[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 194 (Tuesday, December 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15897-S15898]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S15897]]
                               FARM BILL

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank Senators Harkin and Chambliss 
for their tireless work on this important bill. I know that both worked 
diligently on this legislation, and that, like all of us, they have the 
best interests of America's farmers, ranchers, rural and urban 
communities at heart. I would also like to thank the committee staff 
for the assistance and support they have provided to me and my staff 
throughout the farm bill process. While I am disappointed at the lack 
of reform in the commodity programs, the bill does make significant 
improvements in a number of other programs.
  The committee bill included a number of provisions I included in 
legislation that I introduced earlier this year, the Rural 
Opportunities Act, to help sustain and strengthen rural economies for 
the future, and create more opportunities in rural communities. I am 
pleased that the committee included a number of provisions similar to 
my legislation to support local bioeconomies and food markets, 
encourage local renewable fuels and biobased products, expand broadband 
Internet service in rural areas, and help develop the next generation 
of farmers, ranchers, and land managers.
  The bill also includes several important provisions to increase 
affordable broadband service in rural areas. Critical among the bill's 
provisions is making sure that limited Federal resources are better 
targeted to actual rural areas without broadband service. Several 
reports have highlighted problems with the current program including 
funding projects in new suburban communities.
  The bill also provides funding for the community food projects and 
other programs that promote local markets, which help farmers and 
consumers by providing a direct connection between them. I know that 
the local food movement is gaining more and more momentum, and I hope 
that these provisions in the bill will help expand this wonderful 
opportunity to even more communities across the country. There is also 
a clarification included in the bill that I first proposed in 2006 to 
help ensure that schools can use local preference when purchasing food 
for meals and snacks. The bill also makes an investment in advanced 
biofuels, as well as language from a bill I cosponsored to provide 
local residents an opportunity to invest in biorefineries located in 
their communities.
  Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the bill makes 
improvements to the Milk Income Loss Contract--MILC--program. Along 
with several of my colleagues, including Senator Kohl, I have called 
for the MILC program's reimbursement rate to be raised to its original 
45 percent, which will happen in 2009 under this legislation. The MILC 
program is an important safety net for Wisconsin's dairy farmers, and 
one that operates in a responsible way--only kicking in and providing 
payments to farmers when times are tough. Milk prices are higher now 
than they have been in years; consequently, no MILC payments have been 
made since February of this year. Further, the MILC program caps the 
amount of payments one farmer can receive, ensuring that it helps small 
and medium farmers survive tough times without subsidizing expansion of 
larger farms. The improvements to this program are vital to farmers in 
Wisconsin.
  The bill also makes significant improvements to existing nutrition 
and conservation programs. While there is room for more improvement in 
both of these areas, I know the committee worked hard to provide 
additional funds for these programs within a very tight budget. On the 
conservation side, the bill includes significant funding for a number 
of programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, 
EQIP, the Conservation Security Program, CSP, and the Conservation 
Reserve Program, CRP. I know that these and other programs are 
extremely popular among Wisconsin farmers and residents, and I am 
pleased that the committee worked to address some of the funding 
shortfall that exists.
  The nutrition title of this bill makes significant investments in the 
Food Stamp Program. Perhaps most importantly, the bill ends benefit 
erosion by indexing benefits to inflation. The bill also removes the 
cap on deductions for childcare costs entirely, which had been set at 
$175 per month, though Wisconsin parents spend, on average, $780 per 
month on childcare. Lastly, the bill changes certain assets limits for 
the Food Stamp Program, allowing recipients to save money for 
retirement or to help send their children to college or other training. 
I know that improving food stamps was a priority for Senator Harkin, as 
it was for me and many of the other Members of this body. Other 
important programs see an increase in this bill, including the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program, grants to promote use of food stamp 
EBT cards at farmers markets, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot 
Program, and the Senior Farmers Market Program.
  I was also extremely pleased to see the addition of a new livestock 
title in the bill to promote competition and fair practices in 
agriculture. As many of my colleagues know, most areas of agriculture 
present different challenges, and often these situations are not fully 
analogous to other businesses. I am glad the committee took this step 
to address the unique problems of agriculture. I am especially glad 
that a provision I authored with Senator Grassley to prevent mandatory 
arbitration clauses in agricultural contracts was included in the bill.
  In addition to the improved competition protections that will benefit 
livestock producers, the underlying bill contains two other provisions 
that are also especially beneficial. I was glad to support Senator 
Kohl's longstanding efforts to find a way for meat from small and often 
specialty State-inspected meat processors to be sold across State lines 
so that consumers nationwide can enjoy these high quality Wisconsin 
products. The underlying bill contains a compromise that appears to 
strike a fair balance on this issue, and this is a significant benefit 
to Wisconsin's local livestock producers and processors. I was also 
glad that the underlying bill will finally allow a country-of-origin 
labeling requirement for meat and produce to be enforced.

  In addition to the Agriculture Committee's portion of the bill, the 
Finance Committee also made a significant contribution to the Senate's 
legislation. I was glad that my Farmer Tax Fairness Act was included in 
the finance portion of the bill. This legislation will update the 
optional ability for farmers and other self-employed individuals to 
remain eligible for social security and disability benefits that had 
been eroded by inflation. It also indexes the program to inflation, so 
we are not in the same situation again sometime in the future.
  I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for 
accepting several of my amendments into the managers' package. First, 
in a continuation of an effort I began with Senator Jeffords in 1998, I 
am pleased that the committee accepted my amendment to improve the 
authority of what we had called the small farm advocate in previous 
amendment. I am pleased to have continued this effort with Senator 
Sanders and hope that this small office can continue to help America's 
small and beginning farmers. On a related note, I was glad to have an 
amendment accepted that will ensure that small farm research priority 
continues to be an option even with the proposed restructuring of 
agricultural research. These small efforts can make a tremendous 
difference for our small farmers.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have long been advocating for reform 
of the Federal milk marketing order system. To that end, I was pleased 
that the chairman provided for a commission to examine dairy marketing 
orders in his draft of the bill and hope that this commission takes a 
close look at the antiquated rules that provide dairy farmers at a 
competitive disadvantage in the upper Midwest. I was also glad to have 
an amendment accepted to make a small modification to ensure the 
commission is balanced to better consider the interests of dairy 
farmers and ensuring fair competition.
  Ensuring transparency and fair competition in the dairy industry has 
also been a continuing effort throughout my Senate career. Over the 
past year, a couple developments showed a need for further action in 
this area. First, the GAO report on cash cheese trading that I 
requested with several of my colleagues confirmed that the market 
remains prone to manipulation even

[[Page S15898]]

though there have been some improvements. Secondly, a sustained nonfat 
dry milk price reporting error that lasted over a year was found to 
have cost dairy farmers millions in reduced prices. I was glad to have 
an amendment accepted that would require regular auditing of the dairy 
price reporting and require the USDA to better coordinate oversight of 
the dairy industry both within the Department and with other Federal 
agencies. I hope that this added diligence and transparency can help 
give dairy farmers added confidence in the system.
  With this year's high profile case of imported wheat gluten being 
adulterated with melamine, it is important to assess the risks and make 
sure that other high-protein products are safe. I am especially 
concerned that unsafe imports of dairy proteins such as milk protein 
concentrates and casein would have the potential to undercut consumer 
confidence in dairy products in general and severely damage our 
domestic industry and producers. Therefore, I am glad that the 
committee accepted an amendment to require a report on all high-protein 
imports including both gluten and dairy proteins to make sure that we 
are taking the proper precautions and testing.
  Every year, I distribute a survey to farmers at a booth at the 
Wisconsin Farm Technology Days and ask what their top challenges are. 
Even in this farm bill year, the responses have overwhelmingly 
indicated that health care is their top concern. I know that the farm 
bill cannot fix this problem completely and I have a proposal with 
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to move forward on the broader need 
for health care reform. But in the meantime, farmers need help meeting 
their health care needs.
  I have no doubt that many of my colleagues hear from farmers and 
their families regularly about the particular challenges they face in 
finding and affording health care. More and more, one member of a 
farming family is essentially forced to work off-farm just to be 
eligible for a health care plan. I cannot tell you how many times my 
staff and I have heard from a farmer's spouse about how much they would 
like to be spending their days working on the farm, with their family, 
but instead go into town to work as a teacher or at a bank just for the 
health care. I look forward to the results of a study that was 
cosponsored by Senator Harkin and was also accepted into the managers' 
package on the challenges farmers--and the rural areas they live in--
face in obtaining health care. I hope that this body can work in the 
future to alleviate this problem faced by so many hard-working American 
farmers.
  I also believe that as we look to expand our Nation's renewable 
energy and lessen our dependence on oil, we need to provide 
opportunities for farmers and rural communities. Earlier this year, I 
introduced the Rural Opportunity Act and am very pleased that several 
key elements supporting local bioenergy were included in the farm bill. 
One amendment I got accepted encourages the USDA's continued support 
for and the expansion of regional bioeconomy consortiums, which can 
consist of land grant universities and State agriculture agencies 
dedicated to researching and promoting sustainable and locally 
supported bioenergy. I was also pleased to work with Senator Coleman on 
another ``rural opportunity'' provision, which is based on our 
legislation, S. 1813, to provide local residents an opportunity to 
invest in biorefineries located in their communities.
  Mr. President, my home State is home to many organic producers. I was 
glad that the chairman and ranking member accepted an amendment I 
authored expressing the sense of the Senate that organic research at 
the Agricultural Research Service should get a fair share of research 
funding a--share proportional to its share of the market. It is hard to 
believe, but when we passed the 2002 farm bill, organics were a new, 
trendy, item. Today organics account for about 6 percent of food 
purchases in the U.S.
  While Wisconsin is perhaps more widely known as a leader in milk and 
cheese production, we also lead the Nation in production of cranberries 
and ginseng. I was glad to see a priority competitive research area for 
cranberries in the underlying legislation. Similarly, I was glad that 
my legislation with Senator Kohl and Representative Obey to require 
country-of-harvest labeling for ginseng was accepted as an amendment. 
This is an important step to help combat mislabeling of foreign ginseng 
as U.S. or Wisconsin grown, which receives a premium price for its 
higher quality.
  While there were many positives in this legislation, these 
accomplishments are bittersweet for me as the Senate missed an 
important opportunity for meaningful targeted reform of the farm 
support programs. I was deeply disappointed that several amendments to 
make the commodity support programs more balanced to better target 
family farms and not concentrate payments in larger corporate-scale 
operations were unsuccessful.
  While I cosponsored or supported several reform amendments, I was 
especially disappointed that despite the support of a majority of 
Senators, the Dorgan-Grassley payment limit and Klobuchar adjusted 
gross income amendments were defeated because they could not reach a 
60-vote threshold. There is no good reason why large, wealthy corporate 
farms, nonfarmers and even estates of dead people receive hundreds of 
thousands of dollars per year from taxpayers. The result on Dorgan-
Grassley was particularly troubling because we able to pass a similar 
provision in 2002.
  I was also disappointed to be prevented from offering an amendment to 
make a progressive cut to direct payments and redirect the savings to 
benefit farmers and rural America with my colleague Senator Menendez. 
Our amendment would have addressed the most serious problems with 
direct payments. Direct payments are particularly problematic because 
they are based on a history of crop growing, regardless of what is 
currently being grown or even whether the land is being farmed at all. 
Nor are they tied to need, crop prices, or weather conditions. When 
prices are low, they are insufficient; when prices are high, like now, 
they are hard to justify.
  With many needs and very few new resources available for this farm 
bill reauthorization, we recognized the need to keep the majority of 
the savings in our farmers' pockets and in our rural communities, but 
instead of going to the largest landowners, the money would have been 
refocused to meet many of the unmet needs in programs that help a broad 
number of farmers.
  Our amendment had the support of a diverse group of organizations 
including the Wisconsin Farmers Union, the New Jersey Conservation 
Foundation, the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Cornucopia 
Institute, the National Rural Health Association, the Rural Coalition, 
and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

                          ____________________