[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.

                          ____________________