[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 14, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4125-S4126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FARM BILL

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today not only as a U.S. Senator 
from Montana but also as a farmer who is actively engaged in 
agriculture, family farm agriculture. It truly is a family farm that we 
operate in north central Montana. Not only do my wife Sharla and I 
farm, but when we need help, my brother, my son-in-law, my son, and my 
daughter all step to the plate and help us.
  We just finished spring planting in north central Montana, and with 
it comes hopes for a great year. We all know the commodity prices right 
now are very good, but the rest of the story is this: Diesel prices are 
double what they were last year. Chemical prices have gone through the 
roof. Fertilizer is becoming unaffordable because the cost is so high.
  That is where the farm bill steps in--this farm bill which just came 
out of conference committee which we will vote on, hopefully, later 
today. In this farm bill, we raise the target price. We have a disaster 
program that Senator Baucus fought so hard to get into this bill so 
that farmers, when they do have a disaster, do not have to come back to 
Washington, DC, with hat in hand. They will have a safety net. We have 
country-of-origin labeling in this farm bill with some teeth in it that 
I hope the next administration takes by the horns and adopts so people 
know where their food comes from. It allows for the interstate shipment 
of meat so small meatpackers can ship their products across State 
lines, which has not been available before, to add value to meat 
products throughout this country. It has a nonfood biofuel section of 
which a part of that is a camelina pilot program, which I am very proud 
of, which offers farmers another crop for their rotation and helps this 
country become more energy independent. It also has a very aggressive 
nutrition program to help people who need help buying food, which is 
very important.
  This bill is about rural development, about making rural America all 
it can be, creating jobs, and helping meet this country's energy needs, 
creating a level of energy independence.
  This bill is also about food security for this country. We have been 
very fortunate in the United States. We have not suffered the lack of 
food that other countries have. I believe it is because of farm bills 
of the past, and it is because family farmers have done such a great 
job meeting this country's food demands.
  We need to have a farm bill that helps support those family farmers, 
and that is exactly what this farm bill does. Is it perfect? No. But is 
it pretty darn good? Yes. This farm bill does things for people in 
production agriculture that it needs to do to make sure they remain in 
business, to make sure this country's food security needs are met.
  So when I read editorials in newspapers on the east coast, west 
coast, in the Washington Post, Boston Herald, Dallas Morning News, Los 
Angeles Times--and the list goes on and on--that talk about this farm 
bill being loaded with waste and giveaways and lard, I ask the folks 
who write these editorials to come out to Montana and talk to somebody 
who has their hands in the dirt. Go out to the Midwest and see the 
kinds of challenges these folks have and ask yourself: Is this farm 
bill really full of the kind of waste you are talking about? Because it 
is not. It is a farm bill that meets the needs of America's family 
farmers. As I have said many times before, if we lose this country's 
family farmers, this country will change forever, and not for the 
better.
  So I applaud the folks who worked on the conference committee from 
both parties, from all corners of this country, to develop a farm bill 
that meets the needs of this country. I hope the Members of this Senate 
join me later on today in voting for this farm bill and sending it to 
the President's desk. I hope the President signs it because it is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll of the 
Senate.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it has now been 10 days since the 
devastating tropical cyclone hit the country of Burma. The cyclone, 
which brought sustained winds of 130 miles an hour, with gusts as high 
as 160 miles an hour, really caused widespread destruction across this 
Asian nation.
  As you can see from the before and after satellite photographs that 
are on this chart, the devastation was particularly severe in the 
country's low-lying delta area. A 12-foot wall of water swept away 
entire villages, leaving thousands dead and homeless. Bodies floated in 
floodwaters, and survivors tried to reach dry ground on boats, using 
blankets as sails. Fights broke out around the few shops that were able 
to provide any kind of food to the hungry people.
  The United Nations has estimated that between 1.2 million and 1.9 
million people have been severely affected and that cyclone-related 
deaths could reach over 100,000. Already, more than 200,000 people are 
reported missing.
  Immediately after the cyclone, countries around the world, including 
the United States, offered emergency supplies and assistance. We 
offered help in transporting badly needed food, water, and medicine. In 
fact, U.S. Navy ships that by coincidence were in the region for 
training exercises have remained in the vicinity to offer help. Yet 
almost 2 weeks after the cyclone, this natural disaster has been made 
worse by the reluctance of the Burmese military government to even 
accept international aid on the scale that is necessary. Instead, they 
have ignored the plight of their own people, as the entire world 
watches. Not only have they refused most outside assistance, they 
broadcast shameless propaganda showing the military handing out aid to 
the people. Yet reports from the ground indicate the government has 
done little or nothing to really help. In fact, there are reports that 
the government's military has confiscated some of the limited aid that 
has been allowed to enter into the country.

  Not only has the military ignored the suffering of its own people, 
but it tried to push through a sham referendum at the same time. Can 
you imagine a national election in the midst of this devastation? 
Critical time and resources were used to intimidate people to the 
polls--time and resources that should have been spent for helpless and 
suffering victims.
  U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon summed up the situation when he said:

       This is not about politics; it is about saving people's 
     lives. There is absolutely no more time to lose.

  He continued:

       Unless more aid gets into the country very quickly, we face 
     an outbreak of infectious diseases that could dwarf today's 
     crisis.

  In a country that already has one of the worst health care systems of 
the world, it is even harder for people who need medical attention to 
find it. The environment is a rich breeding ground for infection and 
contagious disease. We are hearing disturbing reports of badly injured 
people trying to dress their own wounds. The government has repeatedly 
forced humanitarian organizations such as Doctors Without Borders to 
leave the hardest hit areas. Bodies are decomposing. The contamination 
is spreading. The immediate

[[Page S4126]]

risk of waterborne disease is acute. The risk of other diseases, such 
as malaria and dengue fever, is growing as mosquitoes rapidly reproduce 
in the flooded areas.
  Existing malnutrition among children, which affects up to half the 
population in Burma, is even worse because of the flooding and cyclone.
  Mr. President, perhaps the world should not be so surprised with this 
military's outrageous reaction to this disaster. This is, after all, a 
government with a long, well-documented history of brutality to its own 
people.
  In eastern Burma, the military has destroyed 3,000 villages over the 
past 10 years. It has widely used forced labor and has recruited up to 
70,000 child soldiers--far more than any other country in the world. 
Today, Burma has an estimated 1.5 million internal and external 
refugees.
  It is a country with a well-documented history of political 
repression and torture. Two years after the Burmese people protested 
conditions in 1988, the government held an election. Aung San Suu Kyi, 
a leader in human rights around the world, was placed under house 
arrest before the election and has suffered mightily since. Despite her 
party's victory she was subjugated and imprisoned in her own home for 
most of the last 18 years. Suu Kyi has been awarded the Congressional 
Gold Medal--recognition by this Congress of her singular efforts in 
Burma to bring a new day and a new government. Last September, 
thousands of monks peacefully protested for change in Burma. Many of 
them were hunted down, imprisoned, and killed. This military junta has 
ignored global calls for dialog and an end to the violence.
  Earlier this week, ADM Timothy Keating, who leads the U.S. Pacific 
Command, and USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore landed with an American 
relief flight in Rangoon. They met directly with the Burmese military 
officials to offer help. I hope this visit does help.
  Last week, I spoke of the world taking definitive action to halt the 
genocide in Darfur. Today, we face a mounting humanitarian crisis in 
Burma.
  Some, including French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, have said 
the United Nations should invoke the responsibility to protect--a 
provision that allows the world community to help those left 
unprotected by their governments. Others argue that China, which also 
has suffered a horrible natural disaster this week, should use its 
friendship with Burma to help open the country to outside 
assistance. At a minimum, Burma should view China's response to its 
earthquake, in which it immediately and proactively stated its 
willingness to accept emergency aid, as an important way to work with 
the global community. Whatever the route, the world community, with 
American leadership and generosity, must do more to address this 
humanitarian crisis.

                          ____________________