As I recall, I had
reserved the right to object. I do not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the managers'
package is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3855) was agreed to.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending
amendments be withdrawn; that no further amendments be in order; that
the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill read the
third time, and that the cloture motion be withdrawn; that without
further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on
passage of the bill; that upon passage, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a
conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and it is
not my intention to object, we have been working closely with the
chairman's staff and with the ranking minority member to ensure that
the bipartisan ban on illegal logging would be included. I have not
been informed. Has the ban on illegal logging been included?
Mr. HARKIN. I am informed that it has.
Mr. WYDEN. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3500), as amended, was agreed to.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading
of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the final
passage of the farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the bill, as amended. The clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Nelson), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) would
each vote ``yea''.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: 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 79, nays 14, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 434 Leg.]
YEAS--79
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Wyden
NAYS--14
Bennett
Burr
Collins
DeMint
Ensign
Gregg
Hagel
Kyl
Lautenberg
Lugar
Reed
Sununu
Voinovich
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Boxer
Clinton
Dodd
McCain
Nelson (FL)
Obama
The bill (H.R. 2419), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is laid on the table. The Senate insists on its amendment,
requests a conference with the House, and the Chair is authorized to
appoint conferees.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again this is a great vote--79 votes in
favor of the farm bill is a great vote. I think it is an affirmation of
the hard work our committee put in all this year to get to this point,
on both sides of the aisle, with Senator Chambliss leading his side. On
our side, we had great cooperation and great work from all the members
of our committee.
So I look upon this very strong vote as an affirmation of this hard
work.
[[Page S15640]]
And, indeed, it was hard work. Someone said to me a little bit ago:
Gosh, December 14 is late in the year to do a farm bill. I remembered
the 1981 farm bill was passed on December 17 at 2 a.m. in the morning.
How do I remember that? Because my daughter was born 2 hours later, at
4 a.m. in the morning. So, to me, this is early. But nonetheless, it is
a great bill and we are delighted to get it through. We look forward to
going to conference now.
I wish to say one other thing. Late last night, I received a phone
call from Senator Biden and Senator Clinton and Senator Dodd and
Senator Obama. They all reached out to me to ask: Do you need our vote
for the farm bill? Because we want to be there to vote for it. We had
taken a whip count, we knew we had a good bill, we knew we would have
more than enough votes on this, and so I told each of them their vote
was not needed. But they each assured me, Senator Biden, Senator
Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama, if their vote was needed,
they would have been here, and had they been here, they would have
voted for that farm bill. So I wish to thank each of them, and I want
the record to show Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama would have
cast their votes in favor of the farm bill were they able to be here
today. I appreciate their support, and, of course, I wish each of them
excellent luck in the future.
With that, again I thank all my fellow Senators, I look forward to
our conference and wrapping up our conference sometime soon, in
January, but this is a good bill, and you can take it home. It is a
good bill for rural America and for farmers and for everyone who eats
food in this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, knowing the chairman is about my age, I
hope he doesn't have another child in the next 2 hours.
Mr. HARKIN. I sure hope not.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to add to what I said a little
earlier and some comments made before the vote.
Mr. President, today the Senate provides certainty to America's
farmers and ranchers, conservationists, school lunch program
beneficiaries, environmentalists, and rural communities all across this
great land. Today, the Senate sets aside partisanship in favor of
assisting those in need. Today, we honor our commitment to the American
agriculture sector with the passage of the Food and Energy Security Act
of 2007.
The bipartisan bill before us today is the culmination of years of
hard work on the part of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the
millions of constituents we work so hard to represent with dignity and
purpose. And, as in any great endeavor, this accomplishment is the
fruit of the labor of so many. As we approach final passage of the Food
and Energy Security Act of 2007, I would like to take a moment to
express my thanks and sincere appreciation to everyone that has made
this historic day possible.
First, let me extend my appreciation to the chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, Senator Tom Harkin. He has truly been a leader
throughout this process, demonstrating the bipartisan work ethic that
is essential to this body's work. Furthermore, each and every member of
the Senate Agriculture Committee has played a critical role in crafting
this bill and formulating the fiscally responsible policy contained in
this farm bill. Every Senator, regardless of party affiliation or the
region of the country they are fortunate to represent; came together to
produce a farm bill that will carry our agricultural sector into the
next 5 years of prosperity.
I would be remiss if I did not extend my praise to one particular
member of our committee, Senator Kent Conrad. I can say without
equivocation, that there is no way we could have arrived where we are
today without his leadership, budgetary skills, and tireless
willingness to set aside partisan differences in order to accomplish
our common goal of continuing our commitment to the American farmer and
rancher. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent has obviously
played a key role throughout this process and I have not served with a
finer individual in all my years of public service.
Inside the Beltway, everyone knows that the Congressional Budget
Office is a critical part of the legislative process and provides us
with the information to make informed and balanced decisions. Sometimes
their decisions frustrate us and the complex nature of their work
sometimes confuses us. Nonetheless, they are professionals and their
commitment to public service should be commended.
Every time we embark on a farm bill, the Agriculture Team at CBO is
called upon to make very difficult decisions and to analyze policy that
is based on hypothetical assumptions.
I would like to personally thank Jim Langley, Greg Hitz, Dave Hull,
Kathleen Fitzgerald, Dan Hoople, Megan Carroll and Kathy Gramp for
their hard work this past year. They all have been extremely responsive
to my staff and helpful answering our questions.
I would like to thank also a number of individuals who have worked
behind the scenes and who were certainly instrumental and largely
responsible for the passage of this farm bill. I can't say enough about
my staff director, Martha Scott Poindexter. She is the type of staffer
you want in the trenches with you, and I am fortunate to have her on my
team. She has been with me now, off and on, for 13 years, and she is
one great southern lady from Mississippi who understands agriculture,
having grown up on a farm. Without her, I simply wouldn't be able to
function when it comes to agriculture, so I am very pleased she was as
instrumental as she was and here to help guide me.
I would also like to thank the chief counsel to the committee, Vernie
Hubert. Vernie, with his vast knowledge of farm policy, was simply
indispensable in this process. As the chairman probably remembers,
Vernie was a staff director on the House side during the last farm
bill, as well as a couple of others previous to that. But he was a
staffer on the Democratic side, and I was so impressed with Vernie
during the course of my years in the House, that when I was elected to
the Senate, I told Martha Scott the first thing she had to do was to go
out and hire Vernie Hubert, and she did, and he has been a great one.
All my staff deserves a great deal of recognition, and I would like
to extend my thanks to: Hayden Milberg, Cameron Bruett, Kate Coler,
Betsy Croker, Anne Hazlett, Christy Seyfert, Dawn Stump, Patty
Lawrence, Alan Mackey, Erin Hamm, Matt Coley, Jane Anna Harris, and
Carlisle Clarke.
Also, to those individuals on the Democratic side, and I mentioned
Mark a little bit earlier, but this is a bipartisan committee, both
memberwise and staffwise: Todd Batta, Richard Bender, Eldon Boes, Phil
Buchan, Dan Christenson, Kate Cyrul, Katharine Ferguson, John Ferrell,
Kerri Johannsen, Susan Keith, Peter Kelley, Amy Lowenthal, Tina May,
Stephanie Mercier, Derek Miller, Adela Ramos, Jonathan Urban, and Dave
White. What great folks they are and what a great service they have
provided to Senator Harkin as well as me.
There is also, over on Senator Conrad's staff, two guys over there,
Jim Miller and Tom Marr. These two men have worked extremely hard, and
all these folks have put in hundreds of hours. I know how much time we
have put into it, but staff has two, three, and four times as many
hours as we have. To all of them, I say thank you.
To Megan Hauck, from Senator McConnell's office; Ann Wright from the
majority leader's office; Robert Holyfield from Senator Lincoln's
office, their leadership and commitment helped to ensure final passage
of this crucial legislation.
I am extremely proud of the legislation before us today and the
example it provides to the American people of what can be accomplished
when we focus on the needs of those we serve. While not every Member
may be pleased with each and every provision in this bill, I am certain
we can all agree the Senate has made an honorable endeavor in securing
the future of American agriculture. The investment in this bill will
not only benefit our farmers and ranchers but will promote prosperity
far beyond the farm gate, and I am very pleased to have been part of
this with my chairman, Senator Harkin.
[[Page S15641]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a landmark achievement. Let me
indicate to my colleagues we have counted the votes--79 votes for this
bill--and there are more votes for a farm bill than any farm bill going
back to 1973, and that is with the Presidential candidates missing.
That would have been another four votes. No farm bill has had more
votes than this bipartisan bill since 1973.
That is a tribute to our leadership, the chairman of the committee,
Senator Harkin, who came to this bill with a vision for moving
agriculture in a new direction. This is a good beginning--not
everything the chairman would have liked, and some of us had interests
that had to be addressed. So we were ready to follow his leadership,
but we also had to deal with some of the realities of our individual
States, and I know the chairman recognizes that. But we applaud him for
his vision because this bill moves in a different direction.
We have additional resources, important additional resources for
conservation and for nutrition. The people of this country will look
back on this bill, and they will also see the beginning of very
important reform. The end of the three-entity rule, the direct
attribution, dramatic reduction in adjusted gross income for
nonfarmers. It will go from $2.5 million down to $750,000.
This bill is good for the economy and it is paid for. So we all
salute the chairman and his staff: Mark Halverson, the staff director,
who has been so dedicated to this cause. Mark, we appreciate the
extraordinary efforts and energy you have put into this bill. To Susan
Keith, who is a fierce advocate and somebody who is a real pro. She
knows these programs backward and forward. Susan, we appreciate all the
contributions you have made.
To our ranking member, Senator Chambliss--``Cool Hand Luke.'' You
couldn't have a better ranking member for this committee, somebody who
has been calm in the eye of the storm. This has been tough to do, and
the occupant of the chair knows that is the case. Senator Chambliss has
been a remarkable partner. So Saxby, we have enjoyed getting to know
you and working with you, and thanks for the extraordinary
professionalism of your staff: Martha Scott Poindexter. Outstanding.
Unflappable. Always there. Very smart, very knowledgeable, and very
committed to producing a good bill for this country. Vernie Hubert, an
absolute pro. He has been on both sides of the aisle and respected on
both sides and somehow is able to maintain that respect. That is
exactly the way the Senate ought to function. Thank you so much for the
good counsel we have received.
To other Senators on the committee, let's say a special thanks to
Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, who helped us get
very important additional resources. Thank you, Senator Baucus. To
other leaders on the committee, Senator Leahy, especially on the dairy
provisions. So many others.
Senator Stabenow, who led the fight for specialty crops. We deeply
appreciate Senator Stabenow and all you did to help bring us together
as well. Senator Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar, who had special interest
in renewable energy provisions. One of the exciting things about this
bill is it is going to reduce our dependence on foreign energy.
A new Senator to the committee, Senator Casey, who has been
outstanding, a quick learner, and we appreciate his contribution.
Senator Sherrod Brown. Boy, he brings passion to this cause. You
couldn't have a better member of the committee than Sherrod Brown, who
has done his homework and is engaged.
To the other Members as well, we so deeply appreciate the
contributions that have been made. My partner right here, the Senator
from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, who has that gift for bringing people
together when it is especially difficult to do so. He has a gift, and
he is always there working to bring people in so we can reach
conclusion. Certainly to Blanche Lincoln. Boy, I tell you, you want her
on your side when you are in a fight. She is fierce, she is determined,
and she does not give up. Congratulations, Senator. We know you
represented your people and you represented them well.
To the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Nelson, who is deeply
knowledgeable. Of course, nobody knows more about crop insurance on our
committee than Ben Nelson. He has been a huge help to us. We thank them
all.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in their
accolades for what has happened here today. This is a historic move
forward, especially when you look at the votes we have for this
legislation, because it is such a good piece of legislation. We had
Republicans and Democrats coming together saying this is a new way
forward for America, for food security, for energy security, for
nutrition and all the rest of it that is good in this legislation.
I wish to thank everyone who has been involved, from Ranking Member
Chambliss's leadership, to the chairman of the committee, Tom Harkin,
and all his staff, who have been so tireless and so patient with us as
we have moved forward with this effort. It is always important, because
there are so many staff involved in this effort, to say thank you, and
I wish to thank my staff: Brendan McGuire, Tommy Olsen, Grant Leslie,
and Steve Black, and to others who have been with me working on this
legislation now for 2\1/2\ years.
Also, I wish to thank the staff of Senator Harkin, Mark Halverson,
and Susan Keith, for their great work and leadership, as well as
Senator Conrad's staff, Jim Miller and Tom Marr. Without them, it would
have been very difficult to get finalization on this legislation.
Thanks also to Senator Chambliss's staff, Martha Scott, who had a
wonderful job of making sure we put all this together and Vernie as
well. Thank you.
I think it is important also for us to put this in the context of
what has happened in the Senate. We ought to be very proud of what this
Chamber has done under the leadership of Senator Reid, who, coming into
this week, had a very tough agenda. When you think about it, the
American people should be proud of the Senate today because we have
passed a historic energy bill, which is a giant step forward in terms
of our quest for energy independence, and we have passed a Defense
authorization bill, to make sure we have the right strength in our
military forces who will defend our country and our homelands and our
world. Today, passing the farm bill, we have taken a huge step, making
sure we lead the world in terms of security.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from North Carolina
is recognized.
Mrs. DOLE. Let me add my congratulations to Senators Harkin and
Chambliss for their hard work and many accomplishments in passage of
the farm bill. I congratulate all involved.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 10 minutes
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________