[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29178-29199]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2419, which the clerk 
the report.
  The assistant 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.


                           Amendment No. 3500

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.

       The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), for himself, Mr. 
     Chambliss, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3500.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, that was simply the House bill that came 
over and was at the desk. On behalf of Senator Chambliss, myself, and 
others, I offer the substitute amendment as the Senate-passed bill. 
That is what is now pending at the desk.
  Today begins the deliberation and amendments on the 2007 Food and 
Energy Security Act, otherwise known as the farm bill.
  I intend to take some time to lay out basically the farm bill and the 
different titles, some of the things we did in committee, approaches 
that were done in the past, and what we are looking at in this farm 
bill. So I will take some time this afternoon to do that.
  As I understand it, under the previous order, there will be no 
amendments in order today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. It will be opening statements on the bill itself, and we 
will proceed to amendments tomorrow at whatever time the Senate 
convenes.
  Mr. President, on behalf of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry, I am pleased to bring to the floor the Food 
and Energy Security Act of 2007, which enjoys broad bipartisan support 
among all our committee members. In fact, we reported it out by voice 
vote without a negative vote among the Senators who were present. We 
had a quorum present.
  I thank our ranking member, the senior Senator from Georgia, Saxby 
Chambliss, for his leadership and partnership in producing the bill, 
along with the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, as well as chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Conrad.
  We generally refer to this legislation as the farm bill. But that 
title doesn't do justice to the range and scope of the bill. Yes, the 
bill helps farmers and ranchers who produce an abundance of food and 
fiber and are contributing ever more to our Nation's energy security. 
The bill also helps conserve and protect the environment on tens of 
millions of acres of farmland, ranchland, and wetlands. It is the most 
important legislation to allow millions of low-income American families 
put food on the table. It is the single most important legislation for 
boosting economic growth in jobs and improving the quality of life in 
rural communities across our Nation.
  We have faced a huge challenge in writing this legislation this year. 
When we wrote the last farm bill in 2002, we had about $73 billion of 
new money over 10 years to invest. But for this bill, this year, we 
barely had any funding above baseline. Fortunately, we have had some 
help from the Finance Committee in obtaining additional funds. We have 
also reexamined all of the spending in our baseline to come up with 
budget offsets. We have combined these funds and produced what I 
believe is a forward-looking bill to make historic investments in 
energy, conservation, nutrition, rural development, and promoting 
better diets and health for all Americans. It also maintains a strong 
safety net for America's farm producers.
  The bill looks to the future and creates new opportunities in 
agriculture and rural communities. Yet I emphasize that this bill 
complies with the strict pay-as-you-go budget rules we adopted earlier 
this year.
  This legislation continues a strong system of farm income protection. 
It is a truism that we have heard many times but ``no farms, no food.'' 
Our Nation needs programs that will help farm and ranch families 
survive the inevitable downturns in markets, disasters, and crop 
failures. We need these programs so that the cycles of markets and 
weather do not force out of agriculture people who are so vital to grow 
food, fiber and, increasingly, energy for our Nation.
  You will notice I referred to cycles in agriculture. That is why I 
have long been a strong supporter of what is commonly called 
countercyclical income protection programs for our farmers and 
ranchers. That is a type of program that pays adequately when farm 
income falls. Yet it is careful with taxpayers' dollars when farm 
income is good. Because a countercyclical program is good common sense, 
I have never been a fan of direct or, as they came to be known in the 
mid-1990s, freedom-to-farm payments that were enacted in the 1996 farm 
bill.
  Since the freedom-to-farm payments or the direct payments are not 
countercyclical, what we have found is that

[[Page 29179]]

they help too little when times are bad for farmers, but they are very 
hard to justify--direct payments to farmers--when we may be having 
record prices and high incomes. How can you justify giving sort of 
``free money'' when times are good? So, in my view, a very positive 
feature of the bill is that we continue the countercyclical income 
protection system we reinstated in the 2002 bill. We allow farmers at 
their option to choose a new program, called ``average crop revenue,'' 
modeled after legislation introduced by Senators Durbin and Brown. This 
new choice for farmers will make farm income protection stronger and 
more flexible. It will allow farmers better to manage their farm's risk 
in today's uncertain and evolving farm economy.
  Our legislation also includes other improvements in countercyclical 
income protection. It is reinstituting a higher payment rate in the 
Milk Income Loss Contract program, or the MILC program, and adjusting 
certain target prices and loans.
  I will explain why I stress the countercyclical elements in this 
legislation. The farm programs are supposed to be about income 
protection, helping farm and ranch families survive cycles of hard 
times--the ravages of wind and weather, pestilence--and to stay in 
business.
  The farm programs are not supposed to be just about USDA commodity 
program payments and trying to maximize those payments regardless of 
income. Now, it is true that for over 70 years Federal price and income 
supports have been the dominant feature of U.S. food and agriculture 
policy. Yet it is a mistake to suggest that farm program payments are 
somehow the most important contributor to the past success of American 
agriculture or to its success in the future. A lot of times, people say 
these farm programs in the past have been a great success. Look what 
they have done to help us become the leader in the world in terms of 
agricultural production. Well, they have been helpful but not the most 
important.
  The most vital elements in the success of American agriculture has 
been the skill, the dedication, and the hard work of the men and women 
and families on farms and ranches across the Nation, and also all of 
the people who develop and supply technology and other production 
requirements, such as all the new hybrids that have come in in the last 
30 to 40 years that increased production exponentially; and, of course, 
the highly productive land and climate with which our Nation has been 
so blessed. Thanks to those factors, agricultural productivity--get 
this--rose some 116 percent from 1960 to 2004, while in other U.S. 
industries it rose 13 percent. So there has been a 116-percent increase 
in productivity of agriculture and only 13 percent in the rest of the 
American economy.
  So while this legislation we have today is vitally important, let us 
not forget the true sources of America's agricultural strength and 
abundance. For those reasons, I strongly believe that, in addition to a 
solid countercyclical farm income protection system, we must also make 
investments to help U.S. agriculture succeed in the future, as I will 
explain in a moment.
  One area in the bill where we are reaching out to help agricultural 
producers is in initiatives for growers of what we call specialty 
crops--fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, other horticultural or 
floricultural crops. Past farm bills focused heavily on a few crops 
that have come to be known as storable commodities, most notably 
cotton, rice, corn, soybeans, and wheat, which are, of course, vitally 
important. However, according to USDA, specialty crops now account for 
roughly 50 percent of the total value of U.S. crop production.
  In this bill before us, we include a dramatic increase in our 
assistance to specialty crop producers but not in the form of subsidies 
or payments. They have not asked for those. This legislation will help 
our Nation's specialty crop growers address the very diverse challenges 
they face in today's complex and global marketplace.
  The programs within this bill will help America's specialty crop 
producers gain access to overseas markets where they can promote and 
sell their products. It will also strengthen our national prevention 
and surveillance system for invasive pests and diseases, which will 
help protect the stability and health of fruits and vegetables in this 
country. And, of course, we increase research on specialty crops to 
prevent the spread of plant-based viruses. For instance, the Clean 
Plant Network, for which we include $20 million over the life of the 
bill, will be a tremendous help to our orchard and nursery industries. 
The Clean Plant Network establishes a national system of diagnostic and 
research facilities to help ensure that our orchards and nurseries have 
the safest plant materials possible to grow the fruits and vegetables 
we need.
  We also provide a significant amount of money in this bill to address 
the trade-related challenges of U.S. specialty crop producers. The 
current trade deficit for specialty crops in the United States is 
roughly $2.7 billion. In other words, we import $2.7 billion more in 
fruits and vegetables, horticulture, items such as that, than we 
export.
  The Market Access Program at USDA provides funding to nonprofit 
agricultural trade associations and agriculture cooperatives to help 
promote U.S. agricultural products overseas--in other words, to try to 
get that balance of payments more in line. The bill invests an 
additional $94 million in the Market Access Program, which brings the 
program up to almost $240 million a year. Again, this program has been 
tremendously popular among specialty crop producers who receive nearly 
50 percent of the MAP funding.
  The bill also makes crucial investments in the prevention of invasive 
pests and diseases. A total of $200 million in new funding is provided 
for a pest and disease program at USDA to enter into cooperative 
agreements with State departments of agriculture that conduct early 
plant pest detection and surveillance activities.
  To some, the farm bill may seem an abstraction, removed from the 
pulse of everyday life, but this is not the case. The farm bill touches 
the lives of millions of Americans every single day, and nowhere is 
this more evident than in the nutrition title of the farm bill.
  In the nutrition sections of this bill, we strengthen America's 
commitment to fighting hunger and promoting sound health and nutrition. 
By strengthening food assistance to low-income Americans, the bill that 
is before us will help millions of Americans who currently live daily 
in the shadow of hunger. Because of the assistance this bill provides, 
millions of Americans will put food on their tables, will be better 
able to afford childcare so they can enter the workforce, will be able 
to save modest sums for retirement or for the education of their 
children, and because of this bill, millions of low-income children in 
schools throughout America will be introduced--some perhaps for the 
first time--to fresh fruits and vegetables that science tells us are 
critical to sound health and prevention of diet-related chronic 
diseases.
  The current USDA nutrition assistance programs need to be modernized 
and strengthened. Nowhere is that more evident than in the persistence 
of the term ``Food Stamp Program.'' We have all heard of food stamps, 
even though food stamps, the paper coupons, have long since gone by the 
wayside. So we renamed it the ``Food and Nutrition Program.'' It is no 
longer the ``Food Stamp Program,'' it is the ``Food and Nutrition 
Program.'' We update it in a number of important ways.
  We made some progress in the 2002 farm bill, but the economic 
challenges of low-income Americans, in many respects, multiplied in 
recent years.
  Since 1999, the number of Americans experiencing food insecurity has 
increased from 31 million to 35 million. Similarly, between 2000 and 
2006, median household income in the United States, adjusted for 
inflation, actually decreased. Over the same period, the number and 
percentage of American children living in poverty increased. So USDA 
food assistance has not kept up with inflation or changes in the real 
world. For example, because of budget cuts enacted in the mid-1990s, 
the purchasing power of USDA food benefits

[[Page 29180]]

has continued to erode with each passing year. Similarly, despite 
growing recognition that low-income Americans require the same 
incentives to save for their future as others, current rules all but 
force low-income Americans to spend down their meager savings to rock 
bottom before they are eligible to receive food assistance during times 
of insecurity.
  These punitive rules on family assets have not been meaningfully 
addressed since the late 1970s. Let's take the case of a single mother 
who is working and has a couple of kids. She may be working at a low-
income job, but she has put away a little bit of money for a rainy day. 
She loses her job. Something happens, and she is temporarily unemployed 
and needs to have food assistance for herself and her children. Right 
now, she has over $2,000 in savings. She is ineligible for any food 
assistance. That $2,000 was set in the 1970s and has barely been 
increased since. If it had kept up with inflation, that would be about 
$6,000 now. That is one of the items we address in this bill.
  Finally, as more and more low-income women have entered the workforce 
in recent years, Congress has often spoken of the need to support 
families during this transition from welfare to work, but our actions 
have not suited and matched our rhetoric. For example, despite the fact 
that childcare is critical to successful participation of women in the 
workforce, when calculating income for a household to qualify for food 
assistance and to set benefit levels, no more than $175 per child per 
month can be counted as childcare costs despite the fact that the 
average monthly cost of childcare in 2006 was well over $600.
  So I am proud to say this bill addresses all of these issues. It 
stops the erosion and even increases food assistance for most recipient 
families. It reforms the asset rules by increasing the asset limit 
modestly. I wish we could have done more. We just didn't have the money 
for it, but we did increase it. We also adjusted for inflation. We 
exempt tax-deferred retirement accounts and education savings accounts 
from the asset limit. We take that off the table.
  It promotes work by allowing the full deduction of childcare costs. 
They get to deduct that cost. There is no more $175 limit. Whatever 
your childcare costs, you get to deduct it. I again thank the 
administration. In their farm bill they proposed earlier this year, 
this is also one of the key features of the administration's policy, to 
take away that limit on the childcare deduction.
  Fighting hunger and food insecurity is the central mission of the 
farm bill's nutrition title, but it is not the only mission. In this 
title, we also seek to address poor health and nutrition among 
America's children. Much has been said and written about the sad state 
of nutrition among our kids, manifested in rising rates of type 2 
diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and a national epidemic of childhood 
obesity.
  In this bill, we act to improve child nutrition with a major 
expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for schools. I was 
able to initiate this program in the 2002 farm bill.
  I have always believed that one of the reasons kids don't eat fresh 
fruits and vegetables is because they simply don't have the opportunity 
to do so. I figured, let's give them an opportunity and see what 
happens. So we began by providing fresh fruits and vegetables--free, I 
might add--free fresh fruits and vegetables to 100 schools in four 
States and one Indian reservation. We wanted to test it: What would 
happen if we gave free fresh fruits and vegetables to kids at school--
not in the lunchroom, but when they get the growlies at 9 o'clock in 
the morning or in the afternoon when they get a little tired or antsy, 
kids need something to eat. What if they had fresh fruits and 
vegetables available at those times? What happened is the kids, the 
teachers, the principals, the parents all loved this program. Not one 
of the schools that has participated in this program--and it is all 
voluntary, no one is forced into it--not one school that has 
participated in this program has asked to drop out. In fact, every 
school that has participated has begged to stay in it.
  By 2005, because other States were clamoring to get into the program, 
and other schools, we expanded to 10 States and two more Indian 
reservations. That is how successful it has been. In those States in 
which we do have the program, the schools that are not getting the free 
fresh fruits and vegetables are lining up saying: We want it also.
  We have seen the positive effects it has had. Kids no longer are 
eating junk food. Kids are no longer sneaking candy and cookies. They 
are no longer going to vending machines to get some sugary snack. They 
are eating fresh fruits and vegetables.
  In this bill, we make a quantum leap forward for this program. The 
bill provides $1 billion--that is right, $1 billion--over 5 years to 
expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to reach nearly 4.5 
million children nationwide, with a special focus on high-poverty 
school districts.
  I wish to emphasize that point. I have been to some of these schools 
where they have the free fresh fruit and vegetables program. I can 
remember being in one school where some of the fourth-grade kids had 
never had a fresh apple in their entire lifetime--fourth grade; fresh 
bananas, they never had such a thing. I remember I was at a class one 
time, and they had fresh pears. The kids didn't even know what they 
were--kiwi fruit, strawberries. I remember I went to a school in Iowa 
once--and our schools let out in the summer after the first crop of 
strawberries is harvested. The principal told me that by 10 a.m. in the 
morning, there wasn't a strawberry left in school. Kids eat these fresh 
fruits. I have actually seen with my own eyes kids eat fresh broccoli. 
That may come as a surprise to some people, a shock, that kids actually 
eat fresh broccoli. I have actually seen kids eat fresh spinach.
  Because of the popularity of the program, because it has grown, some 
of the marketers are now packaging fruits and vegetables just for this 
program, so the kids get a little plastic package, they rip it open, 
and they have enough in there for a little snack. As I said, it has 
taken off. It is providing better health, better nutrition for kids. 
They study better. They behave better.
  There was some reticence when we started this program. Teachers said: 
Oh my gosh, kids will be throwing peels on the floor, apple cores at 
each other, making a mess of everything. This has not happened. In 
fact, teachers are now some of the strongest supporters of this 
program.
  So when you go into these schools, you can see these kids eating 
these foods, ripping open a package and getting little baby spinach 
leaves, and they have a little tin of ranch dip, they dip it and eat 
it. I always said I didn't like broccoli until I had fresh broccoli. 
Who likes cooked broccoli and cooked spinach? It is not good for you. 
It may be good for you, but fresh is very good.
  I emphasize this point because we are expanding this program. I have 
a goal I have stated, and as long as I am here, I am going to keep 
fighting for that goal; that is, to make sure this program is available 
to every elementary school in America within 10 years. I think it will 
do more to prevent childhood obesity, provide better health, plus when 
kids start eating these fruits and vegetables--and we have some 
anecdotal evidence of kids who are eating fresh fruits and vegetables, 
and they go home and ask their parents: Can we have some of this at 
home or they go to the store with their parents, when they go shopping, 
and say: I had this in school, I really liked this fruit or I like 
these vegetables, can we have this at home? It is going to do a lot for 
helping get at this problem of childhood obesity and some of the 
chronic diseases, such as diabetes, among younger kids.
  Now, I wish to talk a little bit about the energy title, another very 
important and kind of a new area for agriculture. The energy title will 
help farmers in rural communities across the country join in a major 
transition in which our agricultural sector supplies clean biofuels and 
renewable energy for all of America. It gives farmers a chance to add 
biomass crops to their farming operations, with Federal

[[Page 29181]]

 support to protect against the financial risks associated with the 
transition. It supports rural communities with the development of 
biorefineries for the production of biofuels and bioproducts. It helps 
farmers and ranchers and rural small businesses that want to improve 
their own energy systems through grants and loan guarantees for energy 
efficiency improvements and renewable energy systems. It emphasizes a 
particular opportunity--help for farmers and communities to install 
livestock manure to energy facilities that address environmental and 
odor problems, while utilizing a valuable energy resource. It will make 
investments in research that will complement and enhance rural energy 
production opportunities. Members of the Senate are well aware of the 
disastrous consequences of America's dependence on foreign oil. No less 
an authority than Alan Greenspan has said the war in Iraq is about oil. 
At the same time, with oil prices relentlessly approaching $100 a 
barrel, our dependence on foreign oil is a threat to both our national 
security and the health of our economy.
  The bigger picture is that new oil discoveries around the world are 
steadily declining at the same time that global oil consumption is 
rising. I have a chart to indicate that. These are the billion barrels 
of oil per year in discoveries, and we can see in the 1930s, the 1950s, 
a huge increase, the 1960s, the 1970s a little bump up there with 
Alaska, and then we keep coming down. We can see that global oil 
discoveries are rapidly, rapidly, rapidly declining. At the same time, 
we superimposed on that this red line showing consumption. So as the 
oil discoveries are going down, look at our consumption. It keeps going 
up and up and up.
  Well, the Petroleum Council's report delivered to the Department of 
Energy this past summer states that:

       It is a hard truth that the global supply of oil and 
     natural gas from the conventional sources relied upon 
     historically is unlikely to meet the projected 50- to 60-
     percent growth in demand over the next 25 years.

  Well, our country needs energy. We need energy to grow and to 
produce. We need energy for the new kinds of manufacturing we are going 
to have in this country, for transportation. It is an urgent national 
priority to accelerate our transition from oil to homegrown, farm-based 
renewable sources of fuel and electrical power. If we reach our full 
potential in producing renewable biofuels using feedstocks from our 
farms and forests, we can replace as much as 30 percent of our 
transportation fuels by 2030--by 2030.
  Right now, current ethanol production is about 7 billion gallons 
annually. I believe we are headed toward a production of 60 billion 
gallons of biofuels, requiring 50 to 100 million acres of crop lands 
dedicated to biomass crops by the year 2030. These charts show the 
sharp upward trajectory of biofuels over the past 5 years and with the 
contributions we are making in this bill.
  So here is what we have done in biofuels. It doesn't go back very 
far. If you go back to about the late 1980s, early 1990s--millions of 
gallons. Not very much. But look at the sharp curve up as we came up in 
the late 1990s into 2000 and 2005. Then let us look at the projections. 
Here we are at 2005, and here is 2030 at 60 billion gallons per year. 
So that is the trajectory. That is the trajectory we are basically on 
and a lot of us are committed to. Senator Lugar and I have a bill in 
that basically--and others have cosponsored it--to mandate we reach 
that level by 2030.
  Well, the energy title in this bill allocates $1.1 billion over 5 
years for new investments in farm-based energy. It is imperative we 
accelerate the transition of biofuels produced from cellulosic 
feedstocks, in addition to grains and oilseeds, if we want to get to 
that 60 billion gallons per year. And here, in addition to speeding up 
the development and evaluation of conversion technologies, we also 
confront a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma. Entrepreneurs would not 
build cellulosic biorefineries in the absence of reliable feedstock. 
Producers would not grow the cellulosic feedstocks unless and until 
there are biorefineries to produce them. Well, in this bill we address 
this dilemma very aggressively.
  On the supply side, we allocate $130 million over 5 years to the 
biomass crop transition program. We know it takes a few years to get 
crops, such as switchgrass or miscanthus or soft pine or fast-growing 
poplars or whatever it might be, to get them started and established, 
so farmers are going to need financial assistance during the 
transition. That is what we provide in the Senate bill.
  On the other side, on the demand side, we allocate $300 million to 
support grants and loans for biorefinery pilot plants, loan guarantees 
for commercial biorefineries, and support for repowering existing corn 
ethanol plants and other facilities so they can process cellulosic 
ethanol.
  In addition, we continue the CCC Bioenergy Program with $245 million 
to support feedstock purchases for advanced biofuels production. We 
continue the section 9006 program of grants and loan guarantees that we 
put in the 2002 farm bill. This is for farmers and ranchers to purchase 
renewable energy systems or energy efficiency systems for their own 
farm or ranch. The budget for this is $230 million, double what we put 
in the farm bill in 2002. We are including about $140 million for 
biomass research, including biomass crop experiments.
  A large part of the future of biofuels lies in the use of cellulosic 
feedstocks. Cellulosic fuels, biofuels, can be produced just about 
everywhere in the United States. This will expand biofuels production 
beyond our major corn-producing regions and to places closer to where 
the fuels are blended and consumed.
  I will make this prediction. If we can preserve the Senate energy 
provisions in conference--maybe get some additional funding for them, 
which we will try to do--I predict that within 5 years, by the end of 
the life of this farm bill, we are going to see cellulosic biofuel 
refineries sprouting up akin to mushrooms all over this country. That 
will help restore our energy security and our national security. It is 
good for the environment and good for farmers and the rural economy.
  Now, let me talk a little bit about another important part of this 
farm bill, and that is the conservation title. Agriculture and forest 
lands account for 69 percent of all the land in the United States. That 
means farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners are the first line of 
defense for our environment. They are America's first conservationists. 
The conservation title of this bill gives them the tools they need for 
voluntary efforts to conserve oil, to protect water and air quality, to 
increase wildlife habitat on their land, and maintain and improve our 
Nation's natural resources for future generations.
  The conservation programs are similar to a toolkit to address 
conservation needs, from the basic function of providing technical 
assistance on how best to, for instance, protect the waterway from 
erosion and runoff, to paying for easements, to protect wetlands and 
grasslands or working farmland that is under the threat of development, 
to cost-share incentive payments and enhancement payments to help 
farmers build and adopt new conservation practices.
  This bill looks to the future in preserving our natural resources by 
allocating $4 billion in new budget authority for the conservation 
title. This is extraordinarily important to the future of farming in 
the United States. I am pleased we were able to accomplish so much with 
relatively limited funding. For example, the Wetlands Reserve Program 
had no baseline to continue to enroll wetlands after this year, so we 
had to put in new money for that. The Grassland Reserve Program was 
also out of funds to enroll new land. We had to put new money in for 
that. The Conservation Security Program's funding had been cut by 
billions, almost $4 billion over the last 5 years, to pay for 
agricultural disasters and budget reconciliation. We needed to restore 
sufficient funding to allow the program to enroll more acres 
nationwide, and I am pleased to say we have successfully resolved all 
of these funding challenges.
  In addition to maintaining or expanding existing programs, we 
addressed some new needs in this bill. For

[[Page 29182]]

example, here in the mid-Atlantic area, where Washington, DC, is 
located, we devote $165 million to improving conservation to help clean 
up the Chesapeake Bay. This is money that will be used for upland 
treatment so all that runoff would not be going into the Chesapeake 
Bay.
  In the Southeast, in order to provide better wildlife habitat, we 
provide funding to improve the management of trees planted on 
Conservation Reserve Program acres. I am pleased to join with the 
committee's ranking member, Senator Chambliss, who was the basic mover 
behind this.
  The conservation title also establishes new incentives for producers 
to allow voluntary public access to their land for hunting, fishing, 
and other wildlife-related activities. Senator Conrad has been a leader 
on this issue. I am pleased to have cosponsored his legislation, and we 
have included it in this bill.
  The conservation title also makes important policy changes. We have 
worked to streamline the process to acquire conservation easements in 
the Wetland Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, and the 
Grassland Reserve Program. That process has been paper heavy since the 
beginning. In this bill, we have addressed that to cut down on the 
paperwork.
  In this bill, we make significant improvements in the Conservation 
Security Program, which was created in the 2002 farm bill to reward 
farmers and ranchers for good conservation practices on working lands. 
Now, this was new in the 2002 farm bill. In the past, most conservation 
programs were lands that were taken out of production, in one way or 
the other--wetlands, grasslands, the CRP and others. But as we saw more 
and more land coming into production, a lot of it for ethanol 
production, more and more marginal lands started coming in and we had 
to do something about that. In this bill, the program was renamed the 
Conservation Stewardship Program to reflect the goal of the program to 
promote the long-term benefits to our Nation by adopting and 
maintaining good conservation practices.
  We have yet to realize the full potential of the Conservation 
Stewardship Program because of tight restrictions on funding that 
excluded many producers. Regulations only allowed certain farms and 
acres to be enrolled in certain designated watersheds every year. In 
addition, the process resulted in some kinds of crops and production 
techniques being largely excluded from the program, such as organics, 
for example. Well, the new Conservation Stewardship Program will 
eliminate these shortcomings. It will grow rapidly, at a pace of more 
than 13 million acres a year, which, with the 15 million already 
enrolled, will total 80 million acres in 5 years.
  Acres will be allocated to States based not on watersheds but simply 
on each State's share of the national eligible acres. Within each 
State, enrollment will be accomplished through a ranking process that 
will prioritize producers who are already doing good conservation and 
who are willing to do even more.
  Again, I emphasize that this program we started in 2002 is going to 
grow rapidly, as I said 80 million acres, and the idea behind it 
basically is to reward farmers for being good conservationists--those 
farmers who practice good tillage methods, conservation tillage, who 
put buffer strips along rivers and streams; those who apply the right 
amount of fertilizer, not excessive amounts of fertilizer that can run 
off into our rivers and streams, polluting the Chesapeake Bay and other 
places.
  So again, the idea is to reward good stewardship of our land, and I 
think it is a good investment. I think it is one that will be broadly 
supported by the American people. As I said, these kinds of 
conservation programs are more important than ever. The rising demand 
for commodities is bringing millions of acres into production. A lot of 
land that was in the Conservation Reserve Program is now coming out.
  We can't force people into the Conservation Reserve Program, and we 
don't have enough money to bid everything back into it. So if that land 
is going to be planted for some kind of crop production, then we better 
help ensure it is done in a conserving manner. So we provide the 
incentives in the Conservation Stewardship Program to make sure they 
get the technical assistance, the cost-share, and the payments to 
prevent erosion and runoff.
  As we look to the future, we have to look at these conservation 
programs not only as a boost to the environment and cleaning up our 
environment but as a WTO, a World Trade Organization-compliant, non-
trade distorting way of assisting farmers and ranchers.
  I got the idea for this Conservation Security Program--now renamed 
Conservation Stewardship Program--traveling through Europe in the late 
1990s and looking at their farms and being amazed at the countryside. 
Then I looked at how much money European countries were giving to help 
their farmers--a lot more than we were--for conservation. I had to 
figure this out. How were they providing so much money to farmers--more 
than we were--but they didn't violate trade rules? Yet the money we 
were giving to farmers violated trade rules.
  It was simply they were making ``green payments'' to farmers--
payments to their farmers for conservation--cleaning up rivers and 
streams. Green payments. Green payments are under the ``green box'' of 
WTO, and it is WTO compliant. So we do not violate any of our 
agreements under WTO by providing farmers incentives for good 
conservation.
  Now, I mentioned earlier that one element has been overlooked 
seriously in our farm bills in the past. We put a little bit in the 
2002 farm bill dealing with organics, and that was a cost-share for the 
organic certification. But the fact is, organics is the fastest growing 
sector in U.S. agriculture. The demand for organic products is so great 
that it far outpaces our domestic supply. Much of that $2.7 billion of 
products, all agricultural products coming into this country over what 
we send out, is organics. I have had people in the organics food 
business, who sell organic foods, say they can't get it locally; they 
cannot get it in this country, so they have to import it. Well, we 
don't have enough farmers getting into organic production, so imports 
pick up the slack. In this bill, we make it a priority to help farmers 
who are serious about getting into organic food production, and we help 
them overcome the challenges of transitioning into this industry.
  We include $80 million over 5 years for research into organic 
production and marketing. We include $5 million for price yields and 
overall data collection, which we don't even know about. We remove the 
5-percent surcharge arbitrarily charged to organic producers who want 
to reduce their risk by buying crop insurance. Crop insurance had a 5-
percent surcharge on it. We removed that. We make EQIP more universally 
available for farmers to transition into organic agriculture.
  Now, one of the problems in organics that we have had is for a farmer 
to get certified to be organic, you have to have at least 3 years of 
not using pesticides, that type of thing.
  During that 3-year period the farmer cannot sell into the organic 
market, and receive higher prices, yet still is bearing the costs of 
making the transition to organic production.
  So we have provided some cost-share assistance to help farmers adopt 
sound conservation practices that are part of the transition to organic 
production. If they are serious about becoming organic producers, we 
will provide help in pursuing that opportunity.
  Let's also talk about the assistance in this bill addressing global 
hunger and malnutrition through our food aid and development assistance 
programs, another part of our bill. We are very proud that over the 
last half century the United States has been the world's leading donor 
of food to hungry people. That is a source of great pride to us. U.S. 
programs are estimated to have helped more than 3.5 billion people over 
that period. I firmly believe our humanitarian activities throughout 
the developing world continue to be an essential component of our long-
term effort to combat poverty and to build bridges of goodwill to 
foreign countries. It is a shocking fact that in the

[[Page 29183]]

21st century there is an estimated 800 million hungry people in the 
world, nearly half of them children.
  In April, the Government Accountability Office released a study on 
how to improve the targeting and efficiency of U.S. international food 
aid programs, a study that Senator Chambliss and I requested last year. 
I am pleased to report that the agencies involved in the delivery of 
U.S. food aid are on a path to adopt most of the recommendations made 
by the GAO. Some of the other recommendations, those that require 
statutory changes, are addressed in this bill.
  We set aside a specific amount of funding under title II food aid for 
nonemergency development assistance projects. The creation of this 
``safe box,'' as it is called, is intended to send a strong message 
that it is not acceptable for USAID to use nonemergency program funding 
as the piggy bank to raid if regular appropriations for title II 
emergency programs are inadequate. It is shortsighted to withdraw 
assistance from hungry people struggling to break the vicious circle of 
poverty in order to provide food to even hungrier or more desperate 
people. To me, this approach is like using one family's seed corn to 
feed another family. In the end, both families are left hungry, and the 
first family's efforts to lift themselves out of poverty are hindered. 
So we address that in this bill.
  The trade title also gives USAID authority for a pilot program to 
conduct local or regional cash purchases of food. For the last few 
years, the President has requested authority to use up to 25 percent of 
title II funds for local or regional cash purchases, but this concept 
needs careful testing before we consider adopting it on a larger scale. 
I also want to make clear that I see local cash purchases as a 
complement to donation of U.S. commodities, not as a substitute.
  As I have already noted, the funding for this new farm bill is 
extremely tight, so we were limited in what we could do to increase 
resources for international food aid. However, the title containing 
food aid provides an increase for the amount that can be spent in 
transporting U.S. food commodities under the Food for Progress Program 
from the current $40 million annually to $48 million.
  The Food for Progress Program is aimed at improving economies and 
helping to build democratic institutions in developing countries and in 
Eastern European countries transitioning to democracy. Obviously, we 
would have liked to do more to increase funding for the Food for 
Progress Program.
  I also would have liked to have provided mandatory funds for the 
excellent McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program, which I helped to establish in law in the 2002 farm 
bill. The McGovern-Dole program is designed to encourage children in 
developing countries to go to school and stay in school by providing 
them free or subsidized food. It has a lot of similarities to the 
School Lunch Program in this country. In its brief lifetime, the 
program has helped 19 million kids attend and stay in school in 
developing countries.
  Think about it this way. In the United States, we provide free and 
reduced-price school lunches all over America and they help families a 
great deal. We may not think so much about the impact of that because 
in the overall economy of our nation food costs only about 10 percent 
of our disposable income on food. In some of the poorest countries, 
where food may consume perhaps 60 percent or more of disposable income, 
providing free food to children who attend school is a very big benefit 
to that family. That food can be the magnet that gets children out of 
an abusive child labor situation and into school. So it is a great 
program.
  I remember when both Senator Dole and Senator McGovern came to see me 
about it in the late 1990s, trying to get it into the next farm bill, 
which we did, and their hopes and dreams for it. I still think if we 
can put the money into this program and grow it, it could be one of the 
best things we could do to fight hunger and poverty, to end child labor 
and to root out some of the harsh economic conditions, anger and 
frustration that may even lead some to turn to terrorism.
  Despite limited new funding, I am proud of the work we have done on 
food aid and other trade issues in this bill.
  We also in this bill help promote farmers markets, which are 
expanding all over the country. I can remember barely 10 years ago in 
my State of Iowa you could probably count the number of farmers markets 
on both hands. Now they are all over. In the Washington, DC, area, and 
other metropolitan areas, in the last several years we have seen 
farmers markets springing up all over the place. People want to 
purchase fresh, locally grown food. However, these are very challenging 
enterprises. They require grassroots organizing, planning and 
advertising; farmers have to be recruited; there are regulatory and 
logistical challenges.
  In both the 2002 farm bill and this new farm bill, I have worked to 
help people overcome some of these barriers to establishing successful 
farmers markets. In the 2002 farm bill we added a program called the 
Farmers Market Promotion Program to help people develop and organize 
farmers markets and to enable direct producer-to-consumer market 
opportunities. In the legislation before us, we include $30 million for 
the life of the bill for these types of activities.
  Too often farmers can and want to expand production of foods to be 
sold locally, but they face difficulties finding markets. Larger retail 
outlets want consistent supplies and abundant quantity, which is 
something a small farmer just can't provide. This bill seeks to solve 
this problem by fostering new opportunities for farmers to band 
together, providing funding through the value-added product market 
development grant program, as well as loans through the Business and 
Industry Loan Program. The idea is to promote what we call aggregators, 
where farmers who grow produce--vegetables or fruits or whatever it 
might be, or maybe they want to do some free-range chickens or organic 
meat or something like that--can join together to tap into bigger 
markets. What we need are aggregators who can go out to this farmer and 
that farmer and that farmer and say: OK, you bring your beets here and 
you bring your beets and you bring your beets or you bring your carrots 
or you bring your eggs or whatever it is. We put them together, and 
then we can sell them to larger buyers.
  That is what we have done in this bill to promote and make it easier 
for farmers to get their produce to farmers markets.
  For rural communities, as we seek to promote new opportunities in 
production agriculture, we have to realize the success of our farm 
households is tied not only to what is produced on the farm but the 
strength of the surrounding economy--rural economic development. 
Currently, more than 80 percent of total farm household income comes 
from sources off the farm.
  I have a chart that shows that. It is amazing when you look at it. 
The percent of farm household income from off-farm sources 2 years ago: 
in the Northern Great Plains, 69.3 percent; in the Heartland, where I 
am from, Iowa, 66.7 percent; Mississippi Portland, 90.1 percent; 
Southern Seaboard, 94.9 percent; Northern Crescent, 85.2 percent. I 
guess we would probably be the least, in the Heartland, 66.7 percent. 
So even in our area, two-thirds of farming comes from off-farm income 
sources.
  Again, 9 out of 10 people who live in rural America are not farmers. 
So our committee has a responsibility for crafting public policies that 
support not only farmers but all of our citizens who live in small 
towns and rural communities.
  Rural America confronts unique challenges because of its low 
population density, the limited capacity of local governments and other 
special circumstances. In recent years we have come to appreciate that 
agriculture and rural development are closely intertwined. They have a 
common fate. We need to go forward with a policy framework that 
supports both our farms and our rural economy.
  For years many economic development leaders have been frustrated that 
we have failed to create a more comprehensive approach to rural 
economic

[[Page 29184]]

development. That is why I am excited about the Rural Collaborative 
Investment Program in this bill, which received $135 million in funding 
over 5 years. This new program provides Federal support for regional 
collaboration. It is becoming clearer to us that no one rural town or 
county can go it alone. Rural areas must work together regionally to 
scale up investments, build competitive economic clusters, and overcome 
geographic disadvantages.
  The Rural Collaborative Investment Program awards innovation grants 
on a competitive basis to regions that creatively leverage these funds 
with other Federal, State, private, and philanthropic resources.
  It provides incentives for elected officials, leaders of the business 
community, and nonprofit organizations to come together, to jointly 
develop plans that work best to improve the economy in their particular 
area.
  Those who develop the best plans will receive significant resources 
from USDA to help implement their plans. Because of limited Federal 
funding, many who compete for innovation grants will not get one, but 
they will still come out winners because they will have gained valuable 
experience in collaborating across county and town boundaries, and they 
will have completed a plan of action tailored to their specific area.
  Again, this is so essential. If we look at the fact that the majority 
of farm household income is coming from nonfarm income, what good does 
it do to help our farm families if all of the small towns dry up and 
blow away? Already in my own State of Iowa, kids who live on farms and 
in small towns are riding school buses longer and longer distances as 
schools consolidate.
  Farm families cannot even buy the essentials for their families 
without driving long distances, because there is not enough business to 
support local stores. We have small towns in Iowa where churches no 
longer exist. We have to do something to start enhancing the economic 
viability of our small towns and communities. That is what we do with 
the Rural Collaborative Investment Program.
  One other key element I want to point out is the promotion of 
community foundations. You know, rural Americans possess hundreds of 
billions of dollars in assets. Much of it is in land. Good valuable 
land. And, quite frankly, a large share of this, I know in my area, and 
in the upper Midwest--I do not know so much about some other parts of 
the country, but I bet it holds true almost all over--a large share of 
the asset value is held by people who are 65 years of age and older.
  Well, these farmers, ranchers, businesspeople and others care deeply 
about their communities. They care deeply about their rural way of 
life. They care about the institution of the family farm. Many would be 
more than happy to give a generous share of their wealth back to their 
communities if they had a credible agency to make good use of the gift.
  That is exactly the role that community foundations play. They are 
the perfect vehicle for bringing together local financing, local brain 
power, local leadership, to focus on solutions tailored to a given 
community or group of communities.
  The rural development title of this bill also provides $40 million 
for a new microloan program championed by the Senator from Nebraska, 
Mr. Nelson. This initiative provides support for organizations that 
help people of modest means acquire the expertise to start their own 
businesses. It provides small loans to these new entrepreneurs.
  We provide $50 million in new funding for rural hospitals. Each 
dollar supports about $18 in direct loans, and generates even more 
dollars in the form of loan guarantees. This funding will help rural 
hospitals acquire the equipment they need to improve patient care and 
to computerize their records, for example. In talking about all of the 
needs in rural America, one of the big needs is health care, and in 
making sure we have rural hospitals there with primary and emergency 
care.
  We also provide $40 million for the construction of daycare centers. 
Again, demographics show many young families are leaving rural America. 
Poll after poll shows they want to stay there. But they need an off-
farm job, and to get that off-farm job, they need daycare, and there 
simply is not much daycare to be had. Access to quality, affordable 
daycare is a big part of the solution. It is urgently needed.
  Another one of the big problems in rural America is the backlog of 
requests for money for good drinking water and for wastewater systems. 
This bill provides $135 million to reduce the backlog of these 
applications.
  One other thing that is going to help a lot with rural jobs is the 
introduction of broadband services to our small towns and communities; 
and not only to small towns and communities but to the farms 
themselves. I like to think the extension of broadband to our farms and 
rural areas is every bit as essential today as the extension of 
electric lines was to our farms and rural areas back in the rural 
electrification days of the 1920s and 1930s.
  The bill does that. We provide financial resources, we cut down on 
paperwork. We also cut down--basically we shift from financial 
assistance going to areas that already have broadband service. We do 
not need that. We need to get it into areas that do not have it. 
Broadband is a basic utility, both for the kids who need it for their 
schoolwork, and for farmers and rural business people in order to do 
business. I know of instances where in small communities, a small 
business person was growing his insurance business, but he needed 
access to broadband. There were, I forget exactly how many, less than 
10 people who worked there. But he was going to grow his business. He 
knew he could, but he knew he needed broadband access. If he had 
broadband access, he could have stayed in that small town, maybe 
employed 15 to 20 people. Since he could not do it, he moved to a 
larger city, Des Moines, our capital. At least he stayed in Iowa, but I 
would have much preferred if he could have stayed in that small town 
and community and had broadband service. We need to extend broadband as 
rapidly as possible.
  Let me talk briefly about agricultural research, which has been so 
important for that 116 percent increase I talked about in agriculture 
productivity since 1960.
  The research title will increase competitive grant opportunities for 
basic and applied agricultural research; it will strengthen the 
research, extension, and education programs administered by USDA 
through our land grant institutions. It will achieve these objectives 
by restructuring the grant administering agency at USDA and 
transforming it into a national institute of food and agriculture. This 
will improve, integrate, and streamline the management of competitive 
and infrastructure programs, and will require a roadmap to be led by 
the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics, to refocus 
the research mission at USDA.
  As I have said, agricultural research has historically produced 
enormous benefits from relatively modest funding. In my experience, few 
people appreciate the transformational impact of breakthroughs in 
agricultural research. To give one example, consider the work of an 
Iowan, Dr. Norman Borlaug, beginning in the 1950s. His methods of high-
volume crossbreeding and shuttle breeding in order to develop disease-
resistant wheat varieties were soon applied to other crops around the 
world, fostering what was known as the ``green revolution'' which has 
saved upwards of a billion lives.
  Dr. Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize and recently won the 
Congressional Gold Medal in a very nice ceremony here in the Capitol. 
But many people still do not realize how his successes in agricultural 
research have changed the world.
  We are continuing to achieve great agronomic breakthroughs in 
agricultural research, but agricultural research is rapidly changing, 
and so we need to change the methodologies by which we fund and promote 
this research. That is what we do in this bill.
  With the changes included in this bill, we will elevate the 
visibility of competitive research programs while

[[Page 29185]]

strengthening our infrastructure programs--such as the research, 
extension and education programs--in place at our land grant 
universities. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture will lay 
the groundwork for a more robust agricultural research system, which we 
hope will lead to increased funding in the future, funding, I might 
add, that has remained flat in the past 20 years in inflation-adjusted 
dollars. I would also highlight that in the research title we provide 
$80 million for specialty crops research, such as to advance breeding 
and mechanization, and to improve the safety--I emphasize the safety--
of fruits and vegetables. We also provide $80 million for research in 
organic agriculture, which as I said earlier is one of the fastest 
growing parts of our agricultural economy.
  The largest obstacle to farm entry for beginning farmers and ranchers 
is access to two things, credit and land. Since 1990, a portion of the 
funding in the Farm Service Agency loan programs has been reserved for 
beginning farmers and ranchers. This bill expands the credit 
opportunities for beginning farmers by increasing the funding set-
aside, and increasing the direct farm ownership and operating loan 
limit for the first time in over 20 years. Socially disadvantaged 
farmers face many of the same challenges as beginning farmers do, and 
so we increase opportunities for them by authorizing wider 
participation in Farm Service Agency loan programs.
  I am also proud of the fact that this is the first farm bill ever to 
include a livestock title dedicated to the needs of our livestock, 
poultry, and egg producers, and aimed at promoting animal health and 
expanding market opportunities.
  Consolidation and vertical integration of the livestock and poultry 
industry has dramatically reduced the number of buyers, and in some 
regions there are only a few left. This lack of buyers has created an 
acute need for market reforms and more rigorous USDA enforcement of the 
Packers and Stockyards Act and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act.
  To that end, this bill eliminates two layers of bureaucracy at USDA. 
It designates a special counsel, so at long last we will have a high-
level official at USDA dedicated to overseeing, managing, and enforcing 
these two acts.
  The bill would limit packer ownership of livestock in order to 
provide stability to the marketplace for independent producers. It 
provides basic fairness for producers using contracts, so that 
companies cannot force producers to travel great distances to settle 
disputes; in other words, to travel clear across the country to where a 
packer's headquarters might be located.
  In addition, this bill makes arbitration voluntary, so producers are 
not forced into unfriendly terms, requiring mandatory arbitration, in 
take-it-or-leave-it contracts.
  Let me also mention that at the urging of Senator Durbin and others, 
the bill requires the creation of a Congressional Bipartisan Food 
Safety Commission. This commission would be responsible for reviewing 
the Nation's food safety system, and making recommendations on how best 
to modernize the current structure.
  Over the last year we have had outbreaks of E. coli contamination in 
bagged spinach, lettuce, and numerous recalls of very large quantities 
of meat and meat products. Over the weekend and in today's paper I read 
there are a million pounds of ground beef being recalled from stores in 
this area, and I do not know what other areas of the country. We have 
had repeated cases of contaminated food, everything from peanut butter 
to seafood to hamburger. So the work of this new Congressional 
Bipartisan Food Safety Commission will both be timely and urgent. Our 
consumers are basically demanding that.
  In sum, I have sought to lay out the comprehensiveness of this bill. 
A lot of people are focused on payments to farmers. They think that is 
the farm bill. That is a small part of the farm bill. It is 
comprehensive. It addresses food safety, as I just mentioned. Food 
assistance to hungry people abroad, food assistance to hungry people in 
this country, energy, rural economic development, conservation of our 
nation's resources.
  In energy, the bill opens up new vistas for energy production in this 
country, biofuels, cellulosic biomass materials; all of this is covered 
in this bill. So this bill is a strong forward-looking bill. It will be 
good for farmers, good for rural communities, good for our environment 
and good for our nation. It will promote our citizen's health, improve 
our energy security, and it is fiscally responsible. The bill won 
strong bipartisan support in the committee, and it deserves the same 
bipartisan support of Senators here on the floor.
  As we look ahead to consideration of the bill this week, I hopefully 
can use the Senate's time productively. Obviously, this is the farm 
bill. We want to be productive. I encourage Senators, if they have 
amendments--and I am not encouraging a lot of amendments--to bring 
their amendments to the floor in a timely fashion. Hopefully, we can 
complete our work this week and go to conference as soon as possible.
  I assume the chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Baucus, in his 
opening remarks, will dwell more on the part of the substitute 
amendment at the desk that includes provisions of the Finance Committee 
package. It includes a permanent disaster assistance program, tax 
credits that help offset the cost of conservation programs in the bill, 
and other tax provisions related to agriculture and energy. I expect 
Senators Baucus and Grassley will discuss these provisions at greater 
length. However, I thank them both and the members of the Finance 
Committee, including the occupant of the chair, for all of their 
support in helping the Agriculture Committee meet its goals and at the 
same time stay within our budget guidelines.
  I know I have taken a lot of time, but for those who may be watching 
on monitors, people around the country watching on C-SPAN, and others 
who think a farm bill is only about payments to farmers, I wanted to 
show the comprehensiveness of this bill. It touches our lives every day 
in many ways, from the abundant food and fiber we enjoy to the safety 
of our food, to fruits and vegetables in schools, to the assistance to 
a family down on their luck who need some food assistance to feed their 
children during a time where they may be out of work for a period. It 
provides funding to help us meet our energy needs, to get us off of the 
oil pipeline to foreign countries. It saves our soil, provides for 
clean water and increased wildlife habitat for hunters and fishermen 
and everyone who enjoys the outdoors. It provides more research into 
improved agricultural technology and practices--how to do things 
better, how to be more productive, more safe. We have growing demands 
on the land. Yet we have to make sure our productivity keeps going up. 
We have seen tremendous strides in the past because of agricultural 
research and what we have accomplished there.
  I want people to know, this legislation is not only a farm bill. This 
is a food and energy security bill covering everything--all the food we 
eat and consume, all the food we produce, all the food we have in our 
food assistance programs, and, yes, our energy needs as well. That is 
what this bill is. It is comprehensive. It is a good bill. I encourage 
the support of all Senators for this legislation.
  I thank my ranking member and good friend, Senator Chambliss, first 
for his stewardship of this committee when he was chairman and for all 
of the hearings Senator Chambliss had last year all around the country. 
He came to my State of Iowa. We had a great hearing in Iowa. He laid 
the groundwork for this bill. It was a smooth transition this year, 
when our party took over the Senate through the election of last year. 
We continued that groundwork Senator Chambliss laid for this bill.
  People wonder why we took so long. Two reasons: One, the farm bill 
bills usually take a long time. I have often said this is my seventh 
farm bill since the time I first entered the House back in 1975. It is 
a very challenging bill to put all together, especially when one has 
the budget constraints we had.
  In 2002, that sailed through easily. We had $73 billion over 
baseline. Under

[[Page 29186]]

the leadership of Senator Conrad and the Budget Committee, we decided 
this year we will not resort to deficit spending anymore. We will get 
out of the hole we are in. We are going to get out of the budget 
deficits we have had in the past. So we have a pay-go budget, and we 
met our obligations with this bill in that regard. It took some time to 
work it out. We also received help from the Finance Committee.
  The Finance Committee, for many reasons, had a lot of things on their 
plate, too, but once the Finance Committee acted, we had our funding 
through that action, we moved ahead aggressively to finalize the 
legislation and put the bill together. We had tough negotiations, but 
farm bills have always been tough negotiations. They have also been 
good negotiations. They have been done in a spirit of making sure all 
the pieces fit together.
  That is what this farm bill does--it makes many pieces of the jigsaw 
puzzle fit together. It may not be everything I wanted in the beginning 
or everything Senator Chambliss wanted in the beginning or anybody 
else, but that is what this is. It is kind of a grand compromise, if I 
may say, to put all these things together and to fit them together so 
the entire country benefits. I say that in the way of thanking Senator 
Chambliss.
  I see Senator Conrad in the Chamber. I thank him both in his capacity 
as chairman of the Budget Committee and as a senior member of the 
Agriculture Committee. He helped us put all these numbers together so 
they work.
  Again, I close my remarks by thanking Senator Chambliss for his 
stewardship when he was chairman but also for being my partner in 
putting this legislation together as ranking member. It would be fine 
with me if we could quickly vote and move this bill to conference. I 
think Senator Chambliss might agree with me on that. But we will have 
some amendments this week. I hope we can complete them in a timely 
fashion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a letter dated November 5, 2007.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
           Forestry,
                                 Washington, DC, November 5, 2007.
       I certify that the information required by Senate Rule 
     XLIV, related to congressionally directed spending in S. 2302 
     has been available on a publicly accessible website in a 
     searchable format for at least 48 hours before a vote on the 
     pending bill.
                                                       Tom Harkin,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. HARKIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I begin by letting everybody know this 
is a mutual admiration society. Senator Harkin has been a great 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee. In previous years, back in 2002, 
when we had this farm bill up for debate, he was chairman then and did 
a great job of leading us. I think a great product was produced. I was 
in the House then and had the privilege of working with him as well as 
other members of this committee, including my good friend, Senator 
Conrad, about whom I will have more to say about in a minute. It was a 
good product we produced back then. As chairman for the last 2 years, I 
had the pleasure of going around the country and holding eight farm 
bill field hearings as well as a couple of other informal hearings. We 
tried to extend every courtesy to Senator Harkin. He had staff at each 
one of those. We had a good working relationship for those 2 years.
  During this year, when the seat change took place and Senator Harkin 
reassumed chairmanship, he extended every single courtesy to me he 
possibly could. It truly has been a good working relationship, not just 
on production of this bill but on every other issue we had all year 
long. Senator Harkin has been a great partner and a great friend for 
agriculture. That is what this is all about at the end of the day. It 
is not about the individual but about those farmers we represent and 
who live and work all across this great country of ours.
  I thank Senator Harkin for the courtesies he has extended to me. I 
thank him for the dialog we have had. Where we have had differences, he 
is exactly right: We have been able to talk through them and work them 
out. We have come up with a good product. I do concur with him that if 
we could have a vote tonight, I would certainly be glad to see this 
behind us to move to conference and begin the delicate and difficult 
challenge ahead of conferencing this bill with the House. At the end of 
the day, with his leadership, we are going to make that happen.
  I see our friend, Senator Conrad. He and I forged a good friendship 
back in 2002, when we were in the conference committee, when I, as a 
Member of the House, and he, as a Member of this body, agreed on 
several things that we worked hard together on to make sure were 
incorporated into the 2002 farm bill.
  As we moved into the process of the debate on this farm bill, he also 
has been a great partner for American agriculture. We have had the 
opportunity, both with our staffs and without, to have numerous 
discussions, hours of discussion about the direction in which we ought 
to go. As I told the Presiding Officer the other day, the one thing I 
learned about Senator Conrad early on was that when he tells you 
something, it is like money in the bank. You can know that what he said 
is his word and he doesn't budge from it. On difficult issues, we have 
had to compromise and come to agreement. We have done that in a very 
professional way.
  The product of all of that discussion is this farm bill which the 3 
of us have produced and filed here today. It is a good product, and it 
shows that when we do work together in a bipartisan way--and too often 
in this body we don't do that, but in this case we have--we can produce 
what the American people want; that is, a good legislative package.
  I rise in support of the bipartisan Food and Energy Security Act of 
2007 that was overwhelmingly reported out of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee on October 25, 2007. This bill is the result of many long 
hours of hard work on the part of my staff, the staffs of Chairman 
Harkin and Budget Committee Chairman Conrad.
  In addition, I have met regularly with Republican members of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee and tried to address their thoughts and 
concerns throughout the process. As a result of those outreach efforts, 
many of the Republican members on the committee played a critical role 
in constructing this bill. I particularly thank Senator Crapo for all 
the hard work he did in crafting the bipartisan conservation title.
  In addition, our entire committee worked in a bipartisan fashion and 
largely was able to accommodate the interests and priorities of almost 
every member of the Agriculture Committee. I am extremely grateful we 
were able to report this farm bill out of committee with all but one 
member of the committee in agreement. It is indeed a luxury to pass a 
bill out of committee with 20 out of 21 members lending their support. 
Particularly in this time of increasing political differences and 
legislative inactivity, it speaks highly of the men and women of our 
committee that we were able to have a constructive debate that has led 
to a bipartisan bill that will strengthen American agriculture.
  It is my hope and expectation that we will engage in a similarly 
open, bipartisan process as we consider the farm bill on the floor of 
the Senate this week and probably into next week. Traditionally, Senate 
consideration of farm bills has been conducted in an open manner. I see 
no reason to diverge from that course during this debate.
  The substitute amendment we will consider beginning today is an 
extremely complex piece of legislation. I echo what Senator Harkin said 
earlier. We have a Finance Committee piece, and then we have the 
Agriculture Committee piece. They have been joined together. We would 
not have been able to produce the Agriculture Committee piece without a 
contribution from the Finance Committee. The work of Senator Baucus and 
Senator Grassley is

[[Page 29187]]

extremely important and is melded into the work we did on the 
Agriculture Committee.
  It is complex. Farm bills in and of themselves are extremely complex. 
When you look at the commodity title where we talk about and use 
phrases that are not common to most Members of this Senate, most of 
them don't understand when we start talking about marketing loans or 
countercyclical payments because they are not used by Members of this 
body in everyday, ongoing discussions. Likewise, the Finance Committee 
piece is extremely complex and involves offsets of some programs that 
most of us don't deal with on a daily basis.
  I am hopeful that the process will move in the course that it 
normally moves along with respect to farm bills. That is we have a free 
and open debate, everybody has the opportunity to come in and talk 
about any interest they have in the farm bill and to be able to offer 
amendments to any portion of the farm bill.
  At the end of the day, when all of the votes are counted, I am very 
confident we are going to come out of here with a very positive, 
forward-leaning, reform-minded, forward-thinking farm bill that will 
allow us to go to conference with the House and come out of that 
conference with a farm bill that provides a safety net, makes the 
reforms in the right areas of agricultural policy where we need those 
reforms, and, at the same time, provides the kind of programs we need 
in nutrition, in school lunch, in energy, as well as in conservation, 
research, and the other critical portions of this bill.
  We will need to carefully and methodically consider all proposals put 
forth by all Senators, both on the agricultural and finance-related 
provisions of the bill. It would be counterproductive to attempt to 
circumvent our careful deliberative process by restricting the 
consideration of any proposal that is offered. I believe in an open 
farm bill debate, and I will not support any circumvention of the 
normal process with respect to amendments that anyone may want to 
offer.
  It is my sincere hope the Senate will agree with our committee and 
support this farm bill that will strengthen the Nation's food security, 
protect the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, preserve our 
efforts to remain good stewards of the environment, and enhance our 
Nation's energy security efforts.
  I consider a safe, affordable, and abundant food supply a critical 
national security interest. I realize many people today are far removed 
from the farm, and it is hard for them to comprehend the complexities 
of production agriculture and how vitally important it is to the Nation 
that our agricultural industry can support the diet of American 
citizens without relying on imported foods and products.
  Free market advocates will say we will always be able to buy what we 
need from other countries. That is true. But I do not want to take that 
chance. I do not want to rely on other countries for my food, as we do 
now for energy.
  Senator Harkin just put up some charts that talked about the 
production of oil. We could have put up similar charts that talk about 
the production of food. But, at the end of the day, the bottom line is 
that American farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most abundant, 
highest quality food supply in the world. When the consumer buys those 
products at the marketplace, Americans pay less out of every disposable 
dollar than any other country in the world for that safe, abundant, and 
high-quality food supply.
  Now, despite challenging budgetary constraints, we were able to 
allocate $3.1 billion in new spending for all farm programs over the 
life of this bill, thanks in large part to the efforts of Chairman 
Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley of the Finance Committee. Do I wish 
we had more resources? Sure. But we find ourselves in a different 
situation today compared to the last time Congress passed a farm bill.
  It is ironic that the strong prices we are experiencing today in farm 
country would make our jobs more difficult in drafting a new farm bill. 
That being said, key agricultural priorities, including specialty 
crops, nutrition, conservation, and energy programs all received 
additional funding, allowing these critical agricultural sectors to 
realize unprecedented gains that will stimulate production and benefit 
not only the farmers and ranchers who produce agricultural products, 
but also the consumers and food aid participants who enjoy them at an 
affordable price.
  Americans enjoy the safest, most affordable, and most abundant food 
supply in the world--and all of this being done using less than 1 
percent of the Federal budget being spent. As a fiscal conservative, I 
can support that kind of investment any time.
  Let me point out that the largest funding increase in this farm bill 
goes to nutrition. I think in the last farm bill we spent 28 percent of 
the budget on the commodity title alone. In this farm bill, we are 
spending approximately 14 percent on the commodity title. We are 
increasing the nutrition title by over $5 billion, and that is no small 
accomplishment. The additional resources were made available by 
reductions in other areas of the bill, including the commodity and crop 
insurance programs, which have always been the heart and soul of 
production agriculture.
  Senators should understand the delicate compromise this entails, and 
further efforts to take funds from the farm safety net could stall this 
bill. The nutrition title is a vital part of this farm bill, and the 
committee-passed bill makes important improvements to the Food Stamp 
Program that have long been on the agenda of the antihunger community.
  Senator Harkin alluded to the fact we have increased the asset limit 
from $2,000 to $3,500. He is exactly right. That is a critical aspect 
of this bill with regard to the nutrition title. I have been a 
supporter of trying to increase that to $4,000, which on a cost-of-
living scale over the last 20 years that is what it should be. We had 
hoped to do that. I actually have a bill--it is a stand-alone bill--to 
do that. But, unfortunately, with the limited funds we have we were not 
able to do that.
  But when we did find some additional money, kind of at the end of the 
day just before we finished the writing of this bill, Senator Harkin 
and I agreed, very quickly, that where we ought to put that money is in 
the nutrition title to make sure we can do things such as make some of 
the programs permanent, as well as raise the asset limit, and make sure 
we have a Food Stamp Program which benefits farmers and ranchers as 
much as it does the beneficiaries that will be meaningful and will be 
workable.
  I especially thank my dear friend, Bill Bolling, the executive 
director of the Atlanta Community Food Bank, for not only his counsel 
as we went through the preparation of this farm bill, but also for 
hosting the committee's nutrition hearing at his facility this past 
April. This provided us a great opportunity to better understand the 
needs of food banks all across America, as well as hear firsthand 
testimony from Georgians who rely on the food assistance programs that 
are an important part of this farm bill.
  This bill takes important steps to improve the food purchasing power 
of food stamp participants and makes the Food Stamp Program more 
accessible to working families with low incomes. By raising the asset 
limit, exempting certain IRS-approved savings accounts, increasing the 
standard deduction, and increasing the minimum benefit for food stamps, 
this legislation will better enable low-income Americans to afford the 
food and nutrition they need to lead productive lives.
  This bill also substantially increases the Federal funding for the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program from $140 million annually to $250 
million annually. These additional resources will help people in need, 
as well as the local food pantries that provide these important 
services in communities throughout the country. In addition, the farm 
bill promotes healthier diets by expanding access to farmers markets, 
as well as expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to all 
States by

[[Page 29188]]

targeting benefits to low-income children.
  Again, Senator Harkin is exactly right. We have farmers markets 
popping up all over. We have a great system in our State of Georgia 
that is led by our Commissioner of Agriculture, Tommy Irvin, who has 
made sure we have very active and viable farmers markets in virtually 
every area of our State and that farms have access to those markets. It 
is not just in the metropolitan areas, where the price may be a little 
bit better, but in the rural parts of Georgia.
  Where I live, there is not a community I can think of or a county I 
can think of that does not have a very active and viable farmers 
market, where we sell fresh fruits and vegetables and whatever is in 
season. Whether it is watermelons, cantaloupes, or snap beans, the 
farmers markets have all of those products readily available for the 
consumer.
  The committee has once again wisely decided to include an energy 
title in this farm bill. That is not by accident. In 2002, the Congress 
passed a farm bill that for the first time contained an energy title, 
and we have expanded this important title in the 2007 bill by including 
programs to stimulate the production of cellulosic crops that can be 
converted into energy. The Southeast has not been a participant in this 
arena to date, but with the expansion of these programs to include 
cellulosic feedstocks, southeastern farmers will hopefully be able to 
make fuel from agricultural products, all the way from kudzu to peanut 
hulls.
  Mr. President, 100 percent of the ethanol manufactured in this 
country today comes from corn. We do not grow corn in the southeastern 
part of our country, nor do we grow it in the western part of our 
country in the abundance it is grown in the Midwest. There are reasons 
for that. But we have the ability because of our long growing season 
both in the West as well as in the Southeast to grow virtually any crop 
that is out there.
  So by providing funding for the additional research, by providing 
funding for those investors who want to manufacture ethanol from 
something besides corn, they now are going to have that funding 
available to them to invest in the cellulosic production of ethanol. At 
the same time we are going to encourage farmers to think outside the 
box, to not just grow the crops that automatically come to mind when 
you think of ``The Farmer in the Dell'' or ``Old MacDonald.''
  We are going to have farmers now producing all sorts of alternative 
crops that can be used in the production of ethanol. I will cite just 
one instance of that. In Georgia, we have the first cellulosic ethanol 
plant that has been committed for construction in our part of the 
world. The investor in this particular cellulosic-producing ethanol 
facility is going to take a crop we grow with great abundance in the 
Southeast--and that is pine trees--and he has developed a system that 
will allow them to take pine trees and convert those pine trees into 
ethanol. The good news is, when he sticks that pine tree in that 
cylinder for the manufacture of ethanol, nothing escapes. Nothing comes 
out in the form of emissions into the air. Everything is used and 
recycled. So it is an amazing process, and it is exactly the type of 
entrepreneurial exercise that we are encouraging in this farm bill.
  Through the inclusion of this title, we continue to push forward the 
necessary research, development, and promotion of renewable fuels that 
will enable America's farmers and ranchers to contribute to the 
Nation's expanding alternative energy industry. Notably, the energy 
title receives the largest percentage increase compared to the farm 
bill baseline, an increase of over $1 billion.
  Importantly, this bill takes a fresh look at our commodity programs 
while continuing the traditional safety net so critical to America's 
farmers. In addition, we have created a program whereby farmers may 
choose to manage the inherent risks of agricultural production through 
a new type of revenue assurance program. I am pleased farmers will have 
the option to utilize this new Average Crop Revenue Program.
  Senator Harkin has been instrumental in crafting this program. 
Senators Durbin and Brown have been instrumental. I particularly 
compliment Senator Roberts for the great effort he put into digesting 
this new program that is extremely complex but has the potential of 
offering farmers and ranchers a new option. It is one of those options 
where we as a committee and we as a body have been thinking outside the 
box relative to programs of agricultural policy that benefit farmers 
and ranchers. I think with the amendment we have in place now in this 
bill we are going to encourage farmers and ranchers to think about some 
alternative to the conventional programs we have always had.
  I understand several Members have an interest in offering amendments 
to further limit payments to the hard-working farmers and ranchers in 
this country. However, I want the Senate to realize the committee-
reported bill includes the most significant reforms to payment 
limitations we have seen in the history of American farm policy. Any 
amendment that attempts to make Draconian reforms is going to be met 
with my strong opposition.
  I urge my colleagues to compare this bill with current law and 
recognize the dramatic changes. As my good friend, Senator Conrad, was 
quoted in the press the other day as saying, the changes in this bill 
represent the ``most significant reform'' in the long-fought battle 
over payment limitations. He is exactly right. He went on further to 
say:

       All payments will be attributed to an actual, living, 
     breathing human [being] rather than some paper entity.

  Because now we are going to have attribution. We have eliminated 
three entity, and we have changed the numbers dramatically.
  Many of the proponents of significant reform to agricultural policy 
will argue that only a small percentage of Americans receive any 
benefit from farm programs. Agriculture economists at the University of 
Georgia recently released a study on the Community Economic Analysis 
and Impacts of Georgia Cotton Production. This study focused on one 
cotton-producing county in the southern part of our State. The cotton 
production in this one county alone has a $36 million impact on U.S. 
output and almost a $9 million impact on labor income in the United 
States. Another interesting result from this study was that each dollar 
received in Government payments generated $1.37 of new tax revenue in 
the U.S. economy. Let me repeat that. This study concluded that for 
every dollar received in Government payments, that $1 generated $1.37 
of new tax revenue in the U.S. economy.
  The following excerpt came from the October edition of ``Southern 
Farmer'' magazine. By extrapolating the results of the University of 
Georgia study, the columnist Steve Ford notes:

       In summary, if cotton subsidies paid to farmers are $2 
     billion, $1.2 billion is returned to the federal treasury 
     through tax revenue from economic activity generated by 
     cotton farmers. Economic activity generated by a net 
     investment of $800 million grows the U.S. economy by $28 
     billion, provides another $800 million in state and local tax 
     revenue, and generates a $7 billion payroll and 230,000 jobs. 
     This investment generates a 3,400 percent return.

  Although the study only focused on one small county in Georgia, when 
expanded, the national impact of the cotton industry and the cotton 
program is astounding. I hope my colleagues understand our farm program 
benefits all Americans, not just cotton farmers in south Georgia.
  It is vitally important to the farmers and ranchers of Georgia, as 
well as to farmers and ranchers all across this great Nation, that we 
uphold the strength of the safety net American agriculture depends on 
in this farm bill. The agriculture and food sector represents over 15 
percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. This bill 
requires our attention and commitment to the farmers and ranchers who 
put food on our plates every day. If we go down the path of crippling 
our farm programs in response to the newspaper editorials, the 
inevitable result will be the outsourcing of the production of our food 
and fiber.

[[Page 29189]]

  While U.S. agriculture exports continue to grow, agriculture imports 
increased by 10 percent and we are fast approaching a point in time 
when exports will equal imports. This is the one segment of our economy 
that has consistently and continually over the last several decades 
provided a positive balance of trade for our economy. If we let that 
slip away from us, it is going to be a huge mistake. Let the current 
energy crisis be a warning sign to every Member of this body. If 
America becomes as dependent on foreign nations to supply our food and 
fiber as currently is the case with petroleum, we will threaten the 
security of this Nation and leave our children's health and diets to 
the political whims of foreign nations.
  Let me say that at the end of the day, the reason we are here is to 
represent the hard-working men and women who get dirt under their 
fingernails each and every day to provide the safest, most affordable, 
and highest quality agriculture products in the world. I hope my 
colleagues keep those Americans in mind when they debate this critical 
piece of legislation.
  I wish to also discuss several important provisions in the 
conservation title of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I would 
like to highlight 5 areas: conservation technical assistance, the 
Conservation Reserve Wildlife Habitat Program, forest conservation, 
climate change, and partnerships and cooperation.
  U.S. agriculture delivers safe, reliable, high quality food, feed, 
and fiber to the Nation and to the world, but it also delivers much 
more. Through their careful stewardship, farmers, ranchers, and private 
forest landowners also deliver clean water, productive wildlife 
habitat, and healthy landscapes.
  In the 1930s, this Nation made a historic commitment to a 
conservation partnership with farmers and ranchers. Rooted in our 
national experience with the devastation of soil erosion at that time, 
the conservation movement began with the purpose of keeping productive 
topsoil--and a productive agriculture--in place. Conservation 
technology was harnessed to meet that challenge.
  The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 also was historic 
as it renewed our commitment to the Nation's working lands. Working 
land--the cropland, grazing land, and forest land that is used to 
produce our food, feed, and fiber--accounts for nearly 1.3 billion 
acres, or two-thirds of this Nation's land area. Since the enactment of 
the 2002 farm bill, conservation measures have been applied on more 
than 70 million acres of cropland and 125 million acres of grazing 
land. In addition, more than one million acres of wetlands have been 
created, restored or enhanced.
  In 1935, Congress created the Soil Conservation Service SCS, within 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to lead conservation efforts 
at the federal level. SCS was renamed the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, NRCS, in 1994. NRCS provides technical, 
scientifically sound advice and assistance to farmers and ranchers to 
address their local resource concerns. This technical assistance is the 
foundation of conservation.
  In the 1980s, Congress began to seriously focus on conservation. 
During the 1990s, Congress accelerated the investment in conservation 
by creating additional programs, such as the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, EQIP, to share the cost of installing conservation 
practices with farmers and ranchers. These programs are commonly called 
financial assistance or cost-share programs. NRCS was given the 
responsibility of managing most of these programs in addition to 
maintaining its traditional leadership role in the technical aspects of 
conservation.
  In response to the popularity of the financial assistance programs 
and their dramatic increases in funding, NRCS has had to focus almost 
entirely on implementing them. While the financial assistance programs 
have increased the adoption of conservation practices and awareness of 
the benefits of conservation across the country, this shift in focus 
has potential negative consequences for NRCS's ability to maintain its 
technical base and ensure scientifically valid technical assistance to 
farmers and ranchers.
  Congress is expected to continue to support financial assistance 
programs well into the future. But in order to help farmers and 
ranchers put meaningful conservation on the ground, Congress must also 
maintain NRCS's core technical functions and capabilities--the science, 
technology development and transfer and resource assessments--that 
support the programs. Both parts of the portfolio are equally 
important.
  In addition to continuing the investment in financial assistance 
programs, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 also recognizes that 
the success of the conservation partnership was built on a foundation 
of proven conservation science, technical assistance, and technology. 
The legislation updates, clarifies, and consolidates statutes governing 
technical assistance for easy reference. It defines technical 
assistance to ensure a common understanding by Congress, stakeholders, 
farmers and ranchers, and NRCS. The Act reauthorizes the Soil and Water 
Resources Conservation Act and reaffirms its purpose of informing the 
direction of conservation policy. It better incorporates monitoring and 
evaluation into the conservation planning process and conservation 
programs to reflect increasing demands for a better understanding of 
the real-world environmental effects of conservation policy and 
programs.
  Especially important to my home State of Georgia and other 
southeastern states is the creation of a new program within the 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). It will help improve wildlife 
habitat on CRP acres planted to softwood pine trees. The program is 
called the Conservation Reserve Wildlife Habitat Program.
  Currently, there are about 1.5 million CRP acres in pines in the 
Southeast. Most of these plantings are extremely dense and have few 
wildlife benefits. The program provides cost-share and incentive 
payments to landowners to better manage their pine stands, for example, 
through the appropriate use of thinning and prescribed fire. Wildlife 
habitat quality can be rapidly restored in pine forests with the use of 
these and other forest management strategies. This program will be a 
significant tool to help reverse the decline of northern bobwhite 
quails, certain songbirds and other at-risk species in the Southeast.
  I sincerely thank the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 
Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, National Association of 
Conservation Districts, and the National Wild Turkey Federation for all 
of their help developing the program. This was a true grassroots 
effort.
  The Nation's forest resources are a sometimes overlooked but 
critically important part of our environment and economy. In the United 
States, approximately 262 million acres of forest are owned by families 
or individuals. Nearly one million acres of these privately owned 
forest acres are developed each year. U.S. paper and wood processing 
generates 1.2 million jobs and $230 billion in annual sales. More than 
75 million acres of forests are part of a farm. U.S. forest lands 
provide two-thirds of the Nation's drinking water, and a single tree 
can absorb more than 10 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. 
Unfortunately, 27 million acres of private forest are at risk of insect 
and disease, and 90 million acres are at risk of wildfire.
  The Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 helps private forestland 
owners improve their land and plan for the future. The conservation 
title places an increased emphasis on forest resources by defining non-
industrial private forest land in the Food Security Act of 1985 and 
clarifying that technical assistance is available for forest land 
conservation. Forest management practices and conservation plan 
development are added to EQIP, as is fire pre-suppression. The 
Conservation Innovation Grant program encourages forestry projects and 
emphasizes the development and transfer of innovative conservation 
technologies.
  One particular area I wanted to address in the 2007 farm bill was how 
agriculture and individual farmers can

[[Page 29190]]

help tackle climate change. While I am not sure we understand all of 
the science of climate change, there are some reasonable steps we can 
take to begin mitigating its effects and ensure agriculture can 
meaningfully participate in any future emission reduction program 
developed by Congress.
  Agriculture accounts for about 6 percent of all greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions in the United States as measured on a million metric ton 
carbon equivalent. Since 1995, emissions from the agriculture sector 
have trended downward. The two primary types of agricultural emissions 
are methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is released as part of the 
natural digestive process of animals and manure management at livestock 
operations. Fertilizer and manure application to soils are the source 
of nitrous oxide. Carbon captured and stored in U.S. soils partially 
offsets these emissions, sequestering about one-tenth of all emissions 
generated by the agriculture sector.
  Currently, there are many land management and farm conservation 
practices that reduce GHG emissions and/or sequester carbon. Examples 
include land retirement, conservation tillage, and manure and livestock 
feed management practices. These practices are supported through 
existing farm bill conservation programs. But looking ahead to the 
future, there are additional opportunities for agriculture to further 
reduce emissions and sequester carbon. USDA estimates carbon uptake in 
agricultural soils could double by 2012, and over the long term 
agriculture could sequester 2 to 14 percent more carbon dioxide.
  I have been encouraged by Federal, state, and private efforts over 
the past few years to include agriculture in carbon credit trading 
programs. However, it is time to go beyond the minimum standards that 
have been set and develop more robust certification, measurement and 
verification standards. The key area that needs to be addressed is the 
measurement and verification of offsets generated by agriculture. Other 
questions that need to be answered are how to distinguish between 
emissions mitigation and emissions reductions that would occur anyway, 
what activities should be eligible, and how the actions are measured, 
monitored, and verified.
  I am very pleased the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 addresses 
these issues by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 
uniform standards; design accounting procedures; establish a protocol 
to report environmental benefits; establish a registry to report and 
maintain the benefits; and establish a process to verify that a farmer, 
rancher or forest land owner has implemented the conservation or land 
management activity. The Secretary is required to coordinate and 
leverage existing activities in environmental services markets but to 
focus first on carbon markets.
  For several years, farm, conservation, wildlife and environmental 
groups have promoted cooperative conservation and debated ways to ``get 
more bang for the buck'' from the Federal investment in conservation. 
The 2002 farm bill included an important provision to encourage 
cooperative conservation through its partnerships and cooperation 
provisions. Partnerships and cooperation is the next step in locally 
led conservation as it promotes conservation on a landscape or regional 
level. Unfortunately, the provisions were not implemented due to a lack 
of specificity in the bill language regarding the relationship with 
partners and how funding would flow.
  The Farm and Energy Security Act of 2007 resolves these issues and 
significantly improves partnerships and cooperation. The new provisions 
authorize the Secretary to undertake a competitive process to designate 
special projects to address conservation issues related to agricultural 
and non-industrial private forest land management and production. The 
Secretary may enter into agreements with eligible partners to provide 
technical and financial assistance to producers to implement on-the-
ground conservation to achieve the objectives of the special project.
  The concept of partnerships and cooperation is based on the highly 
successful Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). In a CREP, 
a state and the Farm Service Agency agree to focus CRP resources on a 
specific area within a state to address a specific conservation need. 
The state usually agrees to provide some funding and technical 
resources to the CREP. With the new partnerships and cooperation, all 
conservation programs, not just CRP, could be leveraged to address 
specific conservation needs and to produce watershed or regional 
conservation objectives.
  I would like to provide an example for how the partnerships and 
cooperation authority could be used. A cannery has closed, and nearby 
orchards are going out of business. A local watershed council pulls 
together several partners, such as a state university, a wildlife 
organization and an organic growers' cooperative. They agree to work 
together to improve water quality and wildlife habitat while working 
with interested local producers to transition their orchards to organic 
grass-based cattle operations.
  The watershed council files an application with USDA proposing to 
conduct local producer outreach; provide training on transitioning to a 
new agricultural sector, including organic certification and cattle 
management workshops; assist with tree removal; and assist in 
implementing habitat diversity practices with workshops, labor, and 
seed. The council asks for designation of these resources: $10 million 
in EQIP; $250,000 in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP); 
1,000 acres of Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP); and 
20,000 acres in Grassland Reserve Program easements (GRP).
  The State Conservationist and State Executive Director agree with the 
proposal and set aside the approved resources, which will go to 
producers participating in the project. When the producer applies for 
the programs, they certify that they are a project participant. If they 
are qualified, they bypass the regular program ranking processes and 
enter into a contract in the identified program(s). Each program in 
this example stands on its own and all program rules apply. What is 
different is the streamlined application and the process that works to 
make the programs seamless in application.
  In closing, I would like to repeat a story of an old man down on a 
hill farm in the South, who sat on his front porch as a newcomer passed 
by. To make talk, the newcomer said, ``Mister, how does the land lie 
around here?'' The old man replied, ``Well, I don't know about the land 
a-lying; it's these real estate people who do the lying.''
  W.C. Lowdermilk, the Assistant Chief of the Soil Conservation Service 
in the 1930s said:

       In a very real sense the land does not lie; it bears a 
     record of what men write on it. In a larger sense, a Nation 
     writes its record on the land. This record is easy to read by 
     those who understand the simple language of the land.

  Conservation leads to prosperous, healthy societies and stable, self-
sufficient countries. It sustains the agricultural productivity that 
allows for division of labor and the growth and longevity of a society.
  In 1938 and 1939, Mr. Lowdermilk studied the record of agriculture in 
countries where land had been cultivated for many centuries. He sought 
to learn if the experience of these older civilizations could help in 
solving the serious soil erosion and land productivity problems in the 
United States, then struggling with repair of the Dust Bowl and the 
gullied South. He found that careful land stewardship through 
terracing, crop rotation and other soil conservation measures enabled 
societies to flourish for centuries. But neglect of the land, 
manifested as soil erosion, deforestation, and overgrazing, helped to 
topple empires and destroy entire civilizations. He concluded that 
America's future was tied to conservation and that this calling fell to 
the Nation as well as the farmer and landowner.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to have helped develop the conservation 
title of the Food and Energy Security Act of

[[Page 29191]]

2007. I look forward to seeing its resources and programs used by this 
Nation's farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners for generations to 
come.
  The 2007 Senate farm bill includes a new title not contained in bills 
in the past of provisions regarding the livestock marketplace. I want 
to state very clearly that I have tremendous concerns with this title 
and do not support the vast majority of provisions included.
  I know without question that the entire United States Senate is 
concerned about farmers and ranchers and their ability to succeed in 
the marketplace. The livestock industry plays a critical role in the 
health of rural America. Livestock and related industries account for 
approximately one half of the total farm-gate receipts to U.S. 
agricultural producers, employ half a million Americans, and create 
approximately $100 billion in economic activity. It is therefore 
clearly important that we make certain the livestock industry continues 
to thrive and make every effort to sustain the economic viability of 
this critical sector of our economy.
  In our efforts to assist constituents in the livestock marketplace, 
we must exert extreme caution in how we attempt to address the 
agriculture sector. Our focus must be on expanding the options of 
producers, rather than restricting their options and penalizing those 
successful segments of the industry.
  It is for this reason that I have serious concerns with some of the 
provisions in this livestock title. The approach taken in this title is 
an attempt to regulate the industry to profitability, rather than 
stimulate innovation and encourage stronger relationships between the 
various industry segments.
  I am pleased that industry--including livestock producers, packers, 
and retailers--were able to find a compromise on the issue of Mandatory 
Country of Origin Labeling. While I have long supported a voluntary 
program, I believe the compromise included in this bill will allow all 
livestock market participants to benefit from the program without being 
burdened by unworkable regulations and excessive fines. But outside of 
this provision, there is very little in this title that I support.
  The livestock title includes a provision that would ban the use of 
mandatory arbitration in livestock contracts unless both parties agree, 
after the dispute arises, to utilize arbitration. Being from the great 
State of Georgia, I understand that poultry contract growers must be 
afforded the right to enter into fair and balanced contracts and to 
have fair and just means to settle disputes when they arise. But I am 
concerned that this provision will lead to increased litigation and 
will not benefit our poultry industry in the long run.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the anti-arbitration provisions 
in the title, because: The long-term effects of such provisions, if 
enacted, would cause serious damage to the general use and availability 
of alternative dispute resolution as well as weaken the Federal 
Arbitration Act.
  Wisely, the House of Representatives has taken a different approach 
to this issue and attempted to strengthen the arbitration process in 
order to ensure that producers are treated fairly. I prefer the 
approach utilized by the House, but I recognize that many of the 
members of the Agriculture Committee view this issue differently.
  I also would like to briefly address another provision that greatly 
troubles me. The livestock title creates a special counsel for 
agricultural competition at the Department of Agriculture who will 
absorb all of the responsibilities for enforcing the Packers and 
Stockyards Act and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act. While I 
understand the issues that Members are attempting to address by 
creating this position, I believe we are creating yet another level of 
bureaucracy at the Department that may in fact make enforcement of the 
Packers and Stockyards Act even more difficult.
  The most troubling aspect of this special counsel provision is that 
he is given the power to both investigate and prosecute violations 
under the Packers and Stockyards Act and Agricultural Fair Practices 
Act. What we effectively do in this legislation is create an Office of 
Inspector General within the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration (GIPSA), and then give that office the power to 
prosecute as well. This is simply bad policy, that sets a bad 
precedent, and will potentially lead to overzealous prosecutions and 
confuse the current roles in the Department of Agriculture.
  USDA is strongly opposed to this Special Counsel provision because it 
will alter the current structure of USDA in an attempt to address 
problems that the Department is already addressing. In fiscal year 
2007, USDA has handled more enforcement cases of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act than in any year in the recent past. As a result of 
these efforts, violators were assessed civil penalties totaling over 
$450,000 this past fiscal year. It is evident that GIPSA is making 
tremendous progress in their enforcement efforts. Rather than build on 
these recent accomplishments, this provision will likely hamper 
enforcement efforts at GIPSA and create confusion in the livestock 
marketplace.
  The livestock title of this farm bill attempts to create a one-size-
fits-all livestock marketplace where all producers are treated the same 
regardless of economics or free market principles. This approach is 
simply not reflective of the industry today. Producers have made 
tremendous investments to improve the genetics, quality, and grades of 
their livestock in an effort to command a greater return for their 
products. And, contrary to the popular sentiment reflected in this 
livestock title, many producers are experiencing great success in their 
efforts.
  One producer from Mason City, IA, eloquently summed up his view of 
the livestock marketplace in a letter to me and Senator Harkin. The 
producer stated: We don't share the grim view of our industry that 
others hold. We want you to know that our industry is doing well. We 
are able to prosper under the current law and regulations that apply to 
our businesses. For many producers, the stability that arises out of 
the contracts they strike with packing companies are the key to their 
financial viability, helping them to obtain credit and avoid the 
harshest consequences of volatility in the markets.
  I commend this producer and others like him who have worked hard to 
secure their position in today's livestock marketplace.
  The Georgia Cattlemen's Association also strongly opposes the 
provisions included in this title. These hard-working men and women 
have made substantial investments in their businesses in order to 
compete in today's livestock marketplace. The supposed reforms in this 
livestock title neglect their hard-fought efforts to secure markets for 
their superior products. Perhaps 15 years ago, these reforms would have 
made sense. But today's marketplace has evolved and my Georgia 
producers and many producers across this country have displayed the 
American spirit and dedication necessary to evolve with that 
marketplace and enjoy prosperity.
  Rather than reduce the options available to these hard-working 
Americans, it certainly would make more sense to provide them with 
every option at their disposal so that they can continue to compete in 
this evolving marketplace. Attempts to drag the livestock marketplace 
back to the way business was conducted 15 or 30 years ago will threaten 
the livelihood of farmers and ranchers, drive down consumer demand for 
specialized products, and increase costs--not only to packers, but to 
the producers this livestock title attempts to serve.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in 
support of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. First, I thank the 
very able chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, and 
the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, for their leadership on this 
bill. We wouldn't be here today without their leadership. I, for

[[Page 29192]]

one, deeply appreciate the time and the effort they have poured into 
this bill. This has been months of determined effort to produce a 
consensus bill that can command a supermajority in the Senate. It 
certainly did in the committee. It passed without a dissenting vote.
  First, Chairman Harkin. I applaud his vision for a new direction for 
farm policy in America. Make no mistake, this is a very different farm 
bill because of Chairman Harkin's determination, leadership, and 
vision. This farm bill goes in a new direction with a much greater 
commitment to conservation, one that I think over time will prove to 
have been very wise, because we all know what is happening in the 
world. We have to do more through the conservation elements of the 
program in order to be sustainable over time.
  In addition to that, Chairman Harkin has played a lead role in 
creating a new option for farmers with the State Revenue Assurance 
Plan. Of course, he has been a champion for rural development and for 
reform. Make no mistake, this bill is the beginning of significant 
reform. If anybody had told us 5 years ago we could get the elimination 
of the three-entity rule and direct attribution, we would have thought 
the skies had opened up and there was a whole new day. The fact is it 
is in this bill.
  I also applaud Senator Harkin's staff. Mark Halverson, his staff 
director, who you can see is now somewhat gray-haired. Anybody who has 
gone through what he has goes to gray, because this is tough. This is 
hard to do. The regional differences are deep across the country, as 
are the philosophical differences.
  Senator Chambliss, the ranking member. We couldn't ask for a better 
ranking member than Senator Chambliss. He did a terrific job as 
chairman, but he proved his mettle in helping us bring this farm bill 
to the floor. He is a consummate professional. I have worked with a lot 
of people over the years on farm legislation. It is always difficult; 
It is always contentious. Yet we have produced some very good bills. I 
think this one is by far the best. Senator Chambliss played an 
absolutely essential role. Make no mistake, he fought for his people. 
He did it effectively and in a collegial way, and that is what we would 
hope for in the Senate. He always had his eye on the ball, and that was 
to produce a result for American agriculture.
  I also salute his staff, the very professional Martha Scott and 
Bernie Hubert, who were terrific to work with every step of the way; 
outstanding individuals who reflect well on Senator Chambliss and 
reflect well on the body.
  Additionally, I thank the outstanding work of the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus, and the ranking member, Senator 
Grassley, because without their help, it would have been infinitely 
more difficult to write this bill. Let's say right at the beginning 
that we have $8 billion of new resources here; in other words, we are 
$8 billion above the so-called baseline. The only reason we could do 
that was because of the help of the Finance Committee. That has made a 
profound difference. As a result, and as a result of the exceptional 
leadership of Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss, this bill 
significantly improves commodity programs and energy. We are now 
embarked on a massive effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 
It is in this bill. It is critically important. There are also new 
resources for nutrition. Changes that have not been made in nutrition 
in over 30 years have been made in this bill, and people can be proud 
of it; over $5 billion of new resources for nutrition. We should 
recall, to all those who are listening, this isn't just a food and 
energy security bill; this is also at root a nutrition bill. Sixty-six 
percent of the money in this bill is for nutrition in America. That 
affects every city and town, every farm gate, every ranch gate in 
America. Sixty-six percent of the money in this bill is for nutrition. 
For all of those critics--and there are legions of them out there--
especially in some parts of the media who have never bothered to 
actually look at this bill or read this bill or research what is in it, 
they should know that 66 percent of this bill is for nutrition. The 
thing that draws most of their attack, the so-called commodity 
programs, less than 14 percent; less than $1 in every $7 in this bill 
is for commodities.
  Conservation. Because of Senator Harkin's vision and leadership, this 
is by far the most ambitious conservation program ever included in farm 
legislation, and he is right. He is right to take us in that direction. 
The people who are the critics should know that conservation and 
nutrition are at the centerpiece of this legislation, and rural 
development programs as well.
  This legislation is good for farm and ranch families. It is good for 
rural communities and Main Street businesses. It is an enormous win for 
consumers and taxpayers. This legislation is the product of countless 
hours of deliberation that represents a broad consensus.
  Let me also say the occupant of the chair, Senator Salazar of 
Colorado, played a key role time after time after time in bringing 
people together. At the end of the day, what you learn in a legislative 
body is you have to have an idea, a kernel of an idea for legislation, 
and it then has to be sold to so many people, and that is the difficult 
part. Bringing people together is an extraordinary skill. The occupant 
of the chair, Senator Salazar, has it in spades. I have told others we 
are lucky to have somebody of his character and somebody of his ability 
to talk to others, even when they disagree, to find areas of agreement. 
That has been his great gift on this bill.
  There are so many others whom I want to single out. Senator Debbie 
Stabenow of Michigan, who is such a passionate advocate for specialty 
crops. My goodness, Chairman Harkin, if we heard once, we heard 100 
times from her about specialty crops, and boy, she has delivered for 
those people in this bill, over $2.5 billion of new resources for 
specialty crops. When you include everything, what a major advance for 
specialty crops, and there is nothing better than this fresh fruit and 
vegetable program. Of course, the chairman is the champion of that 
program, but we are going to go from 14 States that have this fresh 
fruit and vegetable program for kids in schools, and it is going to go 
to all 50 States, and a dramatic increase in resources. Because we 
know--we can see--what is happening in America. We can see what is 
happening with obesity. We can see there has to be change, and there is 
dramatic change in this bill--change that I think every Member of this 
body can be proud of. I mentioned Senator Baucus and the role he played 
as chairman of the Finance Committee. I can look down that table at 
others who have contributed. This was a team effort, if ever there was 
a team effort, on both the Republican and Democratic sides.
  We appreciate the efforts of so many of our colleagues. I think of 
our friend from Arkansas, who was so passionate about defending her 
people, Blanche Lambert Lincoln. It is tough when you are in a minority 
situation. But she was absolutely determined that her people not be 
hurt. She worked tirelessly to make certain that was the outcome. So I 
appreciate the efforts of so many.
  Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who comes from a farm State much like mine, 
was so determined, as well, that we write a farm bill that could get 
through the committee on a strong bipartisan vote and get through the 
floor on a supermajority, which we have done.
  I thank Amy Klobuchar, who was so determined to make certain we would 
look at cellulosic, recognizing that corn ethanol could not meet the 
ambitious national goals set by the Congress of the United States, and 
that we had to turn toward cellulosic. She was right there with ideas, 
advice, and also a willingness to go colleague to colleague to persuade 
them of the need. All of these people have made enormous contributions.
  Of course, Senator Leahy's contribution on MILC programs, the former 
chairman of the committee. We deeply appreciate his contribution as 
well.
  It is difficult to write this bill because, as the chairman said, we 
have a lot less money this time than last

[[Page 29193]]

time. Let me put that in terms people will more easily understand, in 
visual terms. The red line on the chart is the old CBO baseline, what 
the farm bill would cost. The green bars are what this bill has 
actually cost and is projected to cost. If you net it all out, you find 
that the 2002 farm bill cost about $20 billion less than the 
Congressional Budget Office said it would in August of 2002.
  Looking forward, we have $22 billion less in baseline to write this 
farm bill than was estimated by the CBO in 2002. I took a call from Mr. 
Chuck Connor, Acting Secretary, telling me they are going to 
recommend--or say tomorrow that they would recommend a Presidential 
veto of this legislation. They do it on cost grounds. They have a 
number they throw out there that has no relationship to reality. It is 
an imagining on their part. It is their sort of make-believe writing up 
of the numbers.
  The fact is we have $22 billion less in baseline to write this bill 
than was predicted when we wrote the last one--$22 billion less. So we 
are $8 billion over the baseline and every penny of it paid for. That 
is a fact. It is also true that this bill was difficult to write not 
only because we had less money but because the financial circumstances 
of the country changed dramatically. The debt of the country increased 
from $5.8 trillion at the end of 2001 to $8.9 trillion at the end of 
this year. So we were writing this bill in a totally different 
environment than the last one. Back then, there were surpluses as far 
as the eye could see. Now it is red ink, debt. That profoundly changed 
the circumstance.
  In addition to that, we also face a very hostile media environment, 
especially from the leading newspaper in this town, which hasn't seen a 
single initiative for farm and ranch families in this country that they 
like. They have not been positive about one single thing. These 
headlines say: ``Agriwelfare.'' ``Aid is a Bumper Crop to Farmers.'' 
``Aid to Ranchers was Diverted for Big Profits.'' ``No Drought Required 
for Federal Aid.''
  There are some elements of truth in every story, but the thing they 
miss is the much larger story. What does the food policy in this 
country lead to? I will tell you: the lowest cost food in the history 
of the world. That is what this food policy leads to--the most 
plentiful and the safest supplies and the most ambitious nutrition 
programs of any country in the free world. That is what is here.
  Do you see one word of that printed in the Washington Post? Do you 
see one word on the positive things that are here? Not one. They take 
every little anomaly, every little exception, blow it into a big 
headline, and take things out of context. They ought to be ashamed of 
themselves. They take stories from people who have dedicated their 
careers to dismantling the farm programs of the United States, which 
are the envy of the world.
  Here is what happened to food expenditures as a share of disposable 
personal income in our country. In 1929, 23 cents out of every dollar 
went to buy food. Today it is 10 cents. That includes, by the way, 
eating out. We are down to 10 cents of every dollar going for food in 
this country.
  There is a lot to be proud of in the agricultural policy of the 
United States. I would put this at the top: Who pays the least for food 
in the entire world? Who pays the smallest part of their disposable 
income for food? We do. America pays the least. By the way, these 
comparisons are looking in the other countries at food purchased for 
home consumption. Our number is home consumption and eating out. Look. 
Indonesia, 55 cents out of every dollar goes to buy food. In the 
Philippines, it is 38 cents. In China, it is 26 cents. In France, it is 
15 cents. In Japan, it is 14 cents. Remember, their numbers are food 
consumed in the home. Our number--10 percent--is food consumed at home 
and food outside the home. What a dramatic difference it is, what our 
people are paying out of their disposable income for food and what 
everybody else in the world is paying. We can be proud of that.
  We look at our major competitors--again, the Washington Post never 
writes this story. Never. You know, we are not in this world alone. 
There happen to be other countries. We happen to have tough 
competition. The Europeans are our leading competitors in agriculture. 
In fact, they are about equal with us in terms of market share. Yet 
look at what they do for their producers versus what we do for ours. 
This is a 5-year baseline in the 2007 farm bill. This is what we are 
doing for nutrition. We are providing five times as much for nutrition 
over the 5 years as we are for commodities--five times as much for 
nutrition as for commodities.
  The Washington Post, why don't you write that story and tell people 
the whole story? The other element I wished to mention that I was 
leading up to was what is happening with what the Europeans, our 
leading competitors, do for their producers versus what we do for ours. 
Washington Post, why don't you write this story? European Union, $134 
billion--and this is after their cap reform. This is what they are 
spending on farm supports, more than three times greater than the 
United States at $43 billion. I don't see the Washington Post telling 
this story. I don't see them ever helping the American people to 
understand what we are up against in the real world--that our major 
competitors are spending more than three times as much as we are to 
support their producers.
  What happens if you pull the rug out from under our producers? What 
would happen? Mass bankruptcy, that is what would happen. Is that what 
we want to do in this country? Do you want to bankrupt American 
agriculture? Do you want to bankrupt farm and ranch families? I don't 
think so. So people need to think a little more carefully than some of 
these columns I have seen written do. They owe it to the American 
people to tell the whole story of what American food policy has meant.
  I am going to also look at what our European friends are doing on 
export subsidies. This is a pie chart of what the Europeans are doing 
on export subsidies. They account for 87 percent of the export 
subsidies in the world--the Europeans. The United States is this little 
sliver, 1 percent. The European Union is outgunning us 87 to 1. These 
are the hard realities that those of us who have a responsibility for 
writing agricultural policy have to cope with. Those of us who have 
actual responsibility, those of us who will be held accountable, the 
people in this Chamber, have to deal with reality, not fantasy, not 
misrepresentations, not the exceptions. We have to deal with what is 
right at the heart of the effect of American farm policy.
  I would like to read one paragraph from the Wall Street Journal 
article from September 28 of this year. That article said this:

       The prospect for a long boom is riveting economists because 
     the declining real price of grain has long been one of the 
     unsung forces behind the development of the global economy. 
     Thanks to steadily improving seeds, synthetic fertilizer and 
     more powerful farm equipment, the productivity of farmers in 
     the West and Asia has stayed so far ahead of population 
     growth that prices of corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation, 
     had dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 
     1974.

  Let me repeat that:

       Thanks to steadily improving seeds, synthetic fertilizer 
     and more powerful farm equipment, the productivity of farmers 
     in the West and Asia has stayed so far ahead of population 
     growth that prices of corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation, 
     had dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 
     1974. Among other things, falling grain prices made food more 
     affordable for the world's poor, helping shrink the 
     percentage of the world's population that is malnourished.

  You never see that report in the Washington Post--not once, no. To 
characterize this bill and this policy as a giveaway to farmers is not 
accurate or warranted. Total farm bill outlays for the commodity, 
conservation, nutrition, energy, and other priorities are estimated to 
represent less than 2 percent of total Federal outlays. Here is total 
Federal outlays. Here is what is going to the farm bill. This farm bill 
is going to be less than 2 percent of total Federal expenditure, and 
the commodity provisions that draw the fire are one-quarter of 1 
percent.
  We used to talk about the farm bill--the last farm bill being 3 
percent of Federal outlays. Now we are down to

[[Page 29194]]

less than 2 percent. Those who run out and--as the administration 
apparently will do tomorrow--chastise this bill for its spending, why 
don't they put it in perspective and level with the American people? 
Why don't they tell the whole story? Why don't they tell them that the 
old farm bill used to consume 3 percent of the Federal budget? This is 
down to 2 percent, and the commodity programs that used to be one-third 
of 1 percent are down to one-quarter of 1 percent. Why not tell the 
whole story? Why not give people the facts from which they can make a 
reasoned judgment?
  We know the European Union is spending three times as much to help 
their producers as we spend to support ours. We know they are 
outspending us on export subsidies 87 to 1. We know the European Union 
is not the only culprit and that Brazil, Argentina, and China are 
gaining unfair market advantage through hidden subsidies.
  I know what this means to my State. My State of North Dakota, 
according to North Dakota State University, says that without the farm 
bill, net farm income in North Dakota would have decreased from $77,000 
per farm to about $13,000 per farm--a reduction of $64,000. That is how 
significant this is. The average net farm income for all farms was 
$77,000. Without the provisions of the farm bill, net farm income would 
average $13,000. The 2002 farm bill decreases the income variability by 
47 percent. These are facts.
  So I conclude that our current farm policy is working not just for 
farmers but for consumers and taxpayers. But that is not just my 
conclusion. Over the past 2 years, I have engaged in long conversations 
with people all across my State. They told me the 2002 farm bill had 
been a great success, and they recommended that we build on those 
successes by maintaining and rebalancing commodity programs, by 
promoting energy production in America so we are less dependent on 
foreign sources, so that instead of turning to the Middle East, we can 
look to the Midwest. Wouldn't that be great for America? We are 
spending almost $300 billion a year importing foreign oil. How much 
better would our country be if that money could be spent here rather 
than sending it to places all over the world?
  The people back home have told me that ensuring predictable help is 
available for producers stricken by disastrous weather should be part 
of the farm bill, that we should enhance the conservation of our land 
and provide new resources for nutrition. All of those items are in this 
farm bill, and those who wrote it deserve to be proud.
  Let me briefly talk about what I see as the high points of the bill 
before us.
  In the commodity programs, this bill strengthens the producer safety 
net by rebalancing support for many crops. It leaves direct payments 
untouched. It increases loan rates for key American commodities, such 
as wheat, barley, sunflowers, and canola. It provides higher target 
prices for wheat, barley, oats, soybeans, and minor oil seeds that have 
for many years been treated less generously, less fairly than other 
commodities. Finally, it provides a new target price program for the 
pulse crops.
  The Sugar Program sees modest improvements. There is a new sugar loan 
rate, a sugar-to-ethanol program modeled after what they do in Brazil 
that has led them to energy independence. They were at one time far 
more dependent than we are. They were getting 80 percent of their 
energy supplies from abroad. They are now on the brink of energy 
independence. There is a higher sugar storage rate, and the bill 
improves the safety net for dairy producers.
  Specialty crop growers are getting a substantial boost under this 
bill. There is $2.5 billion of increased funding for nutrition, 
research, production, and market promotion programs that will further 
grow our fruit and vegetable industry.
  There are also reforms to eliminate abuse and make farm programs more 
transparent. These include elimination of the three-entity rule and the 
requirement for direct attribution of farm program payments. If 
somebody is listening and says: What does that mean? very simply, it 
means there is going to have to be a living, breathing human out there 
getting farm program payments. They are not going to be able to hide 
behind a mishmash of legalisms, they are not going to be able to hide 
behind paper entities and nobody knows who gets the money.
  This bill provides a new State revenue-based countercyclical program 
and contains a supplemental agricultural disaster assistance program 
that was crafted as part of the Senate Finance Committee work.
  In particular, I again recognize Senator Baucus for his leadership on 
taking a concept advanced by the National Association of State 
Departments of Agriculture and making it a reality. It is extremely 
well thought out.
  We are also aware of the tremendous financial pain caused by 
droughts, floods, hurricanes, and other acts of nature. When disasters 
occur, we respond, but sometimes those responses come much later than 
they should. A standing disaster assistance program sets us on a 
predictable and logical path to deal with disaster-related conditions 
for our farmers and ranchers.
  In North Dakota 2 years ago, we faced conditions such as massive 
flooding, water as far as the eye could see, and there was no relief 
for 2 long years. That should not happen in America.
  This supplemental disaster program has the following elements: a 
supplemental revenue assistance program that provides payments when the 
whole farm revenue falls below the whole farm revenue guarantee; an 
improved noninsured assistance program to more fairly protect crops 
that are not currently covered by crop insurance. Some crops are not 
covered by crop insurance. That doesn't mean there is not a program. 
Under the current law, the most people can hope to recover is 27.5 
percent of what they lose--27.5 percent. That is the most they can 
possibly recover of losses they might suffer because of a natural 
disaster, 27.5 percent. Under this program, they will be able to do 
better.
  There is a livestock loss assistance program to indemnify producers 
when deaths occur due to disaster-related conditions, a tree assistance 
program to help restore and replace damaged orchards and vineyards, and 
a speciality crop pest and disease prevention program to reduce the 
likelihood of disaster-related losses due to pest infestation.
  The supplemental disaster program was built on sound principles 
authored by the State commissioners of agriculture: One, a predictable 
agriculture disaster program; two, it covers program crops, speciality 
crops, forage, and livestock; three, it provides assistance as a 
percentage of the difference between actual and expected whole farm 
crop revenue; it complements crop insurance and noninsured assistance 
programs. In fact, it creates an incentive to buy up. That is exactly 
what we should be doing, and that is in this bill.
  This program is designed to be made available soon after a disaster 
hits, not after the auction signs go up. This picture is from my 
hometown newspaper earlier this year. ``First the drought, then the 
auction.'' This picture is showing a farm auction in North Dakota from 
the perspective of this fellow's boot. I have been to these auctions. I 
have watched the mother of the family crying at the kitchen table after 
losing a farm that was in the family for 5 generations. I have seen 
farmers and their kids and the looks of agony on their faces as 
everything they have known is taken in a few hours. I have seen it. 
Anybody who has felt the emotion knows what I am talking about--
incredibly good and decent people who lost it all, not because of 
something they did but because of the vagaries of Mother Nature, 
because of disease, because of movements in a market that are the most 
difficult to predict, other than the energy markets, of any market in 
this country.
  If we want farm and ranch families to just be wiped out by natural 
disasters, we can do that, but that isn't America. When Katrina hit, 
Americans rushed to help out. My wife and I called the Red Cross to 
make our donation, and the man answering the phone told me he

[[Page 29195]]

had never seen such an outpouring in his life of just average citizens 
digging in their own pockets to help people in another part of the 
country. That is America.
  There is a history in farm country: If your neighbor gets sick and 
the crop needs to be harvested, all the neighbors come together and go 
out and harvest that farmer's crop. If a barn burns down, they don't 
wait for the insurance settlement; the neighbors get together and they 
build that barn back up. That is a good thing. That is right at the 
heart of what makes America a great place.
  Let me briefly talk about the energy title that helps us reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil. The reason the bill is called the Food and 
Energy Security Act is because it makes smart investments in breaking 
our long-term dependence on foreign oil. That is why the energy title 
is the most exciting piece of this legislation, to me. It focuses on 
developing cellulosic ethanol. We cannot reach the level of ethanol use 
Congress has called for without it. There are simply limits to what 
corn-based ethanol can produce. With a cellulosic ethanol industry that 
can turn prairie grass or wood waste into fuel, we will be able to take 
full advantage of the agricultural abundance of our country. We have 
set ourselves on a path to freedom from relying on foreign despots for 
the energy we need.
  This energy title will provide more than $2.5 billion, including the 
Finance Committee tax credits, to encourage production of advanced 
biofuels and renewable energy. The farm bill assists with biofuel and 
renewable energy production in several ways: It provides assistance for 
the establishment of renewable biomass crops; it includes grants and 
loan guarantees to develop advanced biofuels refineries; it provides an 
incentive for increased production of advanced biofuels; it helps 
farmers and rural small businesses invest in energy efficiency and 
renewable energy technologies; and it accelerates research and 
development of advanced biofuels.
  I think this is the most exciting part of this bill. It is in every 
American's interest that we do this and we do it sooner rather than 
later. It is in this bill. It deserves people's support.
  The conservation title enhances the conservation of our land with a 
$4.5 billion expansion from our current conservation efforts. It fully 
funds successful programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, which 
is important environmentally, and the Grasslands Reserve Program. It 
also maintains the overall acreage limit for the Conservation Reserve 
Program.
  Additionally, $20 million is provided to fund the Open Fields 
Initiative that I offered with Senator Roberts. Open Fields underwrites 
State programs that offer incentives to farmers and ranchers who 
voluntarily open their land to hunting, fishing, and people who might 
just want to take a walk or look at birds.
  I am proud this bill boosts nutrition funding by almost $5.3 billion 
over 5 years. That is more than $1 billion higher than the House adds 
for nutrition. In fact, nutrition gets a bigger increase than any other 
area in this bill. Within that total, $1 billion for the fresh fruit 
and vegetable program that the chairman has championed is going to make 
a difference to kids in every State in the Union. Previously, we could 
only provide assistance to 14 States. Now every State in the Nation 
will be able to have a fresh fruit and vegetable program. We have also 
increased funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program by $550 
million over 5 years. This additional funding will allow food banks to 
serve those most in need. Who among us has not heard from our food 
banks that they are having an increasing difficulty meeting the demands 
made on them?
  Finally, we have updated a number of food stamp policies for the 
first time in 30 years. These changes represent an additional $3.7 
billion for that program.
  In addition to all the important improvements I noted, this bill is 
fully paid for. It complies with the new pay-go budget discipline, and 
that has not been easy. We will hear from the administration tomorrow 
that somehow we have come up with $36 billion or $38 billion of new 
money. They arrived at that total by the most creative accounting I 
have ever seen.
  The fact is this bill is $8 billion over baseline. The further fact 
is that this bill allowed us $22 billion less than we had when we wrote 
the last farm bill. Anybody who suggests this isn't fiscally 
responsible is not looking very hard.
  When the 2002 farm bill was written, the Ag Committee had $73.5 
billion in new resources to utilize in addressing the challenges of 
that bill. As many in this body remember, that was not an easy process. 
Well, this year the Agriculture Committee, working in close cooperation 
with the Senate Finance Committee, had only $8 billion above baseline 
in new funding resources. And as I have indicated, even with that, we 
were $22 billion below on a baseline basis of what was available for 
writing the last farm bill. At the same time, by rebalancing and 
reformulating the commodity title and establishing a standing 
Agriculture Disaster Assistance Program, the committee has been able to 
maintain and improve the economic safety net for our farmers, including 
those who produce specialty crops. At the same time, the adjustments 
made in the commodity title, when coupled with the funding made 
available by the Finance Committee, allow this legislation to provide 
about $10.7 billion that is used to address other priorities within the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.
  So hear me now. Hear me now. We have reduced the commodity portion. 
We have reduced crop insurance. Commodities provide 34 percent, crop 
insurance provides 32 percent, and the Finance Committee provided 28 
percent. Those are the funding sources to increase conservation by 39.4 
percent of the total, nutrition got 46.8 percent of the increases, 
energy 9 percent, and other 4.7 percent. So this is where the money 
came from. It came from commodities and crop insurance and it went to 
conservation and nutrition. That is a fact.
  That is not the only fact we ought to draw people's attention to. We 
also ought to point out that if you look ahead on this farm bill to 
where all the money goes--you look at this whole bill and where the 
money goes--66 percent goes to nutrition, conservation 9 percent, crop 
insurance 7.6 percent, commodity programs 13.6 percent--a dramatic 
reduction from the previous farm bill. And that is a fact. That is a 
fact. I think in the last farm bill commodities were at about 15 
percent.
  So this has been no easy task, but the farm bill we are considering 
represents a tremendous effort by Chairman Harkin, by Ranking Member 
Chambliss, as well as by Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley. I 
tell you, I have never seen a better team effort in this Chamber, a 
more bipartisan effort than was made on this farm bill. When has a farm 
bill ever come out of the committee--with 21 Members of the Senate on 
that committee--when has a farm bill ever come out without a dissenting 
vote? I have been here 21 years. I have never seen that kind of 
bipartisan support as we saw for this bill. And why? Because it is 
deserved. It is deserved because this bill breaks new ground. It is the 
beginning of reform. It commits substantial new resources to nutrition 
that is already by far the biggest part of farm legislation, and it has 
the hope for America being able to reduce its dependence on foreign 
energy. That is right at the heart of this bill. That is why we call it 
the Food and Energy Security Act.
  I commend the leaders for their hard work. It has been the result of 
months of bipartisan collaboration. And, as I have said, it is fully 
paid for. Over the next several days, I expect we will hear some 
colleagues unfairly criticize the bill for providing an economic safety 
net for our producers. Let me remind my colleagues that current law is 
estimated by CBO to spend almost 15 percent of total mandatory outlays 
for the commodity programs, with 66 percent of the estimated outlays 
going to support food stamps and other nutrition programs to the needy, 
and just under 8 percent of the outlays are for resource conservation 
programs.

[[Page 29196]]

  Under the bill proposed by the Senate Agriculture Committee, the 
amount for commodity programs is reduced more than 11 percent to 13.6 
percent of total outlays. Spending for nutrition programs remains at 
about two-thirds of total outlays, and conservation spending is 
increased nearly 17 percent to 9 percent of total estimated spending.
  In closing, this farm bill represents an investment in American 
agriculture that will benefit our producers, our rural communities, our 
Main Street businesses, taxpayers, and consumers, and particularly the 
most needy among us. It deserves the support of every Senator.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I make my comments on the farm 
bill, I want to follow up on something that the Senator from North 
Dakota said about the bipartisanship of this bill, and that is to 
remind people who might be listening that what they see on the evening 
news about dissension within Congress does not present a very clear 
picture of the way Congress operates.
  We can all say there is too much partisanship, but in the final 
analysis, at least as far as the Senate goes, nothing is ever going to 
get done here unless it is bipartisan. So I compliment the Senator from 
North Dakota for speaking about the bipartisanship of the farm bill 
that is now before the Senate, but I take that opportunity to remind 
people when you have 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans and you have a 
filibuster, it takes 60 votes to move forward to stop a filibuster and 
to get finality on a bill. We would never get anything done in the 
Senate if it weren't at least somewhat bipartisan.
  I say to the American people who watch television at night and get 
fed up because there is talk about too much partisanship going on in 
the Congress and too many things being done to make one party look 
better than the other party and vice versa, this farm bill is an 
example of how things get done in the Senate because parties must work 
together or nothing would get done. This farm bill will be passed by 
the Senate for the reason that it is bipartisan.
  I thank my colleagues who have worked so hard on this bill, 
particularly the leadership of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and 
Senator Harkin for his leadership in this area. It is a lot of hard 
work to bring a bill to the floor that supports rural America when you 
consider only about 2 percent of the people in this country are 
producing the food that the other 98 percent eat.
  While this bill isn't perfect, it is something that will help the 
family farmers. The most important job the committee has to do every 5 
years is to write a farm bill. It is not all we do. We operate in a lot 
of different areas. But one of the most important things the 
Agriculture Committee does is provide a safety net for farmers, and we 
generally review and rewrite that piece of legislation every 5 or 6 
years.
  I am glad that in addition to the Agriculture Committee being 
involved in this bill, as the Senator from North Dakota has pointed 
out, the Finance Committee has had a part of the action, because we 
were able to contribute to that process and free up over $3 billion for 
the Agriculture Committee to spend on priorities that are very 
important for the Agriculture Committee.
  What is more, for the first time I am aware of, we will be merging 
our agricultural tax policy with the Agriculture Committee's 
authorization and spending policy. This bipartisan tax package frees up 
conservation dollars for programs that we have backlogs in, closes tax 
loopholes, provides support for our growing cellulosic technology for 
ethanol, encourages rural economic development, and helps family 
farmers to get started in the business of agriculture.
  I have never been a big proponent for a permanent disaster program, 
but there are a few key items I want to point out about the bill that 
is before us. This program will set up a permanent system to administer 
disaster aid. We won't have to go through the trouble then of setting 
up a new way to administer a disaster program every time we do an ad 
hoc disaster package, as we have done from year to year as disasters 
might happen.
  Also, what is most important to me about this part of the farm bill 
that comes from the Finance Committee is that it is tied directly to 
crop insurance. We want to promote farmers managing their own risk, and 
one way to do that is through the crop insurance program. Now, the crop 
insurance program might not cover all disasters, so that is why this 
program is set up. But as a precondition to participating in the 
disaster program that is in the Finance Committee's provisions that are 
going to go into this farm bill is that each farmer who wants to 
benefit from it has crop insurance.
  In my home State of Iowa, we have a very successful crop insurance 
system. I like that farmers have to take risk mitigation into their own 
hands. Tying the two together was the only way it would work. I know 
this body will be looking at additional provisions that might affect 
the crop insurance program. I am not opposed to changes, but I urge my 
colleagues to be careful that we don't undermine a successful risk tool 
for our farmers. I believe we should give producers as many tools as 
possible to provide them an adequate safety net. An optional revenue 
protection program is a step in the right direction. Farmers should be 
able to make the best choices for their individual operations based 
upon the level of risk management that they, as their own manager, 
decide they need. I am glad to see that option included in the farm 
bill, and I look forward to anybody suggesting improvements in that 
program.
  One of the most important titles in the Agriculture Committee bill, 
and it is added for the first time to a farm bill, is the livestock 
competition title. I am glad to see a compromise on legislation that we 
call COOL--an acronym for country-of-origin labeling--and I look 
forward to the law being implemented quickly. This COOL legislation was 
actually passed 5 years ago, but it has been held up by action on 
separate appropriations bills over the years so that this law has never 
been implemented. Hopefully, once and for all, it will be implemented, 
because it is a darned good time to let consumers know where their food 
comes from. The country of origin of their food is as important as 
their knowing the country of origin of any other product they might buy 
as a consumer in the United States. That is the law for every other 
product that consumers buy--that they know what country it comes from--
so why not the same requirement for food as well?
  We have also put a ban on mandatory arbitration in production 
contracts. This isn't to say a producer can't agree to arbitration once 
a dispute arises. In fact, I am very much a supporter of the process 
called arbitration, but I am very much opposed to mandatory 
arbitration. Because of this legislation, processors can no longer 
force these arbitration clauses on farmers who have no choice but to 
sign the contract for lack of competition.
  I am also very pleased that my amendment to ban packer ownership for 
owning or feeding livestock has been accepted into this package by 
Senator Harkin and other leaders on the committee. This is very good 
news for small livestock producers who deserve to make sure the 
competitive marketplace is working. One of the things that brings this 
about is the meat processing industry has said very clearly from time 
to time: Why do they own livestock? They own livestock--they say, in 
their words--because when prices are high, they can kill their own 
livestock. When prices are low, they buy from the farmer. I think it is 
easy to see how demoralizing that is to the family farmer when he sees, 
working hard to produce a product, that somehow he can be undercut by 
the vertical integration of meat packers owning their own livestock.
  While this does not accomplish all that we need in this area of 
enhanced competition for the family farmer, it is an important first 
step toward remedying the biggest problem facing

[[Page 29197]]

farmers today, the problem of concentration in agriculture, 
particularly in agribusiness. Senator Harkin and I, along with other 
Members of this body, will be offering additional reforms that are 
critical to a vibrant future in the livestock industry. I call on my 
fellow Senators to support the livestock title and these additional 
reforms.
  Another issue I have been working to address through the farm bill 
relates to the administrative rules issued by a department unrelated to 
agriculture, the Department of Homeland Security--well, related in the 
sense that they have responsibilities to make sure that products coming 
into our country are safe. But this regulation I am talking about is 
their attempt to regulate stored quantities of propane energy sources.
  Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security issued 
regulations that required registration of all propane tanks storing 
7,500 pounds of propane. These regulations were unduly burdensome and 
disproportionately impacting rural American homeowners, farmers, and 
rural small businesses. Senator Harkin included a provision in the farm 
bill that I authored that would reduce this impact on rural Americans.
  Coincidentally, after the provision was included, the Department of 
Homeland Security stepped up and increased the threshold quantity of 
propane, exempting many small homeowners, farmers, and small businesses 
by excluding tanks smaller than 10,000 pounds of propane and raising 
the threshold to 60,000 pounds per large tanks. That is a movement in 
the right direction. This change in regulation by the Department of 
Homeland Security is welcome, but the Department should have alerted 
everyone in advance and eliminated the need for us to include a 
provision in this bill at all. That said, we are currently working on 
some new language that would ensure that the Department of Homeland 
Security reports to Congress on the impact its new rule will have and 
ensure that rural Americans are not disproportionately impacted.
  As a family farmer on the Agriculture Committee, I have made it my 
job to look out for small- and medium-sized family farmers. However, 
the position of the family farmer has become increasingly weaker as 
there has been consolidation in agribusiness, and it seems to have 
reached an alltime high. Farmers today have fewer buyers for their 
products and fewer suppliers to buy their inputs from. It seems this 
concentration is more now than ever before. The result is an increasing 
loss of family farms and the smallest farm share of the consumer dollar 
in history. It is important for us to remember that family farmers 
ultimately derive their income from the agricultural marketplace, not 
from the farm belt. Family farmers have, unfortunately, been in a 
position of weakness in selling their products to large processors and 
in buying their imports from large suppliers.
  I have been fighting for real payment limitations since the last farm 
bill. I have, to some extent, over a period of decades in Congress, 
helped to pass farm bills. Senator Dorgan of North Dakota and I realize 
that a hard cap on payments is a most effective tool in helping our 
small farmers get a level playing field with the corporate megafarms. 
Ask a taxpayer if a quarter of a million dollars is enough for a 
farmer. That is what our cap is going to be. I think we would all know 
the answer to that question would be very positive.
  The family farmer continues to struggle with land prices literally 
skyrocketing. Landlords know what kind of payments the farmer is 
getting and takes that into account in the rent they charge. We cannot 
sit idly by and do nothing while family farmers suffer. I certainly am 
not going to. That is why I pushed for reform in our laws that has an 
effect on family farmers and particularly in helping young farmers get 
started in farming.
  The time for real reform is now. Our family farmers deserve it. I 
think we have a good start on a good package for rural America. An 
adequate safety net will assure us a safe and abundant food supply. It 
is critical to our economic and energy independence for the future. I 
look forward to the debate over the next few days to improve this bill, 
and I would like to highlight the issue of a hard cap on farm payments.
  Presently, we have 10 percent of the large farmers in America getting 
72 percent of all the money we put into a farm bill. There is nothing 
wrong with big farmers getting bigger, but there is something wrong 
when we have subsidies and farm programs going to big farmers who are 
getting bigger partly because of subsidies. What we want to do is 
maintain urban support for a farm safety net for farmers. It seems, in 
order to maintain that safety net, we are going to have to maintain 
credibility with urban taxpayers and urban consumers. We cannot do that 
very easily when big farmers--10 percent--are getting 72 percent of the 
benefits out of it because the taxpayers in the cities are going to 
start raising the question: What is this farm safety net all about if 
it is only helping the biggest of farmers? To get a farm bill through 
the House of Representatives, where urban representation is so all-
powerful, it is very important for us to take that into consideration.
  Another factor we need to take into consideration is the extent, as I 
have already alluded to, this drives up the cash rent, so it is very 
difficult for a generation of new farmers to start farming when they 
have the unfair competition of 10 percent of biggest farmers getting 72 
percent of the benefits out of the farm program.
  Then it seems to me we ought to take into consideration what has been 
the history of the safety net for family farmers. It generally has been 
targeted toward medium- and small-sized farmers. Why? Because these are 
the people, when they have an opportunity to farm and things happen 
that are beyond their control--that could be a natural disaster; that 
could be Nixon freezing beef prices, as he did; it could be, in the 
same administration, prohibiting the export of soybeans when they got 
$13 a bushel, driving it down to maybe $3 a bushel in just a matter of 
a few days. You can have international war. You can have energy at a 
high price as it is now because of OPEC. All of these are beyond the 
control of the family farmer. The small- and medium-sized farmer does 
not have the ability to withstand some of these things that are beyond 
his control. But there is a certain level of efficiency, a certain 
level of bigness in farming where you have enough staying power so that 
you can withstand some of that.
  We, through payment limits, have tended to target the farm program 
toward small- and medium-sized farmers. It is quite obvious that when 
10 percent of the biggest farmers get 72 percent of the benefit out of 
the farm program, that targeting is no longer the case. What Senator 
Dorgan and I are trying to do in our amendments that will come up 
shortly is to make sure we keep that targeting and safety net what it 
really is--a safety net to help people when they have problems beyond 
their own control, to overcome them, to survive in business, to keep 
producing. Why? Because we have come to the conclusion, after a century 
and a half, that the family farmer is the most efficient food-producing 
institution anywhere in the world. We ought to maintain it. We ought to 
keep it strong. This legislation will do that. Some improvements we can 
make in that legislation in the areas of payment caps will help even 
more so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor of the 
Senate to support the farm bill. I believe the committee has produced a 
good bill. I believe, as my colleagues Senator Conrad and Senator 
Grassley have said, and before them Senator Harkin and Chambliss--they 
have talked about the need for a farm bill, No. 1, and, No. 2, the 
ability to produce a bill that gives farmers some hope.
  It is late in the year. My hope is we can pass a bill here, go to 
conference with the House, and give farmers and their lenders and 
others some certainty by the end of this year about what the rules will 
be, what the farm program

[[Page 29198]]

will be as they begin to think about getting into the fields in the 
spring. They are already planning for spring planting, and they need to 
understand what the rules are.
  This is a very important debate. I congratulate and say to my 
colleagues: You have done a good job. It has been bipartisan. I, like 
my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, believe we can improve it in 
a couple of places. I believe we can do that, but I support this bill.
  I want to try to give some description to what this is about. It is 
not just about statistics. It is not just about theory. It is about 
people who populate this country, living out on the land by themselves, 
under a yard light, trying to raise a family, trying to raise a crop, 
risking everything. They are called family farmers and ranchers. In 
most cases, they live out in the country alone. It is them against the 
odds. They are having to confront uncertain weather, uncertain 
commodity prices, and uncertain international events that can affect 
whether they can make a living or not--all of these things.
  We are here in suits and ties, and we debate. What a wonderful thing. 
Unlike us, the farmers take a shower after work. We take a shower 
before work, and then we put on a suit and tie. But the family farmers 
in this country, in most cases they get up and do chores. They say it 
is doing chores--5, 6 in the morning, get up, get out, and get busy. 
They work hard all day, and they are out there by themselves. They are 
a sole proprietor running their own business, living under a yard 
light, hoping things go well. They plant a crop; they plant a seed in 
the ground. They hope it will grow. Maybe it will. They hope they don't 
get too much rain. They hope they get enough rain. They hope if the 
seed grows it doesn't develop some sort of plant disease. They hope it 
doesn't hail, and they hope at some point they will be able to harvest 
it. And when they harvest it, they hope there will be a price at the 
elevator that gives them half a shot at making a profit.
  These are all hopes. The only way a farmer can live is on hope--hope 
that things will be better, hope that tomorrow is going to be better. 
These are families who live on hope.
  This piece of legislation, this farm bill, gives those families some 
assurance, a safety net, to get them over difficult times.
  When price swings move up and down, this safety net is a bridge over 
those price valleys that say to family farmers: We think you matter to 
this country. We think the fact that you exist makes a difference. We 
think the fact that families produce America's food makes a difference 
to this country.
  Now, family farms produce a lot more than crops. They also produce 
communities. I come from one of those communities, 300 people. The 
arteries that fed life into that small community were the family 
farmers all around it. On Saturday nights, you could not find a parking 
place on Main Street because family farmers came to town to talk about 
the weather, talk about the crops, visit with neighbors. It is what a 
rural lifestyle is about. It is about producing communities.
  An author named Critchfield once described family values in America. 
He said: Family farms are the very seedbed of family values.
  And those family values roll from the family farms to small towns to 
big towns to nurture and refresh the value system of this country.
  There is a poet in North Dakota who is a farmer and rancher named 
Rodney Nelson. Rodney wrote a piece that asked, plaintively: What is it 
worth? It says exactly what should be said here. He asked this 
question: What is it worth for a kid to know how to plow a field? What 
is it worth for a kid to know how to grease a combine? What is it worth 
for a kid to know how to pour cement? What is it worth for a kid to 
know how to weld a seam? What is it worth for a kid to know how to 
build a lean-to? What is it worth? He said: All of those skills you 
learn on the family farm. It is the only university in our country 
where they teach all of those skills. What is it worth to the country, 
he asks?
  It is a good question. I hope the answer is rooted in a farm bill 
that says to those family farms: We want you to have a chance to 
continue because we think you add great value to our country, to our 
culture.
  There are many who do not have the foggiest notion of what family 
farming is about. I remember I took a Congressman with me from the east 
coast to come to North Dakota on a trip some while ago. We went to 
North Dakota, and one of the stops was at a dairy barn, George Doll's 
dairy barn, north of New Salem, ND.
  We stood in that dairy barn with the soft light of the late afternoon 
coming through the boards on that barn. The cattle came in to be 
milked. The milk cows came in and went to their assigned stanchions, 
and George Doll and his wife began milking 80 cows.
  And my colleague from the east coast, in a blue pin-stripped suit, 
observed this standing in that dairy barn, and realized this is a lot 
of work. So, finally, he said to me: How often do they do this, Byron?
  I said: Well, they do this twice a day. They do this in the morning 
and again in the evening.
  I said to George: What time do you get up?
  He said: We start about 5 in the morning, then we do it about 5 in 
the evening.
  Then he watched for a while more and then he said to George, he said: 
George, do you have to do this on weekends?
  He did not know you milk cows 7 days a week, twice a day. He did not 
know that. There would have been no reason to know that milk comes from 
anywhere but a carton, unless you go to a farm that is milking cows and 
see what kind of work it is.
  So it seems to me there is much to be said about the value system, in 
talking about family farming.
  Now, I wish to make one other point. Some talk about agriculture. I 
prefer to talk about family farming. If this is not about family farms, 
we do not need the bill. We would have probably separate pieces of 
legislation dealing with nutrition and so on, food stamps.
  But it seems to me the question of a safety net is almost exclusively 
the question: Do we want to try to help family farmers through tough 
times? The big corporate agrifactories, they can make it through tough 
times. If you have a real tough time, price depressions and other 
things, the big corporate agrifactories, they can make it through 
there, but the family farms get washed away. So we developed instead a 
safety net. That safety net is rooted in the legislation before us, 
which incidentally I think improves the safety net.
  That is why I like this bill. It also includes a disaster title. That 
is why I like this bill. I think it was important to do. I had included 
a separate piece of legislation calling for a disaster title. I am very 
pleased this bill contains a disaster title.
  Now, my colleague from Iowa indicated he felt there should be some 
additional reform, as do I, so we will offer, perhaps tomorrow or 
perhaps a day later, a piece of legislation that will provide some 
further limitations on payments.
  Why would we do that? Because I worry what is going to happen is we 
are going to erode the support for the farm program if we do not 
provide the reforms and changes that are necessary. One of those 
reforms, and part of that change is payment limitations, so that we are 
structuring this to try to provide the most help to family-sized farms.
  I do not have anything against big corporate agrifactories. If they 
want to farm two or three counties, God bless them. But I do not think 
the Federal Government has a responsibility to be their banker. They 
are big enough to be a big corporate agrifactory, and they have got the 
financial strength to get through tough times.
  We ought to provide a safety net to help those families through tough 
times to stay on the land. So the proposal we offer is a proposal that 
does say a couple of important things: One, there is a payment 
limitation of $250,000, a hard cap.

[[Page 29199]]

  I will admit the piece of legislation that has come to the floor of 
the Senate includes some significant improvements. It eliminates the 
three entity rule, which is a significant reform. It has an adjusted 
gross income requirement, of sorts. So it does make some progress in a 
couple of areas. But it does not, for example, cap payments for all of 
the payments. It has been said that the committee bill caps payments at 
$200,000.
  But it leaves out the LDP, the marketing loan, or loan deficiency 
payment. Because it exempts marketing loans and makes them unlimited, 
every single bushel of commodity in America has effectively an 
unlimited price support.
  Well, there needs to be a limitation on that, on the direct payment, 
the countercyclical payment, and the marketing loan, which produces an 
LDP. There ought to be a limitation.
  Second, it seems to me reasonable that we would limit farm program 
payments to those who are actively involved in farming. That ought not 
be radical. An arts patron from San Francisco, I will not use her name, 
but a patron of the arts in San Francisco gets $1.2 million in support 
payments over three years. An arts patron who has nothing to do with 
farming, her grandfather had something to do with farming, but she does 
not, she collects $1.2 million from the farm program.
  Is that sort of thing going to ruin the reputation of the farm 
program at some point? I think it will. Another related problem is what 
they call cowboy starter kits. They have a situation in rice country 
where, going back to 1985, if you grew rice on the land, you now own 
that land, and it is still rural land, you do not have to produce rice 
for a quarter century, you get a farm program payment. You do not have 
to be a farmer to get the payment.
  In Texas, north of Houston, they were selling cowboy starter kits. 
Ten acres of land, put a house on 1 acre, run a horse on 9 acres. You 
have never farmed, you do not have to farm, and you have 9 acres you 
can get farm program price supports because they grew rice on it 20 
years ago. That is not justifiable.
  One of the ways to shut that done, of course, very simply and very 
effectively, is to say: If you are going to get benefits, you have to 
have some real tangible connection to farming.
  So my colleague, Senator Grassley, and I will offer an amendment that 
is very simple. It is not at amendment that is attempting to undo this 
important piece of legislation, it is an attempt to improve it and 
improve it in a way that will give it even more credibility.
  A payment limitation of $250,000 and a requirement that you have 
active involvement in farming if you are going to get a farm program 
benefit. So that is what we would intend to do. My hope is that working 
with Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, we will be able to offer 
that, perhaps tomorrow.
  I would be willing to come in the morning, and with my colleague, if 
he is available, I see he is still on the floor, and perhaps we can 
reach agreement, offer an amendment, and have that debate.
  At any rate, it is my hope to be helpful to both the chairman and 
ranking member to move this legislation. We are going to have a couple 
of these discussions where there will be disagreement, we will have a 
vote, we will see what the view of the Senate is. But I want this piece 
of legislation to be done. I would like to improve it some. But I give 
this bill good marks. I am going to be a supporter on the floor of the 
Senate, working to try to get this through the Senate, get it passed, 
get it to conference so we can tell family farmers: Here is what we are 
going to do. Here are the rules.
  I might say, finally, I hope when we have completed our work, I hope 
the President will be supportive as well. That is another part of this 
process. I know many are working with the President for that support.
  As I have indicated earlier, I know there are thousands, tens of 
thousands, hundreds of thousands of farmers out around the country 
waiting for an answer. What will the farm program be as they begin to 
think about getting into the fields next spring? They can hardly wait. 
That is the nature of being a farmer.
  I mean they want to get on a tractor, they want to get moving, they 
want to plant some seeds, they want to buy some cattle. That is the way 
it is because they live on hope.
  My expectation is we can give them much greater hope if we pass a 
piece of legislation that says to them: This country wants to invest in 
your future. If you are a farmer living out there alone, trying to 
raise a crop and a family and you run through a tough patch, you run 
through some tough times, we want to help you.
  The farm bill says to those farmers: You are not alone. This country 
believes in the merit and value of having a network of family farms 
populating this country, producing food for a hungry country.
  Having said all that, let me again thank my colleagues for the bill 
they have produced. I look forward to being here tomorrow with my 
colleague, Senator Grassley, and offering an amendment. Then further, 
working this week, perhaps by the end of this week or at least into 
next week, to get this piece of legislation through and get a final 
vote on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________