[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29698-29728]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. What is the status of the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments submitted to the bill.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am sorry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendments are pending to the bill.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that three speakers--Senator 
Salazar for 20 minutes, Alexander for 15 minutes, and Dorgan 20 
minutes--go in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 2007 farm 
bill. Before I go to the specifics of the bill, I wish to acknowledge 
those who have worked so hard in getting us where we are today.
  This has been a huge undertaking spread out over several years, 
starting under the leadership of Senator Chambliss and his work in the 
Agriculture Committee. The hearings he held around the country, the 
hearings he held in the West and the Southeast, all over, contributed 
greatly to the bipartisan product that is before the Senate today. In 
addition, the leadership of our chairman, Senator Harkin, a man from 
farm country whose heart and soul are about making sure agriculture and 
rural America thrive--his leadership and the help of his staff in 
getting us to this point today is something we all must acknowledge and 
something for which I am grateful and something for which the farmers 
and ranchers in rural Colorado are grateful.
  I also acknowledge both Senators Baucus and Grassley and their 
leadership on the Finance Committee. The energy and specialty crops and 
conservation pieces of the farm bill have been significantly enhanced 
by the actions taken by the members of the Finance Committee. Without 
the leadership and bipartisan example of Senator Baucus and Senator 
Grassley, we would not be where we are today.
  It goes without saying that even though there are many laudatory 
comments given to the chairman and ranking member of both the 
Agriculture and Finance Committees, there are working on both of those 
committees many other Members of the Senate who have helped craft what 
I believe is one of the most historic pieces of legislation to come 
before this body. It will open a new chapter for agriculture and rural 
America, a product of which I am very proud.
  I also thank the agricultural leaders in my State of Colorado who 
have been so helpful to me over the last 2\1/2\ years as we have helped 
craft the farm bill before the Senate: Commissioner John Stup, the 
commissioner of Colorado's Department of Agriculture; Kent Peppler and 
Lee Swensen with the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; Alan Foutz and Troy 
Bredekamp, leaders of the Colorado Farm Bureau; Nick Midcap, Darrell 
Hannavan, and Dusty Tallman, who have labored so hard on this bill, who 
are with the Colorado Wheat Growers Association; Byron Weathers and 
Mark Sponslor, leaders of the Colorado Corn Growers Association; Terry 
Frankhauser with the Colorado Cattlemen's Association; Scott Johnson 
and Bill Hammerich with the Colorado Livestock Association; and from 
the Independent Cattlemen of Colorado, Doug Zalesky, John Reid, and 
Reid and Kathleen Kelly. I thank Gregg Yando with the Colorado Dairy 
Farmers of America, Jim Ehrlich with the Colorado Potato Administrative 
Council, and a host of other Colorado people who have been instrumental 
in our efforts in moving this bill forward.
  This legislation is truly a bipartisan, forward-thinking, balanced 
package. It is truly the example of how this Senate ought to work, 
bringing Democrats and Republicans together on what is a major issue. 
The effort of Senator Reid, the majority leader, to get us to a point 
where we will reach conclusion on this bill is something I appreciate. 
This is, after all, the farm bill. We ought not be debating the great 
issues of our time, whether those be Iraq or immigration or issues 
having to do with Latin America, issues that are extraneous, on this 
legislation. Senator Reid's effort to make sure what we are doing is to 
keep the focus of this bill on agriculture and rural America and the 
substantive components of the farm bill is important. I hope my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, will 
say: Yes, we have to get a process that gets us to conclusion on the 
farm bill.
  Today is a particularly proud day for me. The occupant of the chair 
was very involved in helping me understand the importance of becoming a 
Senator. For that, I will always be appreciative. I still remember that 
in my maiden speech on the floor more than 2 years ago, I spoke about 
the possibilities and the promise that America's small towns and rural 
communities offer for a country that is in need of clean renewable 
energy, a secure food supply, and responsible stewardship of our land 
and our water. Unfortunately, for too long Washington has overlooked 
the opportunities rural America can provide and, through a policy of 
neglect and disinterest, has allowed small towns and rural communities 
across the country to wither on the vine.
  This legislation will change that course of neglect. The bill before 
us will bring new life and energy to rural America. It will do so in a 
number of different ways. It will do so through a set of smart 
investments that help farmers and ranchers and business men and women 
build a clean energy economy that has its roots in the fields of 
America's farmers and ranchers. It lays the infrastructure for rural 
broadband and microbusiness loans for accelerated economic development 
in rural areas. It creates incentives for the wise stewardship of land 
and water--practices from which we can all benefit. It puts money into 
nutrition programs that take on the scourge of hunger and allow low-
income children to learn in our schools. It helps bring balance and 
certainty to the agricultural markets so that Americans can continue to 
enjoy a healthy and secure food supply. It does all of this while 
closing loopholes that have allowed Federal dollars to end up in the 
hands of people who should not have been eligible for assistance in the 
first place. It is a smart and fiscally responsible bill.
  I grew up on a ranch in the San Luis Valley a few miles north of the 
Colorado-New Mexico border. My family has farmed and ranched that same 
land for five generations. For much of my life, I spent long days in 
the fields with my family tending to the cattle, baling hay, and fixing 
fences. It was hard work, and my hands are permanently calloused from 
nearly three decades of work on that ranch. But from that work, we 
always knew we loved our ranch, our land and water, and our way of 
life. To be a farmer or a rancher is a hard life, let there be no 
mistake about that. While the rest of the world might go home at 5 
o'clock in the afternoon, for those who are working the farms and the 
ranches, you don't go home until probably half an hour after the sun 
sets at 9 o'clock. It is very hard work.
  My parents always said that they could not give us--my seven brothers 
and sisters--material riches, but they could teach us values that come 
from work, family, and faith. These are the values one finds in rural 
communities across America. These are the priceless and timeless values 
that built this country. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to 
George Washington in which he talked about the role of the farmer in a 
young democracy. Thomas Jefferson said: ``Agriculture . . . is our 
wisest pursuit because it will in the end contribute most to real 
wealth, good morals and happiness.''
  Those of us who have had the privilege of growing up on a farm or a 
ranch or of visiting some farms and spending time with America's 
producers can appreciate how important agriculture and our rural 
communities are. Unfortunately, in the coming days this bill will be 
criticized by some in the media,

[[Page 29699]]

by some Members in this Chamber, and others for being too favorable to 
farmers, for putting too much money into conservation programs, for 
supporting rural development initiatives, or for making too many 
investments in biofuels production. In short, critics will ask why 
Federal dollars should go into programs that on the surface only appear 
to benefit rural communities. They are wrong. The answer is very 
simple: The health of our farms, ranches, and our rural communities is 
vital to American prosperity. Everyone benefits from a strong and smart 
farm bill. The farmer in eastern Colorado, the third grader eating 
fresh fruits and vegetables at lunch, and the mother who wants us to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil all gain from a strong and 
balanced farm bill.
  I wish to take a few moments to walk through the bill and explain why 
it is so important for farmers, for children, and for all Americans 
that the Senate pass this bill.
  Since being elected to the Senate in 2004, I have often spoken about 
how Washington's policies in recent years have been blind to the needs 
of rural Americans. More than half of the counties in America are 
rural. In my State of Colorado, 44 of the 64 counties are rural. In my 
view, Washington's neglect of rural America has made rural America a 
forgotten America. Businesses on main streets in many towns and 
villages across my State have been boarded up. FSA offices have been 
closed or attempted to be closed, including the very recent actions of 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Family farmers are having to sell 
their land after years of drought. To see Washington's neglect of our 
rural communities is disheartening, when we know how much possibility 
and promise rural America holds. With modest investments, rural America 
can be the engine of a clean energy economy, fueling an alternative 
energy revolution that capitalizes on the hard work, productivity, and 
entrepreneurship of farmers and ranchers.
  This is why I am so pleased that the 2007 farm bill makes such wise 
investments in rural development. The bill provides $355 million for 
rural development. These investments will enable entrepreneurs in rural 
communities to leverage microenterprise loans to build their 
businesses. They will help health care providers provide access to 
underserved rural communities. They will help get broadband Internet 
access into small towns. Broadband access is to rural communities in 
the 21st century what highways were in the 20th century and railroads 
were in the 19th century. It is the infrastructure that is essential to 
economic development. The $26 million in this bill for broadband will 
help close the digital divide that is preventing rural businesses and 
entrepreneurs from fully participating in the global economy.
  Second, this bill includes an energy title that opens up a new 
chapter of opportunity for rural America. In the 2005 Energy Policy Act 
and in the Energy bill we passed earlier this year, we planted the 
seeds for a renewable energy revolution so that we can reduce our very 
dangerous dependence on foreign oil. The farm bill takes the next step, 
helping farmers and ranchers take advantage of new energy technologies 
that have been developed in places such as the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO. With the $1.3 billion this bill 
devotes to energy programs, farmers will be able to apply for grants to 
develop biorefineries and to improve the handling, harvest, transport, 
and storage of feedstocks for biofuels. The bill includes tax credits 
for small wind turbines and cellulosic biofuel production. It 
stimulates research into the methods and technologies that will allow 
the most productive land in the world to provide more and more of our 
energy. Our farmers and ranchers want to be a part of the solution to 
our addiction to foreign oil. They want to help reduce the amount of 
oil we import while helping stimulate a clean energy economy that is 
built on innovation, technology, and taking advantage of the production 
capabilities of rural America.
  This energy title is a win-win for our rural communities. It is my 
hope that with this energy title in the farm bill, together with the 
other energy legislation we have adopted in the Senate and in 
committee, the vision Senator Grassley and I had with respect to the 25 
by 2025 resolution will help us grow our way to energy independence, 
because the 25 by 2025 resolution recognizes at its heart that we in 
America can grow 25 percent of our energy from renewable energy 
resources by the year 2025. This farm bill takes us a significant way 
down that road.
  The third aspect of the legislation I want to emphasize is the 
conservation title. Farmers and ranchers are some of the best stewards 
of our land and water. We need a farm bill that recognizes and 
encourages the good stewardship practices from which we all benefit.
  To understand why the conservation programs in the farm bill are so 
important--and to understand how we will all benefit from them--just 
visit one of the ranches along the Yampa River in northwest Colorado. 
You quickly see the ranchers there do not simply put high-quality, 
grassfed beef on our dinner table. They guard the open spaces that draw 
sightseers and recreationalists from all around the world. They protect 
the clean water that comes to our homes. They provide habitat for fish 
and game, bringing millions of dollars in revenue from fishing and 
hunting into our State.
  Unfortunately, you cannot find a price on the Chicago Mercantile 
Exchange for these values in clean water, clean air, habitat, and open 
space dividends that ranchland and farmland provide to America. And if 
a ranch goes under or is developed, we lose the conservation value that 
farms and ranches provide.
  So how do we address this challenge? How do we address this challenge 
in this bill? We do it through existing, effective programs that reward 
farmers and ranchers for the conservation practices from which we all 
benefit.
  Thanks to Chairman Harkin's leadership, the 2007 farm bill is the 
greenest farm bill in the history of America. It reauthorizes highly 
successful conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, EQIP, and the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP.
  The bill reauthorizes EQIP, which provides cost-share funding and 
technical assistance to producers so they can address environmental 
issues on their lands. In Colorado, we receive around $30 million to 
$40 million a year for projects that, for example, reduce water waste, 
improve water quality or provide fencing that keeps livestock out of 
sensitive areas.
  The bill also reauthorizes the Conservation Reserve Program, which 
helps producers retire and restore agricultural land that, if taken out 
of production, would provide significant environmental benefits. In 
Colorado alone, we have around 2.3 million acres enrolled in CRP for 
purposes ranging from erosion control and habitat preservation to 
improving water use. The reauthorization in this bill will allow us to 
continue to make these wise investments in stewardship.
  Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, if my colleague from Tennessee will allow 
me, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to get through 
the conclusion of my speech.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized 
for an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend and 
comrade from Tennessee.
  Beyond the conservation programs which are so much at the heart of 
this legislation, we also know that at the heart of this legislation is 
the food security of our country and the nutrition title.
  In addition to the rural development, energy production, and 
conservation practices in this bill, the 2007 farm bill helps ensure 
the continued production of safe, healthy food right here at home.
  Since our founding, agriculture has been indispensable to our economy 
and

[[Page 29700]]

our prosperity. Corn, tobacco, and cotton helped fund the Revolution 
and the organization of our young States. The promise of free land 
brought millions of new settlers to the West where they planted wheat, 
raised cattle, and cultivated the earth. The productivity of our farms 
sustained the war effort as we defeated the Fascists and Nazis, helped 
rebuild Europe and Japan, and liberated the world. Now, as we search 
for new ways to power our economy, our farms and ranches offer new 
promise for a new, clean energy economy.
  Growing up on a ranch in the San Luis Valley taught me how tough it 
is to make a living off the land. You work sunup to sundown all year, 7 
days a week, to raise a good crop or a healthy herd, and then, without 
anything you can do to prevent it, a hailstorm, disease, drought, or 
flooding can wipe it all away in a moment's notice. When you do have a 
bumper crop, you sometimes find everyone else has had a bumper crop 
that year too. As a result, prices fall and you actually sometimes do 
worse.
  The bill that is before us helps producers and, therefore, helps all 
of us by bringing some level of certainty and structure to agricultural 
markets. We cannot and should not take the risk out of our farming and 
ranching--it is a tough business however you cut it--but we can help 
make the very bad years a little less painful in rural America. The 
little bit of uncertainty that favorable loan rates or a 
countercyclical program can provide is often the difference between 
whether a family loses the farm or keeps the farm.
  Why, some may ask, should we care about whether a family is able to 
stay on their farm? Why should we care? For many years--from my days as 
attorney general to my days in the Senate--I have always had a sign on 
my desk that says: ``No Farms, No Food.'' To me, that statement tells 
the story about the importance of food security for our country.
  The fresh fruits, grain, meats, and vegetables that come from our 
farms and ranches are essential to public health, reducing hunger, and 
ensuring that Americans can always find affordable, safe food at their 
grocery store.
  A great example of how the bill benefits both producers and consumers 
is the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, championed by Chairman 
Harkin, which provides fruits and vegetables to schoolchildren across 
all of America. We are expanding this program now so it covers all 50 
States, up from the 14 States that have been covered by this program in 
the past. For me and my constituents in Colorado, it means that 80,000 
children are going to get fresh fruits and vegetables in their school 
lunches. This will reduce childhood obesity, increase productivity in 
school, and teach habits for a healthy lifestyle.
  I want to speak briefly about some farm bill reform measures that are 
included in the bill.
  Although we all benefit from smart investments in programs that help 
provide stability and certainty for producers, we also must be wary of 
waste and abuse. The 2002 farm bill was not perfect, and I am pleased 
the Agriculture Committee took this year's reauthorization as an 
opportunity to address its shortcomings.
  Our bill, for example, includes significant reforms on how we deal 
with payment limits. USDA payments must now be attributed to an actual 
person--a real live person, one who breathes and walks and works the 
soil--as opposed to some amorphous entity. Previously, individuals were 
finding ways to collect payments from up to three different operations 
under the so-called three-entity rule. We have abolished that in this 
farm bill.
  The 2002 farm bill also left open several loopholes that have allowed 
farm bill dollars to go to nonfarmers for land that is no longer in 
agriculture. I am proud to have worked with my colleague from Nebraska, 
Senator Ben Nelson, on language incorporated into the legislation that 
stops this waste. Our language prohibits the distribution of commodity 
support payments for land that has been subdivided for houses or 
transferred to other nonagricultural uses. This is an important fix.
  So is our reform to how Washington deals with agricultural disasters 
equally important. From time to time, farmers and ranchers get hit by 
droughts, floods, or tornadoes that wipe away their crop. It happened 
to us in Colorado last winter in the southeastern part of our State, 
where a blizzard buried whole herds of livestock. Our producers lost 
thousands of head of cattle out in southeastern Colorado.
  How did Washington respond to that agricultural disaster? Washington 
responded in its own typical fashion: USDA declares it a disaster. 
Congress scrambles to find emergency funding. The bill gets stalled, 
and then farmers and ranchers have to wait 2, 3, 4 years before they 
get any kind of relief.
  What is wrong with this picture? First, we are not delivering 
disaster assistance efficiently. Second, we should not be relying on 
emergency spending to provide disaster assistance. We need to put these 
expenditures back on the books.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 3 more minutes to 
finish my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered. The Senator is recognized for 3 
additional minutes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. On disaster assistance and the importance of us creating 
a permanent disaster assistance fund, first, we are not delivering 
disaster assistance efficiently to date. Secondly, we should not be 
relying on emergency spending to provide disaster assistance. We need 
to put these expenditures back on the books. Congress has passed 23--
23--ad hoc disaster assistance bills since 1988. That is 23 since 1988. 
Although I am supportive of this emergency assistance and have helped 
push this emergency disaster assistance forward in the last 2\1/2\ 
years, I believe we need to create a system for disaster aid that will 
respond more efficiently and promptly to the needs of our ranchers and 
farmers.
  What we have done on this bill--thanks to the leadership of Chairman 
Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley on the Finance Committee--is to 
create a permanent trust fund for disaster assistance. This will allow 
us to maintain discipline and high standards for determining when to 
pay out disaster funds, and it will allow producers to get help more 
quickly. It is a sensible and fiscally responsible solution.
  The American farmer has always been an engine for prosperity and 
opportunity in America. Through revolution, western settlement, 
depression, and world wars, the men and women who work our lands have 
always been there to lead us through the next great challenge that 
faces our country. Today, we are faced with a new challenge--that of 
building a clean energy economy for the 21st century--and we need the 
help of our farmers and ranchers to get us there.
  Our national security, our economic security, and our environmental 
security all demand that we grow our way toward energy independence. It 
is an imperative, but it is also a great opportunity for our Nation.
  The country that successfully replaces its imports of foreign oil 
with clean, homegrown energy will reap competitive and technological 
advantages that will keep it out in front of the rest of the world for 
decades to come. We can play a part in this new economy, but the 
productivity and ingenuity of rural America is our greatest untapped 
resource in our quest to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  I am excited about this bill, with its investments in rural 
development, energy technology, and wise stewardship. It taps the great 
resource of rural America while strengthening our ability to produce 
clean, safe, and affordable food.
  This bill represents the best type of work we can do in the Senate--
cooperative, bipartisan work that is focused on creating new 
opportunities for our country.
  I thank again the leadership of both the Agriculture and Finance 
Committees for allowing us to move forward with this legislation and to 
bring the legislation to the floor today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page 29701]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, Senator Dorgan, by unanimous consent, 
is to follow me. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Domenici be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes, and then Senator Casey for up to 15 
minutes, following the remarks of Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that 
the next Democratic speaker in order be Senator Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, 
although I may not need it, I be granted an additional 5 minutes for my 
remarks to complete my speech, and that I be able to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, would you please let me know when I have 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. President, I first congratulate Senator Harkin and Senator 
Chambliss for their work on the farm bill. I know we want to move 
toward that as quickly as possible, and I look forward to a successful 
conclusion of that legislation. But for the next few minutes, I wish to 
speak on a different subject.
  (The remarks of Mr. Alexander pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2312 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are now debating the farm bill, and a 
number of my colleagues have talked about the particular provisions of 
the farm bill that is brought to us by the committee. I think the farm 
bill is a pretty good bill and I certainly intend to support it and I 
am pleased to be here to speak on it. I spoke last evening briefly. But 
I wish to make a couple of comments about family farmers, generally, 
before I talk about the bill and then also talk about the amendment 
that I, along with Senator Grassley from Iowa, will be offering.
  First, the issue of family farming is one that is not often discussed 
because when people here talk about the farm bill, the agriculture 
bill; they talk about the agricultural industry. Let me explain that my 
interest in this is largely to try to keep a network of families living 
out in the country under the yard lights, trying to raise food for a 
hungry world.
  These are family farms that exist because they are out there trying 
to make a living, grow a crop, raise a family. They face all kinds of 
challenges--challenges that most of us don't face. They plant a seed in 
the ground, and they live on hope. They plant a seed and hope it grows. 
They hope it rains. They hope it doesn't rain too much to wash the seed 
out. Then they hope they get a growing season that gives them a chance 
to raise a crop. They hope it doesn't develop crop disease. They hope 
it doesn't hail and destroy the crop. They hope they get to harvest 
with something standing in the fields that they can, at that point, get 
off the field and take to a grain elevator, and at that point they hope 
the price will be decent. They don't know. If they survive all of those 
hopes and get to the grain elevator with the grain and perhaps get a 
decent price, maybe they make a decent living, but it is just as likely 
that they don't. Those families live out there alone, taking all the 
risks.
  I recall about a year and a half ago driving into a town called 
Zeeland, ND, and meeting with a group of ranchers and farmers. They had 
been through a devastating drought where everything was destroyed. It 
looked like moonscape in the pastures driving into town. These ranchers 
and farmers had owned livestock they already had to sell, because if 
you don't have feed, you cannot keep them; they have to go to the 
livestock market. So they talked about what they were trying to get 
through, with no crops, no pasture, no capability to keep their cattle 
and conditions that forced them to market. That is just one issue, the 
drought. In that case, it was everything to them.
  So what most farmers face in times where they don't have a 
devastating drought or some other natural weather disaster, they face 
economic circumstances that don't give them much of an opportunity 
either. That is why we have a farm bill, a safety net, to try to help 
farmers through tough times.
  If you think about a farmer out there living under a yard light, 
trying to plow the land, plant a seed, harvest a crop, and make a 
living, here is what they face. When they order a load of gas to come 
out to gas up their tractor and their combine and till their fields, 
they discover the diesel fuel or gas is costing a fortune. They could 
not help that, they had nothing to do with that, but they are paying a 
fortune, as is the rest of the country, for this fuel they need.
  The fertilizer prices are skyrocketing. If they are fortunate enough, 
for example, to get a crop and get the crop to market someplace, they 
have to find a foreign home for a fair amount of the crop, and they 
have to pay the railroads. The railroads, as you know, overcharge, and 
in my State the Public Service Commission estimates they are paying 
$100 million a year more than they should. Farmers are bearing a 
substantial portion of that.
  So if they get their crops to the marketplace and to the county 
elevator and ship it somewhere, if some of it goes into a grocery 
manufacturing facility and comes out the other side, the farmer who 
started up the tractor, plowed the field, planted a seed of corn, and 
then hoped and was successful, got a stand of corn, cultivated the 
corn, and then harvested the corn, and that seed of corn then went to a 
grocery manufacturer--guess what. They then flake the corn and put it 
in a box and call it cornflakes. It has a fancy logo on the front, and 
they send it to the grocery store. They get more for flaking the corn 
than the farmer does for driving the tractor, planting the seed, and 
harvesting the corn. The fact is, they get more than the farmer does 
for growing it. The same is true for puffed rice and wheat chex. You 
rice it, puff it, flake it, you check it, and they get more than the 
family farmer who had to grease the combine and the tractor, plow the 
furrow, and plant the seed.
  The farmer faces near monopolies in every single direction. If they 
want to sell a cow, steer, or bull, guess what. They face a packers' 
industry that is highly concentrated in every direction, the oil 
industry, the rail industry, the big packers, and the grain industry. 
In every direction, the family farmers living out there are struggling 
and trying to make a living, trying to get along, when they are 
surrounded by monopolies or near monopolies in economic circumstances 
where it is pretty tough for them.
  Yesterday, I talked a bit about value. Why do we care? I suppose you 
could have corporations farming America from California to Maine, and 
then we would not sing ``this land is your land, this land is my 
land.'' I suppose we can produce America's foods that way. I think 
family farmers--at least in my part of the country--produce more than 
just food, they produce communities. They are the blood vessels that 
flow into rural areas and communities. I mentioned yesterday that an 
author named Critchfield once wrote a book about what this contributes, 
and that is that family farmers are the seedbed of family values, and 
that seedbed nurtures family values from family farms to small towns to 
big cities.
  Family farms are important to this country. We put together a farm 
bill to try to provide a safety net because during the tough times, 
when they reach a really tough patch--international price depressions 
for commodities, disasters, natural disasters, all kinds of things that 
confront family farmers in a disastrous way--we want to have a safety

[[Page 29702]]

net for them to get through tough times instead of getting washed out 
every time there is a problem. The big corporations and agrifactories 
have the financial strength to make it through tough times. We have put 
together a farm program, called a safety net, to try to help family 
farmers through difficult times.
  I know some view this notion of family farming as some sentimental 
journey back to yesteryear. A friend of mine named Chuck Suchy is a 
singer and songwriter. He has a song, ``Saturday Night at the Bohemian 
Hall,'' describing what it was like growing up on the farm and 
gathering at the Bohemian Hall to swap stories and talk about the 
weather and the crops.
  The description I gave yesterday of what one of the writers in North 
Dakota--a farmer and a rancher--who used to ask the question that needs 
to be asked of this country, I think, is important. Rodney Nelson asked 
the question, ``What is it worth?'' It is worth noting Rodney's 
question. What is it worth for the country to have a kid who knows how 
to pour cement? What is it worth for a kid to know how to drive a 
tractor? What is it worth to know how to teach a newborn calf to suck 
milk from a pail? What is it worth for a kid to know how to grease a 
combine, drive a tractor, plant a field, work in the cold winter, and 
work in the hot sunshine outdoors? What is all of that worth? Well, the 
fact is that it is important, and it contributes to this country in 
significant ways. In World War II, we sent millions of young people 
from America's farms over to go fight. They could do anything, fix 
anything, drive anything. They were unbelievably important to this 
country. The only place you learn all those skills is on the family 
farm in this country. That is why family farming is not just some 
sentimental journey; it is a value system for the country.
  Does this country care about families who live on farms? Do they care 
about putting together a safety net for them? The answer should be yes. 
This farm bill says yes, and I support it. I want to make it better.
  Senator Grassley and I are going to offer an amendment that says if 
we are going to do this--and we should--then let's provide reform with 
respect to payment limits and really make the payment limits effective 
so we are providing a safety net for family farmers, not a set of 
golden arches for the largest corporate agrifactories in the country.
  Let me read some of the records of farm payment recipients and 
explain why it is necessary for us to have a payment limit. Senator 
Grassley and I say, No. 1, there should be a payment limit of $250,000 
per farm. No. 2, we say you ought to have to be involved in farming to 
get a farm program benefit. That is not very radical.
  I will read some of the payments. This comes from USDA information, 
and this is for 3 crop years, 2003 through 2005. The Balmoral Farming 
Partnership got $7.9 million. Phillips Farm in Mississippi got $5.9 
million. Kelley Enterprises got $4.9 million. Walker Place got $4.6 
million. Dublin Farms got $4.2 million. I could keep reading, but I 
don't think I need to read a lot more. But take a look at what happened 
with the farm program. Here is an example. In many ways, I am 
reluctantly reading the names, but they are public, and if someone is 
going to receive this funding and it is public information, it is 
reasonable to use it as an example. Benton Farms, Tyler, AL, got $2.5 
million. Haney Farms of Athens, AL, Horace Haney got $607,000, and 
Shirley, Keith, and Matthew Haney each got $607,000. Combined, the 
Haney family got $2.3 million. Pickens and Son Company got $4.3 
million. The Storey family got $2.7 million. Ronald Storey got 
$956,000, Hazel Storey got $932,000, Ben Storney got $478,000, Rebecca 
Storey got $430,000--I could do this for a while as well. I have pages 
of this. This is not a safety net for family farmers to get through 
tough times. It has become much more than that. It has become lucrative 
for big enterprises to farm the farm program and get paid millions of 
dollars, and it is wrong.
  Our amendment is reasonably simple. It says we should have a payment 
limitation of $250,000, and you should have to be required to be 
involved in farming in order to collect farm program benefits.
  It is important to note that the Agriculture Committee made some 
strides in this area as they brought the bill to the floor. They 
eliminated the three-entity rule, which itself was a loophole that 
needed to be closed. They provide for attribution, direct attribution, 
so the payments are attributed to an individual. It is not as if the 
Agriculture Committee didn't do anything. They did.
  My colleague, Senator Salazar, talked about section 1105, and that 
section is also something that can be helpful. My own view of section 
1105 is that it doesn't solve the problem entirely. So the proposal 
Senator Grassley and I offer will address this in a significant way.
  I mentioned yesterday that, to give you an example of how far this 
has gone--having nothing to do with farming--if you had base acres for 
rice or other crops--for program crops--and have base acres on land 
that hasn't been farmed for 20 years, has not produced a crop for 20 
years, people who own that land but have never farmed in their life are 
getting farm program payments on land that hasn't produced a crop in 20 
years because it had a base acre in the mid to early 1980s. That makes 
no sense to me. That is not about providing a safety net.
  There is no stronger supporter of family farming in this Chamber than 
myself, and I am sure others would say the same about their support for 
family farming. But it seems to me we need to close these loopholes. 
Why on earth would we have a production base, base acres, on land that 
has, in many cases, nothing to do with farming?
  I mentioned yesterday that down north of Houston, TX, they were 
selling what are referred to as ``cowboy starter kits.'' You buy 10 
acres, put a house on 1 acre, run a horse or cut hay on the other 9 
acres, and you can get a farm program payment. The reason it is more 
prevalent in rice is that the payment per acre is over a hundred 
dollars an acre, as opposed to the other crops that are much less. Does 
it pass the test of reasonableness anywhere for someone who has never 
farmed to buy 10 acres someplace and get a farm program payment when 
they are not farming the 10 acres and it hasn't grown anything for 20 
years? That does not meet any test of anything.
  We can close that loophole, but the more effective way to close this 
is to say you can't get farm program payments unless you are actively 
involved in farming. Should an arts patron in San Francisco get $2-plus 
million? She is not a farmer. She just comes from a family who used to 
have a farm, and she gets just over $2 million. We have, I think it is 
300 or 400 people living in New York City, in that mountain of 
concrete, who get farm program payments. We have people in Los Angeles, 
CA, who don't set foot on a farm who get farm program payments. Does 
that meet any test, or does somebody just not care about that and say: 
We just want to give payments to make us all feel good.
  I feel good when we give a payment to a family farmer as a safety net 
payment to help them through troubled times. When prices are high and 
the crops are bountiful, if you have a bumper crop and good prices, in 
my judgment, you don't need the Government's help. With respect to the 
large enterprises, if you want to farm three or four counties, God 
bless you. I don't think the Federal Government has to be your banker. 
You have every right to farm as much as you want.
  Some people would say to me, and they have said: That discriminates 
against the big operators, doesn't it? But I say: The purpose of the 
farm program is to be a safety net to help the family farm get through 
difficult times. They said: What is a family farm? Describe to me a 
family because you can't describe it. I remind them of Michelangelo, 
who said when asked how did he sculpt David, he said: I took a piece of 
marble, and then I chipped away everything that wasn't David. We could 
easily describe what most of us believe to be a family farm just by 
chipping away what isn't.

[[Page 29703]]

  Is it a family farm when you have huge corporate enterprises with 
multiple family members getting $600,000, $700,000? Is that a family 
operation? I don't think so. Huge corporations sucking millions of 
dollars out of the farm program by farming the farm program? I don't 
think that is what was intended.
  If you are a reformer, if you believe in reform--and we talk a lot 
about change and reform around here--in my judgment, one has to decide 
to do the right thing on this issue, and the right thing is to limit 
farm program payments to $250,000. That is a great deal of money. And 
at the same time, we have provided the disaster title in this bill, 
which I think is a significant improvement. Then decide, if you are 
going to get farm program payments, you have to be actively involved in 
farming.
  We provide opportunities for people to get, for example, loans to go 
to college, but we don't say to them: You can come and get your loan; 
we don't care what you do with it. We will only give college loans to 
those going to college. The same is true with a whole series of items. 
We actually have a circumstance that we give farm program payments to 
people who have never been on a farm and don't intend to be on a farm. 
They just want to collect the farm program payments.
  Even those who collect it think it is absurd. You can read the papers 
and gauge the reaction of people who say: I don't understand this at 
all. I bought 15 acres to build a house on, and I am getting farm 
program payments. What on Earth is the Government doing? Even the 
recipients scratch their heads and wonder what on Earth this is all 
about.
  I only ask that we, in a bipartisan way--and this amendment is 
bipartisan--decide to join together to do real reform. I want to be 
proud of this farm bill. I think Senator Harkin, my colleague, Senator 
Conrad, Senator Chambliss, and others have done some good work, but it 
can be improved upon by the passage of this amendment. It has a payment 
limit, and that also provides that those who receive farm program 
payments should be actively engaged in farming.
  Some will think that is unbelievably radical. It is, of course, not 
radical at all. It is just a significant investment in common sense. My 
hope is that my colleagues will believe that is the right thing to do.
  It is sad but true, this is a hungry world in which we live. 
Passengers on this planet circle the Sun. There are about 6.4 billion 
neighbors. We, through Divine Providence, ended up in this little space 
called the United States of America. We are blessed. We have the 
opportunity to have a wonderful lifestyle, standard, and scale of 
living. We have the ability to produce a prodigious amount of food. But 
even as I speak, a significant number of children have died in the last 
10 minutes because they did not have enough to eat; 600 million to 700 
million people go to bed in this world with an ache in their belly 
because they didn't have enough to eat. Think of that: They didn't have 
enough to eat. And we have economic all-stars called family farmers in 
this country who produce substantial amounts of food, and some people 
want them to believe somehow that is a liability. It is not. It is an 
unbelievable asset that in many ways can contribute to stability and 
world peace.
  Even as we think through all of these issues about our contribution 
to the world and about what we can do, it is important to think about 
our contribution at home in terms of building the kind of country we 
want. I want to see a country in the future that continues to have 
people living on family farms, producing food for a hungry world, and 
doing so in a way with, in effect, a partnership with the policymakers 
who have decided to create a safety net to say: We think you are 
important to this country's economy and this country's culture. For 
that reason, we have a farm safety net. And when you run into tough 
times, you are not going to be alone. This country is going to have a 
safety net, and it is going to help you through.
  I conclude by saying we should not ever believe that family farming 
is a liability. It is an enormous asset that contributes substantially 
to the character and value system of this country. I hope this Chamber 
will stand up for that value system. When we do, family farmers around 
this country will begin to be able to think about spring planting once 
again and begin next year with renewed hope.
  I said yesterday, and I will say it again: You cannot be a family 
farmer, you cannot live out alone under the yard lights unless you live 
on a reservoir of hope. Everything is about hope for a better future, 
and I think the farm bill, amended by our amendment, could give farmers 
a substantial amount of renewed hope.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two Democratic 
speakers, after the previously ordered lineup, be Senator Baucus and 
Senator Wyden, up to 15 minutes each; further, that in the previous 
order, Senator Stabenow be recognized for up to 30 minutes and Senator 
Craig for 30 minutes--sorry, Senator Isakson be recognized for up to 30 
minutes and Senator Craig--let me try to get through this. I could say 
it is the penmanship, but it is not. It is my interpretation--that 
Senator Stabenow be recognized for up to 30 minutes, Senator Craig for 
up to 30 minutes prior to Senator Isakson--Stabenow, I am sorry.
  Madam President, if you have that straight, you are an unbelievable 
presider. I will send it to you in written form.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Thank goodness. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today, once again, to talk about a 
threatened veto by the President of the United States. We spent many 
weeks debating the Children's Health Insurance Program, months, really, 
when you consider all the time. People worked very hard on both sides 
of the aisle on children's health insurance. Yet despite all that work, 
despite all that bipartisanship, despite all of the hours and the 
energy that went into getting a bipartisan bill on children's health 
insurance, we have the President of the United States vetoing that 
legislation and threatening to veto it yet again.
  Unfortunately, I stand today to talk about another threatened veto. 
President Bush is threatening to veto the farm bill, which makes no 
sense at all not only because of the work that went into this bill by 
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, that is reason enough for him 
not to veto important legislation such as this, but I think it is even 
graver than that. It is an even graver threat than talking about 
vetoing legislation because when the President of the United States, if 
he were to carry through on his threat to veto the farm bill, he is 
vetoing a lot of provisions that he should not be coming out against 
and fighting against. The President is vetoing a farm bill which does 
so much for nutrition, just taking one example. We know the committee 
this bill came out of is not just the Agriculture Committee, it is the 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and that word 
``nutrition'' is critically important.
  To give some examples of what this means for families across America, 
here is what we are talking about when we talk about nutrition 
programs. Of course, food stamps being a big part of that, I will go 
through some of the elements of that program in a moment, the Fruit and 
Vegetable Snack Program, No. 2; No. 3, the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program, known in Washington by the acronym TEFAP--all of these 
programs provide children and families who would otherwise go hungry 
with food.
  The farm bill reauthorizes those programs, a Washington word 
``reauthorize'' for telling us we are going to fund them again. 
Finally, the overall title, the section of the bill that is entitled 
``Nutrition,'' that title provides over $4 billion over 5 years to help 
on these important priorities.
  So what are we talking about with food stamps? A couple of points. 
While

[[Page 29704]]

the rest of the world received an increase in wages or an increase in 
purchasing power in parts of our Government and economy, a lot of 
people on food stamps were left behind the last couple of years.
  What are we talking about? We are talking about a couple of changes 
that make a lot of sense. No. 1, ending benefit erosion, and the 
increases we provide in this farm bill will increase the purchasing 
power for families who benefit from food stamps.
  No. 2, deducting the cost of childcare from program eligibility. That 
shouldn't be part of eligibility, a necessity such as childcare for 
working families and poor families across America. They shouldn't have 
to factor in childcare costs. That is a mistake, and we have changed 
that. Thank goodness.
  No. 3, protecting family investments in prepaid college funds and 
retirement savings. Again, when a family's income is being evaluated 
for eligibility, we should not include prepaid college funds.
  No. 4, increasing purchasing power for fruits and vegetables with a 
new pilot program. At long last--and I say this not just because 
Pennsylvania will do well, and I am happy to say we have a part of the 
farm bill that speaks directly to so-called speciality crops, of which 
fruit and vegetables are a big part of the economy of Pennsylvania and 
America, but this is particularly important for poor families and for 
children. They should have every opportunity we can provide to have the 
benefit of getting fresh fruits and vegetables. It is a great idea.
  Along those lines is an actual program, the Fruit and Vegetable 
Program. We are committing over $1 billion over 5 years to this 
important program. It expands the already-existing program so schools 
in every single State can participate. Does it cover every school in 
every school district? No; there is not enough money to do that. But it 
does expand that program so at least some schools in every State can 
participate.
  Finally, the Fruit and Vegetable Program targets the program to focus 
on hungry children to give them the healthy foods they need the most.
  After food stamps and the Fruit and Vegetable Program is the 
Emergency Food Assistance Program, known as TEFAP. This bill provides 
$100 million each year to purchase food that is then distributed by 
local food banks. Again, in addition to that, there is $50 million for 
the Hunger-Free Communities Program. That particular program under 
TEFAP is for grants to local communities to combat hunger.
  What does this all mean? It means feeding children in America who 
would otherwise go hungry and providing basic health care for children 
is another element I talked about earlier when I spoke of the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program. Both of these, whether it is the 
farm bill investments in nutrition or whether it is children's health 
insurance, are about investing in our children in the dawn of their 
lives, but also it is about building an economy many years from now.
  I hope the President, when he is making a final decision about the 
farm bill, will take a close look at what this bill does for children, 
what it does for families, and what it does for our farm families all 
across America. We don't have time today to go through all of it, but 
suffice it to say this is the first time in many years we have 
addressed these things, and I would ask the President to look at what 
this farm bill does for dairy farmers.
  I spent time back in the cold of the winter, in Wayne County, PA, and 
met a young man by the name of Joe Davitt, who has a dairy farm. His 
father had it before him and now it is his responsibility to take on 
that incredibly difficult job of long hours, year after year, trying to 
make ends meet. Our Government, frankly, hasn't done enough to help 
them make ends meet in this very difficult job, and they are not asking 
for anything a lot of us don't get help with.
  This farm bill allows us to give some measure of relief; not nearly 
enough, but some measure of relief for dairy farmers, who are salt-of-
the-earth people, who helped build this country and build our farm 
economy. Finally, at long last, we have a piece of legislation which 
takes into consideration the struggles and the challenges of dairy 
farms across Pennsylvania but, indeed, across the country, from one 
shore to the other.
  There is a lot to recommend in this farm bill, whether it is helping 
dairy farmers, whether it is an investment--long overdue--in specialty 
crops, and what it does for nutrition for all of America, but 
especially those who are vulnerable, those who happen to be poor and 
need help with the basic necessities of life. I hope the President, 
when he looks at this legislation--after he has done so much over many 
years now for people who make $1 million a year, or maybe they make $10 
million a year, or maybe they even make $100 million or more; those 
Americans have gotten an awful lot of help--he will see this farm bill 
focuses on families in America having trouble making ends meet, whether 
they are farm families or whether they happen to be poor Americans who 
can benefit from our nutrition programs. I hope the President will 
consider that in the interest of fairness, but also in the interest of 
investing in a stronger farm economy, investing in making sure our 
children have the nutrition they need, and also making investments in 
conservation, environmental protection, and a whole series of very 
important elements to the farm bill.
  Unfortunately, I think the President, in his veto threat, is 
overlooking all that. I hope he changes his mind. There are some 
Americans who have done fine, thank you, under this President. And so 
for him to veto the farm bill would be contrary not just to all those 
interests, important interests in America--children, families, farmers, 
and farm families--but also it would be contrary to a lot of the work 
that was done by Chairman Tom Harkin, the chairman of our committee, 
and Ranking Member Chambliss from the State of Georgia; and not only 
the work they put in, but the work their staffs put in, month after 
month after month, working in a bipartisan way, to get this bill on the 
right track.
  It is not perfect. There will be lots of criticism of this bill, but 
not nearly enough criticisms are warranted to justify the veto of this 
legislation. We have to get this done. It is the only time we will work 
on this in 5 years. We need to get it done. And the President, if he is 
thinking of the best interests of the country, will sign the 
legislation.
  I urge the President, as respectfully as I can, not to veto the farm 
bill. It has broad bipartisan support. We have to get this legislation 
done.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the Senate is now considering the 
farm bill, and with the leadership of Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member 
Chambliss, Senator Conrad, and a Minnesota Congressman, Colin Peterson, 
in the House, the bipartisan farm bill will invest in our farms and 
rural communities so they will be a strong, growing, and innovative 
part of 21st century America.
  America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as 
an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect 
struggling family farmers from the financial shocks of volatile weather 
and equally volatile commodity prices. Almost 75 years later, the 
reasons for maintaining that strong safety net still exist.
  The 2002 farm bill actually spurred rural development by allowing 
farmers in Minnesota and across the country to take risks to expand 
production. Because of productivity gains and innovation, including 
advances in renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 
farm bill actually came in $17 billion under budget.
  As the Senate debates a final 2007 farm bill this week, it is 
important not to underestimate the value of a strong bill for States 
such as my State of Minnesota, where agriculture is so vital to our 
economy and our way of life. That

[[Page 29705]]

is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I support the 
new farm bill. This includes an increased focus on cellulosic-based 
ethanol, continued support for a strong commodity safety net, and 
additional funds for conservation, nutrition, and disaster relief.
  Of particular importance is the fact that we have balanced the budget 
with every dollar of new spending fully offset.
  Traveling around my State during the last 2 years, I have had the 
opportunity to visit all 87 counties of my State twice, last year and 
this, and I had the opportunity to talk to many farmers about the good 
and the bad in the last farm bill. I can tell you this: The farm bill 
has worked to revitalize many of our rural communities across America. 
It has spurred rural development by allowing farmers in Minnesota and 
across the country to take risks and expand their agricultural 
production. Because of strong commodity prices and advances in 
renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill are 
projected to come in $17 billion under budget.
  I am pleased this bill continues this safety net, and I appreciate 
the effort that has also been made to rebalance the commodity programs 
to be more equitable to northern crops such as wheat, oats, barley, 
soybeans, and canola.
  Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent 
program of disaster assistance. I thank Senator Baucus for the work the 
Finance Committee has put into this provision. Farmers have to come 
back to Congress each year with a tin cup in their hands when in fact 
we can do it differently. Our State has been hit by drought, flooding, 
and everything in between, and they had to wait 3 years for Congress to 
pass another ad hoc disaster relief bill. A permanent program of 
disaster relief will give farmers security moving forward.
  One of my major goals for this farm bill was to include a strong 
cellulosic ethanol program. Our corn-based ethanol and soybean-based 
biodiesel have taken off in Minnesota, and we are ready to expand to 
the next generation of biofuels--cellulosic ethanol, prairie grasses, 
biomass that yields more energy and, if done the right way, is better 
for our environment and conservation.
  I was proud to draft legislation to provide farmers with an incentive 
to grow cellulosic energy crops, and I thank Chairman Harkin and 
Senator Conrad for working with me to include this in the farm bill. 
The fact these crops put carbon back in the soil and take less fossil 
fuel to produce offers us the promise of producing a carbon-neutral 
motor fuel for this country. In short, the Biomass Crop Transition 
Program, which is what the cellulosic ethanol provision of this farm 
bill is, will allow us to expand on corn ethanol and soy diesel to a 
new generation of farm-based energy and greater freedom from imported 
oil.
  I am also pleased this farm bill includes legislation I introduced, 
along with Senator Bond, to provide funding for E-85 pumps. It is a 
chicken-and-egg problem with E-85. Less than 1 percent of our gas 
stations have the E-85 pumps. In the Energy bill, we have more 
requirements for flex-fuel vehicles, and this bill will help to get the 
pumps out there so we can be investing in the farmers and the workers 
of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast.
  I am also pleased the committee has accepted my amendment to double 
the authorized funding levels for two programs that serve beginning 
farmers and ranchers. There are real opportunities today to start out 
in farming, especially in growing areas such as organic farming and 
energy production. But beginning farmers also face big obstacles, 
including limited access to credit and technical assistance, and the 
high price of land. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Programs in this 
farm bill provide mentoring and outreach for new farmers, and training 
in business planning and credit building--the skills they need to 
succeed and stay on the land.
  There are a lot of good things for rural America in this farm bill. 
There is, however, one critical area where I believe more reform is 
needed. We need to stop urban millionaires from pocketing farm 
subsidies intended for hard-working farmers. This reform is in the best 
interest of Minnesota farmers. Here are the facts: Nationally, 60 farms 
have collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm bill, but 
none of them were in our State. The average income of Minnesota farms, 
after expenses, is $54,000. But under the current system, a part-time 
farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from outside sources 
and still qualify for Federal benefits.
  It makes no sense to hand out payments to multimillionaires when this 
money should be targeted to family farmers. Big payments to big-city 
investors threaten to undermine the public support for every farm 
program, even though the commodity payments are projected to be only 15 
percent of the total farm bill budget over the next 5 years.
  A poster boy for what needs to be changed is Maurice Wilder, a 
Florida-based real estate developer. From 2003 to 2005, he has 
collected more than $3.2 million in farm payments for properties in 
five States, even though his net worth is estimated at $500 million. 
Nearly 600 residents of New York City, 559 residents of Washington, DC, 
and even 21 residents of Beverly Hills 90210 received Federal farm 
checks in the past 3 years. Some collected hundreds of thousands of 
dollars. Last time I checked, there wasn't a lot of farmland in those 
neighborhoods.
  We can fix this and do better for our farmers by using the new farm 
bill to close loopholes, tighten payment limits, and enforce tougher 
income eligibility standards. First, the current Senate and House farm 
bill proposals eliminate the three-entity rule. This will cut down on 
abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals and married 
couples and ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple 
corporations to multiply payments.
  Second, a longstanding bill, which is an amendment that will be 
considered this week, proposed by Senators Dorgan and Grassley would 
limit annual payments to $250,000. I will vote in favor of this 
provision on the Senate floor, and the Senate should adopt it.
  I also believe a third kind of reform is needed. Congress should act 
to prevent payments that are intended for hard-working farmers from 
going to urban millionaires and giant agribusiness.
  We will be talking about these amendments in the week to come, but I 
wish to say as we move ahead to develop homegrown renewable sources of 
energy, rural America promises to be central to our Nation's future 
energy independence as well as the fight against global warming. This 
bill prepares us. This bill heads us in the right direction.
  Inertia may be the most powerful force in the political universe, but 
after 75 years, the best interests of America's rural economy demand 
that we correct the abuses of the past so we can move forward with this 
bill, with some modifications of reform, to ensure a strong safety net 
for our hard-working farmers.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, may I inquire what the order of business 
is at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is to be recognized for up to 30 
minutes under the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, many of us are coming to the floor today 
to speak to the new farm bill that the Senate Ag Committee has proposed 
and brought to us over the last several months.
  Over the years I have had the privilege to participate in a variety 
of farm bill developments and structures as we ultimately came to a new 
5-year farm policy in our country.
  First of all, let me say for the first time in a good number of years 
we have actually had the Secretary of Agriculture go out amongst 
American agriculture, ask questions and listen, and

[[Page 29706]]

send us proposals of change in farm policy.
  We have also had both the House and the Senate committees operating 
extensively in bipartisan ways to hold hearings, looking at the 
existing farm policy and what may need to be changed to justify a new 
farm bill.
  While many are caught up in the bits and pieces of a farm bill 
structure, what is important to remember is a nation that feeds itself 
is a nation that is, by its own definition, strong and independent. And 
that has been throughout our history one of our great legacies: that we 
could produce our own food and fiber to feed our own populations, and 
then step beyond that to help feed the world.
  In fact, in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, as we saw a burgeoning 
export market in agricultural growth, we were expanding our own growth 
capabilities not only to feed ourselves but to feed the world.
  That, in part, has been the product of a consistent farm policy over 
the years that stabilized agriculture, agricultural producers who 
looked at the primary commodity crops and said: This is the base of 
American agriculture, and this is what we ought to support to assure 
there is adequate food and fiber for the American consumer.
  We now take for granted every day of the week that as we walk into 
the supermarkets of America the shelves will be full and overflowing 
with an abundance of food. We just take it for granted--unless you are 
amongst the very poor, and then you might stand in a soup line. But 
there are few of those in our country today. And, certainly, for those 
less fortunate there are a variety of food and nutritional programs 
embodied within farm policy that assure there will be minimal nutrition 
values offered and provided to America. That is truly one of our great 
legacies and something I think all Americans can be proud of.
  Over the years, American agriculture has changed. We think 
traditionally of corn and wheat and soybeans and cotton and, of course, 
we used to have a tobacco program in the South that was supported, that 
no longer exists for obvious and important reasons.
  But little did we recognize something that we now value greatly as a 
part of our nutritional base today: our vegetables, our fruits, and 
that huge variety that you see on the fresh produce shelves as you walk 
into any of our great supermarkets across the Nation.
  And to those of us who have been associated with agriculture all of 
our lives, it is not the meat shelf, it is not the bread shelf, it is 
the fruits and the vegetables, the specialty crops, the kinds of things 
that never have been in a farm bill, that we have never spoken clearly 
to, that embodied a very large part of American agriculture.
  In fact, today, at farmgate, meaning the value of products leaving 
the farm itself, we view specialty crops as somewhere in the area of 50 
percent. Not a program crop, not a loan program, not a base support 
price, but American farmers out there working to diversify and to 
ensure the variety that all of our consumers enjoy today.
  So it is, in my opinion, a very big victory that today I come to the 
floor, along with a group of my colleagues, to talk about a new 
provision within farm policy to deal with the specialty crops. And for 
the next few moments, let me talk about it and its importance as we 
recognize what it means not only today but what it could mean in the 
future.
  This sector includes vegetables, fruits, nursery crops, herbal crops, 
floriculture, horticulture, dried fruit, tree nuts, and turf grass. We 
know about all of those things. Turf grass you do not buy at the fresh 
produce stand, but if you are building a new home and all of a sudden 
you have instant yard because the landscaper has laid turf, then you 
know a lot about turf.
  In my State of Idaho, that is a rapidly growing and, in some areas, 
urbanizing area; turf farms are a very important part of Idaho 
agriculture today. It may surprise some, when they think of specialty 
crops, they think of the great agricultural belt known as the San 
Joaquin Valley of California, where you see one different crop after 
another for hundreds and hundreds of miles across that phenomenally 
fertile stretch of American agricultural soil.
  But in my State of Idaho, we are one of the top States in the Nation 
as it relates to producing specialty crops. Beyond being the No. 1 
producer of potatoes that we certainly recognize, and most of us enjoy, 
Idaho is proud to boost production of cherries, table grapes, mint, 
apples, onions, carrots, and a variety of seed, nursery and ornamental 
crops.
  The specialty crop industry has never relied, as I earlier mentioned, 
on the traditional farm program to support or sustain it. Yet they are 
subject to high volatility in markets. They face significant risk in 
their operations, including pests and disease threats, along with 
technical trade barriers and disaster conditions.
  The inclusion of these new crops does not cost the traditional 
programs at all because we are not looking for, nor has the specialty 
crop industry asked for, the kind of program that is represented in 
wheat and barley and pulse crops and sugar and others. These new 
provisions do not provide direct subsidy to producers but create and 
fund programs that will, among other things, help to improve the 
competitiveness of specialty crops, expand valuable nutritional 
programs, and direct new mandatory funding to specialty crop research.
  Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. Many States of 
the Nation now have a growing wine industry. Idaho is amongst those. We 
have a unique microclimate along the Snake River Valley of Idaho that 
allows us to raise quality grapes and to produce very fine quality 
wine.
  But the problem of adapting an Australian-based or a German-based or 
an Italian-based grape to a new ecosystem takes research. A few years 
ago I was able to get the wine industry of Idaho research grants, hire 
a university professor, do the laboratory work, and learn how to manage 
a Melbac, or a Shiraz, or a particular type of Cab grape that allows us 
to up our values and up the quality of the wine grapes of our State. 
That is the kind of program we have embodied in the new specialty crop 
title and provision of the farm bill.
  It provides producers better ways to address technical barriers in 
trade. It assists in the prevention, detection, and eradication of 
invasive pests and diseases in specialty crops.
  I am pleased to see the bill extends the authority of specialty crop 
block grants, a charge which I led back in 2004, and will provide 
funding to States for locally driven and directed programs relating to 
research, commodity promotion, product quality enhancement, food 
safety, and other areas.
  These are all very critical to the quality, the safety of the food 
that the average consumer, once again, walking into the supermarket on 
a daily basis simply takes for granted.
  Mandatory dollars for specialty crop research will help our Nation 
keep a competitive edge on breeding, genetics, and genomics, also fund 
initiatives to address a certain economy such as the increased need for 
mechanization and food safety initiatives.
  Very frankly, fellow Senators, if we do not begin to ensure a labor 
force to American agriculture, the kind that has largely left 
agriculture over the last 2 years because of the immigration debate and 
the border crisis that we are now trying to fix, we are going to have 
to see more and more of our industry mechanized or it will simply have 
to move out of our country to an area where that labor force exists.
  So here is an opportunity in the specialty crop bill to do a little 
more of that research toward mechanization that again gives us 
opportunities that we heretofore did not have.
  I also applaud the national expansion of the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Snack Program, a program in which Idaho has been fortunate to 
participate for several years now. With the expansion, it is estimated 
that 4.5 million low-income elementary school children in 5,000 schools 
nationwide will benefit from receiving a fresh fruit or vegetable snack 
every day of the school year.
  This bill takes a major step forward in recognizing the significance 
of the specialty crop industry to the overall

[[Page 29707]]

agricultural economy of our country. The benefits to the health of U.S. 
citizens and the need for a stable, affordable, diverse, and secure 
food supply are clearly addressed within the specialty crop title.
  For the first time in my years in Washington working on farm policy, 
I think it is possible to say the farm bill we currently have on the 
Senate floor, crafted in a bipartisan way, with the administration 
fully participating in the initial input of it, now covers a much 
broader whole of the American agricultural scene than we have ever 
before had.
  With the inclusion of specialty crops in the overall program, it can 
clearly be said that is the case. So while I know the bill currently 
has its own problems on the Senate floor based on what may or may not 
transpire here, this ia a very fine piece of work, in my opinion. Do I 
agree with all of it? No. Would I have written it this way had I been 
chairman of the Ag Committee or had the ability to do so? No, probably 
not.
  There are several provisions within it that would simply not be there 
because my State of Idaho, for example, does not necessarily care for 
some of them. For example, the large milk program of dairy is not what 
adjusts or identifies to my State's large and rapidly growing dairy 
industry. This is designed to protect a much smaller producer; in my 
opinion, a less economical producer today than the kind that has built 
the dairy industry in my State.
  Be that as it may, that has always been the character of farm policy. 
Has it been bipartisan? Yes. By definition it has to be. Does it need 
to recognize all regions of our country? Yes, it does.
  But most importantly, in doing all of those things, what it always 
has been able to do is to assure the American consumer that food in 
this country will be relatively inexpensive compared to the amount of 
consumer income required to put a meal on the table of an American 
family. Americans, without question, are blessed because of the 
phenomenal productivity of American agriculture, the ingenuity, the 
technology, all that goes there.
  In part, the stability that has produced that is a product of farm 
policies down through the decades that have recognized the basic 
principle that a nation that can feed itself, that can be assured there 
will be an abundance of food for itself and use the surplus to sell to 
the world, is a nation that not only can be preeminent but certainly a 
nation that can stand on its own.
  Senator Stabenow has just entered the Chamber. She and I were the 
first two Senators to actually sit down with the fruits and vegetables 
industry of our Nation and say: We need a specialty crop title. We need 
provisions within the farm bill that recognize and bring forth all of 
the kinds of programs that I have just talked about.
  Over the course of the last 3 years, working in a bipartisan way, we 
have done just that. Let me recognize Senator Stabenow for the 
phenomenal work she has done over the last several months in 
shepherding this piece of legislation through to inclusion in the farm 
bill, in working with both sides of the aisle to assure that happened. 
And I must say hats off to the Senator from Michigan because she, like 
I, recognizes the phenomenal diversity of agriculture in our State and 
the need to not only recognize it and enhance it where we can, but to 
do so in a bipartisan way, that has produced the work product we have 
before us.
  I am proud to stand on the Senate floor today recognizing a small but 
very important new provision within the farm bill, recognizing the 
nearly 50 percent of gross farm revenue across America today that is 
embodied within the phenomenal specialty crop diversity that makes us 
the great agricultural Nation we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I 
thank the distinguished Senator from Idaho for his leadership as we 
have worked together on specialty crop issues. This is an important 
bipartisan effort. We began focusing on it when we defined specialty 
crops in the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004. We have now 
taken that definition and gone on to include, as he said, 50 percent of 
the cash receipts from the crops that had not been recognized fully in 
the farm bill. It has been my pleasure to work with him and see that we 
have been able to make this an important part of this farm bill for the 
future. I thank him and congratulate him.
  I rise to speak about the farm bill in front of us. It is an effort 
that has taken a tremendous amount of time, debate, and negotiation, a 
2-day markup. We ended up passing it unanimously out of the Agriculture 
Committee, which is no small feat. I am pleased to have played a role 
in that process. A major reason for our success was our chairman, the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa, who has been so diligent from the 
beginning. He has had a vision about the future for agriculture, where 
we needed to go in alternative energy, conservation, fruits and 
vegetables, nutrition, as well as our traditional support for 
agriculture. I thank Chairman Harkin and our distinguished ranking 
member for their efforts together. We have put into place a farm bill 
for the future. I am very pleased we are doing that.
  Our needs are different than when the first farm bills came about. 
Energy independence, preserving and protecting the environment, making 
sure we have a nutritious supply of products to keep communities and 
families healthy are all areas covered in this new farm bill.
  I thank my dear friend and colleague, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Conrad, for his incredible leadership, putting all 
the numbers together. We have only a relatively small increase above 
the baseline in this farm bill, $8 billion. Contrary to what we are 
hearing from the administration, we are seeing a relatively small 
increase, fully paid for under the budget. Thanks to the work of 
Senator Conrad, we have a farm bill that is done in a fiscally 
responsible way.
  I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for 
his extraordinary leadership. Serving on the Budget, Finance, and 
Agriculture Committees, I have to say we would not be here with a 
successful farm bill if it were not for Senator Baucus and the work he 
has done in providing revenues as well as a permanent disaster relief 
program, which is incredibly important.
  I also thank my staff for their hard work. We have been working for 
months and months on this farm bill, many late hours, some all-
nighters. I thank Chris Adamo and Oliver Kim, who have done an 
extraordinary job on the nutrition pieces of this bill; Ilana Levinson; 
and my legislative director, Amanda Renteria.
  This new farm bill represents a progressive agricultural policy and a 
vision of the future. It focuses on and expands many new policies, such 
as specialty crops and renewable energy, conservation, nutrition, and 
rural development. When people think of Michigan, most of the time 
people think of automobiles and manufacturing. But in fact, the second 
largest industry in Michigan is agriculture. We have more diversity of 
crops than any other State other than California. This is a very 
important part of public policy for Michigan. It is about supporting 
our growers, about communities, the schoolchildren, seniors, and others 
who benefit from nutrition programs. It is also about jobs. In real 
ways, this is a bill that will create jobs in my State.
  We have everything from traditional commodities in Michigan, such as 
dairy and meat and pork and corn and sugar beets and soybeans. We are 
also proudly the national leaders in the production of numerous 
specialty crops--our fruits and vegetables, including blueberries, 
apples, cherries, asparagus, and celery. Michigan farmers are in need 
of a safety net for the crops they now grow, our program crops. But 
they also are asking us for a new set of policies, not payments, not 
direct payments, but a set of policies that will allow us to support 
fruit and vegetable growers who make up half of American agriculture.
  In addition to diverse farms and commodities, we also have expansive 
urban areas with strong interests in conserving our national resources, 
our land, our Great Lakes, expanding as

[[Page 29708]]

well in our inner-city areas access for fresh fruits and vegetables 
through farmers markets and community gardens and school nutrition 
programs. Literally, for me, every single part of the farm bill is 
important and impacts someone in my State, whether they be involved 
directly in farming or not. Of course, as we sometimes don't think 
about, the farm bill does impact everybody, whether you have any part 
of agricultural production in your State or not because of what this 
means in food security, nutrition, and now focusing on other important 
areas such as alternative energy.
  I understand, as we debate this important farm bill, we will be 
continuing to talk about reforming farm policy. I know for many, the 
reforms that have passed in the Agriculture Committee--and we have put 
together very important reforms--as well as for me, do not go as far as 
I would like. But they do represent a very important first step in the 
right direction. There is a tremendous amount of reform in this 
legislation. It is important for us not to define reform as just 
changing direct payments. It is about changing the focus, expanding the 
focus toward the future, which is what this farm bill absolutely does. 
We have made progress on farm payment reform, but we have also put in 
place a new guide for the next 5 years in completely new farm policies, 
such as specialty crops, helping producers grow more and consumers to 
have more access to healthy foods.
  Energy is a very exciting part of this bill, the next economic 
opportunity for rural America, for our farmers. These new policies will 
create new jobs and new, clean, renewable energies. Conservation, 
again, is a major focus for our chairman, and I commend him for that. 
His leadership has brought us more than $4 billion in new investments 
in conservation that will help producers be the great stewards of the 
land they want to be.
  Again, the chairman, in his leadership on nutrition, has been 
extraordinary, expanding the food and nutrition program and providing 
more access to healthy foods. In fact, it is important to mention that 
roughly 66 percent of the farm bill is focused in some way on 
nutrition. That means this is truly a food security and nutrition bill 
for every American. It is also important to mention that we have 
included a focus on beginning and disadvantaged farmers, new policies 
in the conservation title, as our Presiding Officer has focused on in 
so many of the areas around conservation and supporting our farmers and 
family farmers. The credit title also helps new farmers and those 
sometimes wrongfully left out to provide for more conservation and more 
credit resources. We know we need a new generation of farmers to 
continue providing food security for our Nation.
  Let me speak about each of these areas briefly. The area of the farm 
bill we call specialty crops, what does that mean? We are talking about 
fruits, vegetables, horticulture, floriculture, dried nuts. We had 
defined those areas in 2004 in the farm bill. This is something I have 
been working on since coming to the Congress after the 1996 election, 4 
years in the U.S. House on the Agriculture Committee, and now in the 
Senate. I remember when we first started talking about specialty crops 
and trying to find something in the farm bill that would directly 
support the 50 percent of the crops that are fruits and vegetables and 
other specialty crops. It was difficult to find much. But finally, 
after working together on a bipartisan basis and having wonderful 
support from the Agriculture Committee, we can honestly say we have 
placed specialty crops as a permanent part of the farm bill.
  This is incredibly important, particularly now when we look at the 
needs for nutrition, the needs of the future for our families, our 
children, our seniors, as we look at a world economy, where it is very 
important that we be supporting our own fruits and vegetable growers.
  There are 36 Members of the Senate who have come together, because we 
grow specialty crops in our States, and have supported the efforts. I 
thank each Member who has lent their voice in support and strength to 
this effort. We have over 120 different organizations that have been 
working now for several years to come together to get to this point. I 
thank all of them for their efforts as well.
  We have come a long way since the 2002 farm bill, when we were 
talking about trying to get some help with tree assistance or some 
basic nutrition programs. In 2004, we passed the Specialty Crop 
Competitiveness Act which defined specialty crops and for the first 
time gave us a policy from which to work. It laid the groundwork for 
the progress we have made in creating a specialty crop policy in the 
farm bill, including the centerpiece program such as specialty crop 
block grants. Today, for the first time, there is a significant package 
to help our growers who supply our healthy foods. This package is what 
I call a toolbox, not a direct payment. They have not asked for that, 
but they have asked for a variety of things to help them be successful 
and make fruits and vegetables available to our families.
  The toolbox includes competitive grant programs, research funds, 
increased protections from pests and disease, trade export promotions, 
various nutrition programs to help those in need, as well as a focus on 
our schoolchildren, assistance for organic farmers, a very important, 
growing part of agriculture, as well as important conservation 
payments. This multitude of policies offers real reform and is needed 
for a variety of reasons.
  It is also important to note the new disaster assistance program that 
has been put together accommodates specialty crops as well. There is 
approximately $1 billion of disaster relief for specialty crops 
included in the disaster relief program. It will expedite aid to 
producers after natural disasters for which farmers cannot plan. A 
critical part of this is new mandatory funding for the Tree Assistance 
Program. This is absolutely critical to our farmers who have orchards 
because our orchards--such as cherries and peaches and apples--are 
basically the assets. The trees are the assets for those farmers, and 
they are expensive assets that take years to yield profits. So being 
able to support those growers who have orchards and to be able to help 
them in a disaster is very important.
  It is important to note that specialty crop farmers are also very 
diverse. What is good for the Washington apple growers may not be the 
same for Michigan apple growers. Different diseases and challenges face 
different growers in different parts of the country. So policies such 
as the State-run block grants that we have included and competitive 
research grants are vital to help the over 200 different types of 
specialty crop farmers across the Nation be able to have assistance for 
their particular issue, their particular areas of concern.
  Second, fruits and vegetables are more susceptible to different pests 
and diseases. We must have the best inspection and rapid-response 
policies in place. Currently, the costs borne by the fruit and 
vegetable industry due to invasive species reaches over $1 billion a 
year. Our disease and pest policy will help prevent new invasive 
species as well as help mitigate them. This will help not only 
specialty crop growers but all our farmers as well as our forests.
  Third, just like our traditional row crops, such as corn and 
soybeans, we need a strong domestic supply of fruits and vegetables. 
Studies suggest that even if every person in this country tried to eat 
the five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day that are 
recommended by the Federal Government, our domestic growers would 
simply not be able to meet the demand.
  Fourth--and while speaking of domestic fruit and vegetable farmers--
this Nation currently imports $2.7 billion more than it exports in 
fruits and vegetables. So we need to ensure our safety and health and 
help our growers as they export as well.
  Finally, when we talk about specialty crops, we are really talking 
about eating in a healthier way. A better supply of fruits and 
vegetables means more access for more people to the things they need to 
be healthy and to prevent systemic disease in the future.

[[Page 29709]]

  Along with our focus on specialty crops is a real partnership with 
the portion of the farm bill that focuses on nutrition. This farm bill 
makes important strides in reducing hunger in our Nation and improving 
the nutritional health of our children. It makes a key link between our 
commodities--our fruits and vegetables--and health by recognizing the 
importance of fruits and vegetables in the new specialty crops 
provisions.
  The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has applauded 
efforts to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables. They noted 
that HHS statistics have found that unhealthy eating and inactivity 
cause 310,000 to 580,000 deaths every year.
  In addition, in this Congress we have made our children's health a 
legislative priority. In addition to our fight for the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, we have expanded the successful Fruit and 
Vegetable Snack Program so that schools nationwide will be able to give 
children a healthy snack. Again, my hat goes off to our chairman, who 
placed the Fruit and Vegetable Program in the farm bill in the past as 
a pilot project.
  A lot of folks said: Well, even if you have a bowl of fruits--apples 
or other fresh fruits--and vegetables available in schools, the kids 
won't eat them; they will just go to the vending machine. Well, it 
turned out that was not true. It turned out that children loved having 
those apples and peaches and strawberries and plums and all of the 
other fruits available. Teachers across the country have been clamoring 
to expand this very successful Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, and 
we have done that in this bill. In fact, with the passage of the farm 
bill, about 120,000 children in Michigan alone will have access to 
fresh fruits and vegetables through the snack program.
  This is a very important policy in terms of the future for our 
children. Making sure children eat right and understand good nutrition 
is, of course, critical for their long-term health. According to the 
New America Foundation's child development and youth well-being index, 
health indicators for children are on the decline mainly due to 
children's poor nutritional health and obesity. By helping our schools 
purchase healthy snacks, we can not only give children better food but 
also help guide their nutritional choices throughout their entire 
lives. Maybe if they pick up an apple or dried cherries--grown in 
Michigan, of course--rather than junk food, we will give them an 
opportunity for a healthier future.
  Additionally, the farm bill addresses hunger by making long overdue 
changes to the Food and Nutrition Program, formerly known as food 
stamps. Since 1996, the income standards for this program have been 
frozen--in other words, no increases. Food costs go up, inflation goes 
up, and there have been no increases. This has caused the purchasing 
power for families to decline as food costs and inflation have 
increased.
  In just one example, a 32-year-old single mom named Sonya, who lives 
in Michigan near my hometown of Lansing, has two children ages 12 and 
13. She works two jobs. One pays $10.40 an hour, where she works 24 
hours a week. The other one pays her $76 a day. She is working hard to 
hold things together for her family. She spends nearly $650 a month in 
daycare expenses, right now, for her children. But under current law, 
she cannot count the full value of her childcare costs when she applies 
for the Food and Nutrition Program. This cap on childcare is a huge 
incentive against working.
  The nutrition title will help Sonya and other families--and the vast 
majority of Food and Nutrition Program households are three-individual 
households like Sonya's--because it takes that cap off and will cover 
and count the costs of childcare for working moms. For example, a 
mother of three who works 35 hours a week at $9 an hour and pays $350 a 
month for childcare for a preschool-aged child would receive an 
additional $79 in food assistance for herself and her children. This is 
a huge difference. It may not sound like a lot of money, but it is a 
huge difference for families all across this country.
  We should be very proud of the fact that on a bipartisan basis we 
have placed these improvements in the bill. However, we still need to 
do a lot more, and I certainly support other efforts to do that.
  We still need to make improvements to the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program. Unfortunately, our senior citizens, who make up the bulk of 
this program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, are eligible at 
a lower income threshold than are families. In other words, if you are 
a senior up to 130 percent of poverty, you can get help with food; for 
a family, it is 185 percent. There is really no reason to discriminate 
against senior citizens, and a number of organizations, including AARP, 
the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, and 
America's Second Harvest, want to fix this program. I am working with 
the chairman to offer an amendment to do that.
  I mentioned a little earlier that this bill is also a job creator. 
This farm bill is creating new jobs as well as a cleaner environment--
both very important goals.
  The energy title will help bring forth a new rural economy. In 
Michigan's case, this is already happening, and we welcome the 
provisions of this bill. They are very important to us in Michigan.
  First, there are loans and loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol 
refineries. In Michigan, we have interest from multiple companies to 
set up new cellulosic refineries. We have corn, sugar beets, 
switchgrass, and wood byproducts--timber--opportunities that can all be 
a part of the cellulosic equation. Again, I know the distinguished 
Presiding Officer has worked diligently in those areas. They are very 
important for the future of this country and certainly in my State will 
create jobs.
  Financing is needed in the early development of these projects, as we 
know, and these new policies will provide that missing link, which is 
so critical. Perhaps by the next farm bill we will see the fruits of 
our labor when we can truly say: Buy fuel from Middle America instead 
of the Middle East.
  Next, farmers need assistance to switch to these new energy crops and 
to produce renewable energies. New policies will provide technical 
assistance and resources to help producers convert to new crops that 
can produce ethanol and take advantage of their wastes by converting 
them into energy. An example of this is anaerobic digesters that our 
dairy farms can use to convert animal waste to energy. Not only is this 
a new source of income, but it also disposes of waste, therefore 
reducing pollution into the air and the water.
  Finally, I would like to highlight another program important to 
Michigan that has the potential to spur economic development while 
alleviating our dependence on foreign oil. A Community Wood Energy 
Program will help invest in projects looking to use more wood products 
to produce energy. With a State that is more than one-third forested, 
and paper mills are in the decline, this is a very valuable addition, 
from my perspective in Michigan.
  The energy title will go a long way toward a cleaner environment, but 
the conservation title in the farm bill is one of our most important 
environmental laws. Farmers are some of the best stewards of our land. 
We know that. They produce high-quality, safe, nutritious products 
while meeting strong environmental standards. Our addition of $4 
billion in conservation funding this year is imperative to meet the 
growing demand of farmers who want to enroll in various conservation 
programs. These programs keep our air clean, farmland productive, 
spaces open, land open, wildlife thriving, and offer some of the best 
water quality protections.
  The conservation title is especially vital to our Great Lakes, North 
America's largest source of fresh water. Farm bill conservation 
programs have ensured that once-marginal Great Lakes farmland now 
filters sediment and erosion while providing millions of acres of high-
quality wildlife habitat,

[[Page 29710]]

which supports the local $18 billion hunting, fishing, and wildlife-
watching industry in Michigan. Programs such as the Wetlands Reserve 
Program improve water quality and are essential to the continued health 
of the Great Lakes. These programs protect and restore wetlands that 
serve to filter pesticides, fertilizers, and sediment out of the water 
that millions of Great Lakes residents depend on for their drinking 
water as well as for swimming and bathing and just plain fun. And we 
invite everyone to come and be a part of the Great Lakes experience.
  I want to congratulate, again, Chairman Harkin and my colleagues on 
the committee for their commitment to a strong conservation title. In 
spite of the tight budget we have once again, conservation is a 
priority.
  I would like to take a moment to recognize changes in a program that 
I was very pleased to author as a part of this conservation title. The 
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control will be 
reauthorized for another 5 years under the current bill. This program 
has a proven track record of efficiently providing grant funding to 
local organizations and governments to prevent soil erosion in the 
Great Lakes region.
  I am pleased to have been able to add language to the farm bill to 
tie the Great Lakes Basin Program to the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes. This 
will assist in accomplishing two of the Great Lakes Regional 
Collaboration Strategy's priority recommendations: first, targeting 
cleanup activities in severely polluted rural watersheds; secondly, 
restoring urban watersheds that have been degraded by development.
  The Great Lakes restoration strategy is really a comprehensive 
blueprint for restoring the Great Lakes. It was initiated following an 
Executive order which recognized the Great Lakes as a national 
treasure. The strategy was produced by a broad cross-section of people 
representing our local communities, the State and Federal Government--
truly a bipartisan effort--NGOs, tribes, and various stakeholders that 
came together.
  The strategy identifies reducing nonpoint source runoff from rural 
and urban areas as one of the top eight sets of priority 
recommendations necessary for restoring the health of the Great Lakes. 
This program will enable the region to initiate pilot projects 
consistent with these recommendations. I am very pleased this is part 
of the farm bill.
  Restoring the Great Lakes must be a national priority. A recent 
Brookings Institute study clearly showed that Great Lakes restoration 
is about more than environmental restoration; it is about protecting 
our way of life. Reducing soil erosion, sediment, and pollutants helps 
maintain a clean source of drinking water for over 42 million Americans 
and Canadians who depend on the Great Lakes. Decreasing nonpoint 
pollution in the Great Lakes reduces the damage caused to fish and 
wildlife habitat and will help protect a sport fishery that generates 
$4 billion a year. Reducing nonpoint pollution will reduce the costs of 
maintaining stormwater systems and the costs of dredging the harbors 
and marinas that are the economic backbone to the Great Lakes region's 
shipping capacity, in addition to a $1 billion recreational boating 
industry. This program ties a Great Lakes program with a proven track 
record to the implementation of a comprehensive strategy that, when 
fully implemented, will protect an international treasure for the next 
generations.
  I also want to acknowledge another important piece that I was pleased 
to author in the farm bill that is important to American producers. 
Current law clearly states that all purchases made--to the maximum 
extent practicable--with Federal funds for use in the National School 
Lunch and Breakfast programs should be domestic goods; in other words, 
American-made, American-grown. Congress has passed this law in multiple 
statutes and has repeatedly reinforced its support for the Buy American 
provision, and expects it to be implemented and enforced. 
Unfortunately, USDA has not adequately enforced the Buy American 
provisions in current law. This is another example of this 
administration's failure to enforce the laws on the books, and this 
time our growers and consumers are paying the price. The list of trade 
enforcement violations is growing, and today the United States has the 
weakest trade enforcement effort of any developed country. It is 
important we make sure that while the USDA buys only domestically grown 
food for schools, that we also make sure when the school programs 
themselves--the local programs--are purchasing, that they know this 
provision is in place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. No objection. How many minutes? Two?
  Ms. STABENOW. Two.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much.
  There is so much in the farm bill that it is difficult to have a 
short presentation. I am only touching on a few of the major areas.
  Let me conclude, though, by summarizing the Buy American provisions 
because, unfortunately, even this past July at a national school food 
conference, a food company marketed peaches that said ``peaches from 
China packed in Thailand,'' and I know we grow great peaches in the 
United States. So we want to make sure that as we are putting all of 
these provisions together to support American agriculture, that, in 
fact the USDA is doing everything possible not only to purchase 
themselves but to communicate with our school programs and other 
nutritional programs that we expect we will purchase from local 
growers, American growers first. We hope we will not have to say this 
again. We have put this in numerous bills. It is vital that we take 
this very seriously if we are going to, in fact, be supporting American 
growers. This provision--the Buy American amendment--matches the House-
passed language, and I am hoping they will join us in making sure it is 
truly enforced at this time.
  As my statement shows, this farm bill is expansive. It is important 
to all parts of our country, our families, our communities. It is 
important in so many ways as we look for healthy foods and strong 
communities and jobs, preserving our land and our water. It has very 
important policies, traditional policies we have had for some time, 
coupled with new approaches for the future in alternative energy and 
other areas that are critical for the future of our country. I regret 
that the administration has indicated a possible veto of this bill. I 
hope, in fact, they will reconsider as we move along. This is an 
important bipartisan effort. A tremendous amount of work has gone into 
this. This is truly a farm bill for the future of the country. It is 
fiscally responsible. It is paid for. I am very hopeful that not only 
will we pass this with a strong bipartisan vote, but that the President 
will support this very important effort to support our growers, our 
farmers, our ranchers, as well as the food security of the United 
States.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 15 minutes 
under the previous order. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I am to be 
followed by Senator Thune, who has 15 minutes, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not yet a part of the order.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that it be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the 
process under which we consider this bill that has been set forth by 
the majority leader earlier. I also want to discuss a critical issue 
facing our farmers. I do not want to belabor the point that has

[[Page 29711]]

been made by our distinguished Republican leader, Senator McConnell, 
and by Senator Gregg about the importance of an open amendment process, 
but I do want to add some context, if I might.
  I understand it is the majority's prerogative to fill the amendment 
tree, and it has been done by leaders of both parties in the past. 
However, I wanted to go on record about the potential serious danger of 
this process. Earlier, the majority leader stated that only amendments 
that are relevant to the farm bill will be allowed to be offered and 
voted on.
  Well, I cannot think of any amendment more relevant to the economic 
security of the American farmer than an amendment to increase the 
renewable fuel standard. I am very hopeful the amendment will meet the 
test the leader has made for amendments. I don't know yet whether it 
will, but I think before I am finished and before other speakers are 
heard, it should be quite obvious that there is no amendment that could 
be offered that is more important to rural America and the farmers than 
this one.
  Since we passed the first ever renewable fuels standard in the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005--and the occupant of the chair was a member of the 
committee that wrote it--bipartisan--and played a very vital role in a 
number of its provisions--since that Energy Policy Act, we have seen a 
surge in ethanol jobs and a surge in the construction of ethanol 
plants. I think we all know that. In 2006 alone, the ethanol industry 
supported the creation of 160,000 new jobs, while producing 5 billion 
gallons of ethanol. These are American farm jobs which help produce 
American fuels and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It seems 
to me the relevance of ethanol is asked and answered.
  My bipartisan amendment would set annual requirements for the amount 
of renewable fuels used in motor vehicles, homes, and boilers. It would 
require that our Nation use 8.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 
2008 and progressively increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
  My amendment will help the ethanol industry right now by doubling the 
current ethanol mandate from 7.5 billion gallons in 2009 to 15 billion 
gallons by 2015. That will ensure that America will be using the 
additional ethanol that farmers are producing.
  Beginning in 2016, an increasing portion of the renewable fuels must 
be advanced biofuels. Advanced biofuels include cellulosic ethanol, 
biodiesel, and other fuels derived from unconventional biomass 
feedstocks such as sorghum. The required amount of advanced biofuels 
begins at 3 billion gallons in 2016 and increases to 21 billion by 
2022.
  I want to depart from my text and talk a minute with the Presiding 
Officer and any other Senators who are listening. This amendment is 
part of the so-called Senate Energy bill passed in June. It has three 
major parts, and this is one part of it. This is one that has a lot to 
do with ethanol, but it was part of the Energy bill we passed and took 
a lot of pride in. Since then, the House passed a bill. The House 
passed two bills on energy. Their bills were, for all intents and 
purposes, completely different than the Senate's bill. We have been 
totally unsuccessful in moving anything in the direction of getting 
either our bill or their bill moving toward a bicameral solution in 
conference or by agreement between the two Houses through appropriate 
people. That is not occurring. There is lots of talk but no action. 
Pretty soon we will be giving the excuse for doing nothing for the 
ethanol prices--we will be saying, wait another month and we will get 
this agreement with the House. The Senate-passed bill will somehow get 
negotiated out with the House, with somebody, somehow, sometime, even 
though they don't have any provision in their bill that is like the one 
I am talking about.
  This amendment is in our bill--the bill of the Senate--that we worked 
so hard on. It is the one the President talked about in his State of 
the Union Address, as the occupant of the chair might remember. 
Cellulosic was what everybody talked about: In about 2 years we break 
that R&D requirement and we are ready to go with the most critical new 
fuel--cellulosic. Now we sit and say, let's not do anything. I am kind 
of prejudging what some will say tomorrow when this amendment, which 
will be filed at the desk and which is nothing more than the Energy 
bill that was passed with all of the amendments that were adopted, that 
was subtitle B, the biofuels for energy security and transportation as 
part of the Energy bill--it is now an amendment I am asking to be 
attached to the farm bill. I think it should meet the leader's test 
where he said it has to be something that is strongly related to 
agriculture or he isn't going to consider it. Considering things such 
as perhaps the Lugar bill, which is highly touted as a substitute--it 
won't pass, but it will be permitted to be offered as an amendment, I 
assume.
  This amendment is very important. We could get out of here in 
December and not have an agreement with the House on this energy bill. 
I repeat: They don't have this provision in their bill. They are going 
to have to accept a whole new approach. Energy security and 
transportation through biofuels is part of the 3 components of the 
bill, of the big bill we are talking about. We would have to find some 
way for the House to accommodate all three of the big sections, because 
they have none of them. They don't have this one. They don't have CAFE, 
on which our fellow committee members on Commerce worked very hard. 
They don't have CAFE in theirs. They don't have this provision, and 
they don't have the very large provision we have in ours with reference 
to maintenance and security, reducing the costs of various fuel 
products. So it is not going to be easy to get that. It would be very 
easy--if the majority leader agrees tomorrow, it would be very easy to 
adopt this amendment and, eventually, if the agriculture bill passes 
and goes right over to the House, and they have no alternative--they 
have to go to conference with a farm bill that is going to be very 
popular and it is going to have this provision on it, and it is very 
popular. As my colleagues know, if it were freestanding and didn't have 
any of the problems of: Does it belong on this bill, which I think is 
an irrelevant statement--we shouldn't be talking about that--it belongs 
on this bill, we are going to make up a rule if we don't let it come on 
here. It fits; it is germane; it is relevant. Any words we have used 
historically for amendments, it is that.
  Now, beginning in 2016, an increasing portion of renewable fuels must 
be advanced biofuels, which must include cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, 
and other fuels derived from unconventional biomass feedstocks, such as 
sorghum. The required amount of advanced biofuels begins at 3 billion 
gallons in 2016 and increases to 21 billion by 2022.
  Advanced biofuels do not have many of the challenges that 
conventional ethanol does. The inclusion of advanced biofuels strikes a 
balance that will allow America to begin diversifying our fuel supply 
in a very short term and in the long term.
  That is why, when supporting these same provisions in the Energy 
bill, the Renewable Fuels Association said that they ``strike the right 
chord''--that is what this does--noting that ``such an investment in 
our Nation's energy future promises to spur the creation of new, good-
paying jobs across the country.''
  This amendment consists of the very same provisions passed by the 
Senate in June as we considered the Energy bill. Some may ask, then, 
why do I seek to offer this amendment to the farm bill? I have already 
told you my answer. Repeating, first, the Energy bill is languishing 
largely because the House has very different provisions, and we have no 
way of going to conference. We are not in conference. We are 
negotiating in some way. People are talking. Committees are talking, 
but nothing is agreed upon by anyone as to the process or procedure. 
Certainly, we have to have that bipartisan. It will not pass if it 
comes here from the House and doesn't have some Republican input. I 
assume it will come from people such as me, as ranking member of one of 
the committees, or maybe Senator Stevens, who would

[[Page 29712]]

have to be part of it if it were to have a real chance.
  The second reason is this amendment is relevant to the farm bill. It 
is necessary now to reinvigorate the ethanol industry, and that 
industry and everything that makes it up is looking to Congress to 
extend this mandate as soon as possible.
   In one sense, we have been a victim of our own success. Thanks to 
the 2005 Energy bill, rural America has answered the call for increased 
ethanol production. In fact, we have now exceeded the original mandated 
amount in our fuel mix. For example, in 2006, the ethanol standard was 
4 billion gallons and, in fact, our domestic production of ethanol was 
5 billion gallons. We can do more and the American farmer is looking 
for Congress to do more.
  Over the last year, the price of ethanol has dropped nearly 40 
percent. The reason for this is simple economics. We have an increased 
supply and diminished demand in the marketplace. As a result the 
construction of new plants has been delayed meaning new job growth has 
been diminished and rural communities are looking to us to take action. 
We cannot wait for a languishing energy bill while rural communities 
are losing their opportunities. This amendment is not simply relevant 
to the farm bill, Mr. President. It is necessary.
  This matter will come back. It will be filed sometime tomorrow, or 
the next day, depending on when the leader will talk to me on the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New 
Mexico for his leadership on energy issues, generally, as a former 
chairman and now ranking member on the Energy Committee, and 
particularly regarding renewable fuels.
  In 2005, the Senate, the Congress passed an energy bill that was 
signed into law by the President, which, for the first time ever as a 
matter of policy, put into place a renewable fuels standard. That was 
in no small part a tribute to the leadership of Chairman Domenici and 
his good work, working with many of us who care deeply about renewable 
fuels and making sure we are advancing that industry in this country so 
we can lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. So I 
appreciate his leadership and am glad to be able to work with him again 
as we try to offer a renewable fuels standard to the farm bill, which 
has already been adopted, as he mentioned, by the Senate regarding the 
Energy bill. The Energy bill is currently tied up and, hopefully, we 
will produce an energy bill this year before Congress adjourns for the 
holidays. But if, in fact, we cannot get that done, it is important for 
this industry, and I believe for our country's interest, that we get an 
expanded renewable fuels standard put into law.
  Mr. President, the bill before us today is entitled the Food and 
Energy Security Act of 2007, commonly referred to as the 2007 Farm 
bill. The naming of this bill is not without meaning. It is abundantly 
clear that agriculture and energy production are inherently related, 
and together will move our Nation toward greater food and energy 
security.
  The 2002 Farm bill was the first farm bill to include an energy 
title. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee during the 2002 
Farm bill debate, I can attest that including an energy title in the 
farm bill was not easy, nor was it without controversy. However, 
Congress had the foresight to realize that renewable energy was an 
integral part to our agriculture economy and a comprehensive farm bill 
would be incomplete without including renewable energy incentives.
  The Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 also includes an energy 
title that builds on the success of the 2002 bill. The incentives in 
this energy title will greatly benefit American consumers, our 
agriculture producers, and our Nation's energy independence.
  As part of the 2007 Farm bill, the Senate Agriculture Committee 
worked with what little resources we had to meet the demands of a new 
generation of renewable fuel. In particular, the committee included a 
provision that Senator Ben Nelson and I helped draft that will provide 
incentives for farmers to grow energy dedicated crops in conjunction 
with the construction of a nearby biorefinery.
  There is a chicken and egg dilemma with regard to cellulosic ethanol 
production. If you ask a farmer in South Dakota or Georgia or 
California to change his planting pattern to grow energy dedicated 
crops, the response will likely focus on a lack of market to sell these 
crops.
  If you ask an ethanol producer about the prospects of cellulosic 
ethanol, they will likely highlight the lack of energy dedicated crop 
availability.
  In reality, energy dedicated crops such as poplar trees, switchgrass, 
and miscanthus, take 2 to 3 years to establish. Likewise, a new 
generation cellulosic ethanol biorefinery will take several months or 
years to build. There is an obvious gap in the marketplace for 
cellulosic ethanol production, and this bill would fill this gap by 
providing first-of-its-kind incentives for producers who grow energy 
dedicated crops in conjunction with the construction of local 
biorefineries.
  This provision represents significant progress in our agriculture 
policy as we look for ways to promote advanced biofuels.
  The Food and Energy Security Act also authorizes the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture to provide grants and loan guarantees for commercial 
scale biorefineries. Private sector investment in the renewable fuels 
will ultimately determine the success of this industry, and it is 
critical that funding mechanisms are in place that will move cellulosic 
ethanol from the laboratory to full scale production.
   Additionally, it is important to note that these loan guarantees 
would also benefit existing plants that wish to repower their 
facilities or retrofit with new cellulosic technology.
  By leveraging a small amount of tax dollars with hundreds of millions 
of dollars in private equity, federally backed loans for new plants are 
an effective policy that will help grow the production of advanced 
biofuels.
  Although the Senate version of the 2007 farm bill includes several 
important energy provisions, it is missing one critical component that 
would increase the market demand for renewable fuels.
  Just a few moments ago, Senators Domenici, Nelson, Grassley, and I 
introduced a bipartisan amendment to increase the renewable fuels 
standard from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion gallons in 
2022.
  Last June, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner and passed an 
Energy bill that increases the role renewable fuels as a part of our 
energy policy. This amendment reflects the Senate-passed RFS, and I 
hope my colleagues will once again support this policy as an amendment 
to the 2007 farm bill.
  Some of my colleagues may ask, ``Why include a renewable fuels 
standard as part of the 2007 farm bill?'' The answer is simple, since 
the beginning of Federal farm programs, no single policy has had a 
greater impact on American's agriculture industry than the renewable 
fuels standard enacted by Congress in 2005.
  The renewable fuels standard and the dramatic expansion of biofuels 
production has provided farmers with an alternative market for their 
crop and increased demand for corn production. The renewable fuels 
standard has created jobs in rural communities and spurred investment 
opportunities in rural America.
  The expansion of the biofuels industry hasn't been perfect. The 
dramatic expansion of biofuels has led to concern among some livestock 
producers and food processors about inflationary trends in commodity 
prices. However, these concerns are being addressed by the marketplace. 
Producers have responded with record corn production and will continue 
to meet the demand for feed, food, ethanol, and exports.
  Additionally, like the Senate-passed renewable fuels standard, this 
amendment would boost the production of advanced biofuels by requiring 
the production of 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022.

[[Page 29713]]

  Crude oil is trading at over $90 per barrel. Many analysts are 
predicting oil will hit $100 per barrel in the near future. Typically, 
in the late fall, early winter, consumers are granted a reprieve from 
high gasoline prices as demand subsides from the summer driving season.
  However, this fall, the retail price of gasoline has remained at high 
levels. Yesterday, the average price of gasoline reached $3 per 
gallon--an all time record for gasoline prices in November. Many are 
predicting even higher prices in the near future if the price of crude 
oil continues to climb.
  When is enough, enough? When are we going to take a stand and stop 
sending American dollars overseas to countries that want harm to the 
United States when we have an untapped resource for clean renewable 
fuel here at home?
  I believe I speak for the majority of U.S. Senators when I say we 
should purchase our fuel from America's agricultural producers rather 
than from overseas oil cartels.
  In 2005, Congress as acted to enact the first ever renewable fuels 
standard of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. By the end of this year, our 
Nation's ethanol capacity will total almost 7.5 billion gallons, 4 
years ahead of schedule. With planned and existing construction, our 
Nation's ethanol capacity will soon double.
  Clearly, as our biofuels industry advances, so must our national 
policy. Now is the time to increase the renewable fuels standard and 
usher in a new generation of cellulosic ethanol production.
  I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member, Chambliss for their 
support for a strong energy title.
  Over the past several months, we have had a thoughtful and 
conscientious debate on farm and energy policy. Considering the limited 
resources presented to the Committee, we crafted a bill that will 
undoubtedly move production agriculture and renewable fuels forward in 
a sustainable and reliable manner.
  Adding a strong renewable fuels standard to the Food and Energy 
Security Act would greatly enhance these efforts. The U.S. Senate is 
already on record for supporting provision by a wide bipartisan 
majority. I encourage my colleagues to once again support this 
amendment.
  There are so many things we can do in this farm bill to help improve 
the agricultural economy in this country. I will speak at a later point 
about some of the other provisions in the bill that I think will do 
that. But I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the energy title 
to not only American agriculture but to America's position and place in 
the world relative to our need for energy and our ability to meet that 
need here at home.
  I hope my colleagues in the Senate will move in an expeditious 
fashion to pass this farm bill. Before we do that, let's take a hard 
look at what we can do to make this energy title even stronger and 
create an even more robust market for renewable energy, so those great 
American farmers out there who are producing the food and fiber for 
this country can also continue to produce fuel to meet America's 
growing energy demand and lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of 
energy.
  I, again, thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership on 
this issue and for his important role in 2005 in getting the renewable 
fuels standard put into law for the first time--the 7.5 billion gallon 
standard I mentioned--by 2012. But it is now important that we increase 
that standard--as proposed in this amendment and as passed earlier by 
the Senate in the Energy bill--to 36 billion gallons by 2022. If we do 
that, we will make a very strong and bold statement about our 
commitment to reducing our dependence upon foreign energy and making 
America energy independent.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there is a worldwide epidemic of illegal 
logging which has been poisonous for the global environment and 
devastating to vital American industries. Given the urgency of this 
problem, Senator Alexander, myself, and more than 20 other Senators 
have joined in legislation--S. 1930, the Combat Illegal Logging Act--
and I and my good friend from Tennessee are on the floor and wish to 
speak briefly about this legislation.
  We have worked for many months on this bill, cooperatively with the 
forest products industry, with the conservation community, and with 
labor organizations, and the Congressional Budget Office recently 
scored our legislation as having no cost. We have filed this 
legislation as an amendment to the farm bill, and we believe it is 
urgent that the Senate pass this legislation on a bipartisan basis to 
protect American companies from unfair competition and to protect 
forests around the world against illegal logging.
  More than 1 year ago, a group of hardwood plywood manufacturers came 
to me with concerns about illegal Chinese hardwood plywood imports that 
were threatening their businesses. A whole host of unfair and illegal 
practices was lowering the costs of the Chinese hardwood plywood import 
sector, giving them an unfair advantage over our American hardwood 
plywood and putting American companies in jeopardy of going out of 
business and the workers they employ out of work.
  Since then, I have been working to level the playing field for these 
plywood manufacturers, many of whom are in Oregon, and to protect the 
jobs of the workers they employ. In the course of all this, I have met 
with the Department of Commerce, the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, Customs and Border Patrol, and the International Trade 
Commission, and have urged them to pursue these issues and act where 
appropriate. They have, I commend them for it, and they have raised 
troubling practices that we have brought to light in diplomatic 
negotiations, opening investigations and even filing a case before the 
World Trade Organization targeting Chinese subsidies that benefit the 
hardwood plywood industry.
  Our legislation--the legislation Senator Alexander and I hope to win 
passage for as part of the farm bill--would level the playing field for 
all American plywood manufacturers as they struggle to compete against 
artificially low-priced wood and wood products. I am also pleased we 
have been able to secure the support of the conservation community. 
They have joined us in this effort because they know it is critically 
important to the protection of the environment worldwide to act against 
this illegal logging epidemic.
  From the Amazon to the Congo basin to Siberia, we are seeing illegal 
logging devastate some of the most precious and valuable ecosystems one 
can imagine. It has been gutting local economies. It has annihilated 
the very way of life for a number of these communities. Because of the 
speed and violence with which illegal logging is occurring, failure to 
curb its effects now, in my view, is going to result in irreversible 
damage to forests around the world.
  I note my friend from Tennessee is on the floor, and I want to make a 
couple of additional comments and allow him to speak as well. I see 
other colleagues want to talk, but I want to take a minute to describe 
how this illegal activity takes place.
  It is typically done by complex criminal networks that have 
multinational funding, which I think is almost analogous to the way the 
drug trade works. There was a recent Washington Post article that 
documented how logs from Burma had been smuggled into Chinese 
processing facilities and then were exported to major retailers here in 
our country. In these Chinese processing facilities, what happens is 
the logs are often mislabeled and misclassified. Sometimes they are 
even fraudulently stamped with counterfeit stamps that mimic those of 
well-known wood certifications, such

[[Page 29714]]

as the Forest Stewardship Council label.
  There have been additional reports that have demonstrated how illegal 
logs are being smuggled out of the last intact rain forest in Asia, in 
Indonesia, and then they are made into flooring in China to feed the 
high-end markets in the United States and the EU. So the world's final 
remaining stands of old-growth teak, for example, are being stripped 
from Burma's forests to finance the bloody oppression of the military 
regime. The trade in teak and other valuable tropical hardwoods of 
Burma and China has reached as much as $350 million in 2005. In some 
cases one tree is so valuable on the international market that illegal 
loggers will cut a road through dense tropical forests to access it.
  The amendment Senator Alexander and I seek to offer--and there are 
many bipartisan supporters--would curb illegal logging by making 
changes in the Lacey Act, which currently regulates trade in fish, 
wildlife, and a limited subset of plants. The Combat Illegal Logging 
Act of 2007 would expand the Lacey statute so that violations of 
foreign law that apply to plants and plant products would fall within 
its protections. This would make it against the law to import timber 
illegally harvested and obtained in a foreign country. The act would 
change the way people who are importing harvested timber and wood 
products do business. That is its intended purpose.
  But I will tell you--and then I want to give what additional time I 
have left to my friend from Tennessee--I commend the wood products 
sector, particularly the American Paper Association, which has worked 
so closely with us. As the Forest and Paper Association, as is their 
formal name, they have worked diligently with us to make sure the many 
wood products firms that have worked responsibly in this area can be 
supportive of this legislation. I am grateful to them for their support 
and the many environmental organizations that have joined with us.
  I see my friend from North Dakota and my friend from Minnesota are 
here as well. With their leave, Mr. President, I yield whatever time I 
have to the cosponsor of this legislation, I thank him, and we can 
conclude our remarks with Senator Alexander.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. He has 
pursued the illegal logging issue in his usual way, with a lot of 
persistence and in a bipartisan way as well.
  If he has not already done so, I will ask unanimous consent to list 
the 22 cosponsors of the Combat Illegal Logging Act he has helped to 
recruit, and I thank him for including me as a part of this bill. It is 
important to the great Northwest and it is important to the Southeast, 
where we have large paper companies, but it is also important to 
conservation and to the rule of law in our country.
  The Senator from Oregon made a point that is maybe the central point 
here when he compared our efforts to stop illegal logging to our 
efforts to stop the bringing of illegal drugs into the United States. 
We all know the tremendous amount of effort we go to, for example, to 
keep cocaine out of the United States. We send millions of dollars to 
Colombia and to other countries and we try to stop that. But the real 
problem we have is we are a big, rich country, and there is a big 
demand for cocaine here. So no matter what we do in the other 
countries, the cocaine still keeps coming in, and the same with other 
illegal drugs. Here we have a chance to make a much bigger difference 
than we can with illegal drugs. We still are creating the demand 
problem. This is a country that accounts for 25 percent of all the 
wealth in the world. It is a country that perhaps buys a huge volume of 
illegal timber from around the world. Well, we can stop that. This is 
not a drug addiction, this is a business practice, and it is a practice 
we can stop according to the laws of this country. When we stop it, we 
will make an enormous difference for our country and for the other 
countries.
  Let us be absolutely clear. We are talking primarily about the laws 
of other countries. We are not talking about imposing American laws on 
other countries. We are simply saying if you violate the laws of any 
other country in the world, you can't bring those logs into the United 
States without violating a criminal law here. If this big economy says 
that to the world, we will make a dramatic difference in illegal 
logging.
  As the Senator from Oregon said, it is an estimated $1 billion a year 
in depressed prices and reduced exports. It depresses prices $500 
million to $700 million annually. It means the people who play by the 
rules in the United States are having money taken from them by 
criminals who don't play by the rules in other countries, with the 
rules set by other countries; not by us, by other countries.
  There are other ancillary benefits--climate change, for example. 
There is a lot of talk about that here in the Senate. We are all 
looking for ways to deal with that. It may be expensive to deal with, 
it may be inconvenient to deal with, but some estimates are that 20 
percent of climate change is caused by deforestation. According to the 
World Bank, illegal logging accounts for 10 percent, or $15 billion, of 
the world timber trade. So if we are able to slow down illegal logging 
in other countries, we will be making an inexpensive contribution, from 
the American taxpayers' point of view, to dealing with climate change, 
and at the same time we will be putting money in the pockets of those 
who work in this country in the timber and timber products business.
  This is a rare intersection of the rule of law, of good conservation 
practices, and of keeping jobs in the United States.
  I salute the Senator from Oregon for his leadership, and with his 
permission I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
``Dear Colleague'' letter which he and I sent to our colleagues, 
resulting so far in 22 Members of the Senate cosponsoring the Combat 
Illegal Logging Act of 2007.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,
                                 Washington, DC, October 17, 2007.
       Dear Colleague:  We are writing to ask you to cosponsor S. 
     1930, the Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007. This bill 
     enjoys the support of a very broad coalition that includes 
     members of the U.S. forest products industry, conservation 
     community and organized labor, and has already received 
     bipartisan support from many of our colleagues.
       Illegal logging is a criminal activity that often 
     circumvents a nation's legal process and halts efforts to 
     establish good governance--by going around a nation's law and 
     relying on corruption, bribery and theft. It destroys 
     ecosystems, contributes to carbon emissions, harms often poor 
     and rural communities, and forces American businesses and 
     workers to compete against inappropriately low-cost forest 
     products made from illegally sourced fiber. Illegal logging 
     costs the U.S. forest products industry an estimated $1 
     billion per year in depressed prices and reduced exports, and 
     contributes to ongoing mill closures and job losses.
       The Combat Illegal Logging Act changes the incentives that 
     drive trade in illegal timber. This legislation will raise 
     the risks for illegal trade without harming legal trade and 
     will be an important step toward leveling a playing field 
     currently stacked against the U.S. forest products industry 
     and importers and retailers committed to trading in legal 
     wood products. Furthermore, it will also bring the power of 
     the U.S. market to bear on fighting the illegal logging 
     problem and will reinforce work being done with U.S. tax 
     dollars to improve governance in forest-rich developing 
     countries.
       Organizations endorsing this bill include: American Forest 
     & Paper Association, Center for International Environmental 
     Law, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, 
     Dogwood Alliance, Environmental Investigation Agency, 
     ForestEthics, Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, 
     Greenpeace, Hardwood Federation, International Brotherhood of 
     Carpenters and Joiners of America, International Brotherhood 
     of Teamsters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rainforest 
     Action Network, Rainforest Alliance, Sierra Club, Society of 
     American Foresters, Sustainable Furniture. Council, The 
     Nature Conservancy, Tropical Forest Trust, United 
     Steelworkers, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World 
     Wildlife Fund.
       We'd be glad to furnish additional information, or your 
     staff may wish to be in touch

[[Page 29715]]

     with Michele Miranda with Senator Wyden at 4-5244 or LaTonya 
     Miller with Senator Alexander at 4-7198 if you would like to 
     cosponsor this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Ron Wyden,
                                                      U.S. Senator
                                                  Lamar Alexander,
                                                      U.S. Senator

  Mr. ALEXANDER. The value of this letter is to highlight the 
organizations endorsing the bill, ranging from the American Forest & 
Paper Association, to Defenders of Wildlife, to the Friends of the 
Earth. That is pretty good company in which to be.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I hope very much that the 
Senate will agree to this amendment. It may seem like a small step, but 
it will put money in the pockets of American workers. It will help with 
climate change. It will uphold the rule of law in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise this evening to urge the White 
House to back away from their threats to veto the farm bill that is 
presently before the body. I think the White House would be much better 
advised to wait until congressional debate has concluded before making 
any final judgments on this bill.
  In fairness, it should be pointed out the veto threat that came out 
of the White House today was not from the President. It is very 
interesting what did come out. This is the staff of the President 
saying, if the farm bill were sent to the President's desk, they would 
recommend to the President that he veto the bill.
  Now, all of us know the dance that goes on in Washington on major 
legislation, and we all know this is negotiating leverage for the 
conference committee to come when the differences are worked out 
between the House and the Senate. So that is what is really going on.
  The fact is, this farm bill is fiscally responsible. It helps our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers. It promotes new sources of energy, 
reduces our dependence on foreign oil, enhances conservation, and 
improves nutrition. But it does it in a way that is paid for and is 
within the budget.
  I saw that some administration sources were asserting that there is 
somehow $36 billion of extra money in this bill. That is truly a 
concoction, $36 billion. Let's be clear. This bill costs $288 billion. 
The baseline is $280 billion. In other words, if we were just to have 
the same farm bill for the next 5 years as we have had for the past 6 
years, it would cost $280 billion. This bill costs $288 billion. That 
is an $8 billion difference, not a $36 billion difference.
  Why do we have more money than the current farm bill? Because the 
world has changed. We are trying to adjust the farm bill to deal with 
the new reality. What is that new reality? There is an energy 
opportunity for America, and this farm bill attempts to seize that 
opportunity. What is the opportunity? It is the chance to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Here are some key facts to remember about the bill. It is a 5-year 
bill. Its costs beyond 5 years will be determined in the next farm 
bill. So when the President's people take the 5 years of this farm bill 
and then extend it and look at its 10-year cost, that is not this bill. 
This bill is a 5-year bill. It is fully paid for. It complies with pay-
go. It does not add one dime to the Nation's debt.
  In fact, it cuts commodity title payments by $7.5 billion over 5 
years. Those are the provisions that have drawn the most fire. It 
tightens payment limitations and eliminates loopholes. Notably, it ends 
the three entity loophole that has allowed some operators to 
effectively double their Government payments, and it begins direct 
attribution, requiring that Government payments be directly attributed 
to an individual.
  The farm bill also keeps commodity program outlays which have been 
singled out for criticism in the media below CBO's August 2002 
baseline, the baseline used in drafting the last farm bill. In other 
words, we can expect farm bill commodity program costs to remain below 
the level anticipated when the last farm bill was drafted.
  This is what the last farm bill projected would be the cost of 
continuing those provisions. That is the red line. Here is the 
projected cost of the new farm bill, far below what the estimates were 
when the last farm bill was written. In other words, if we look at 
commodity programs, those are actually only 14 percent of this farm 
bill, commodity programs, but it seems to be the area that draws the 
most controversy.
  But somebody apparently has not informed the administration or the 
White House that if you extend the Congressional Budget Office's 
baseline for commodity programs and compare it to this farm bill, this 
farm bill is well below what the last farm bill would have cost if it 
had just been simply extended.
  So there are real savings. Over the next 5 years we can see the total 
farm bill outlays, including baseline farm spending, and this new farm 
bill will make up only 1.9 percent of total Federal outlays. In other 
words, this is the current bill we are working on now.
  If you look at the total of Federal outlays, and you look at what 
this farm bill will cost, total cost is 1.9 percent of total projected 
Federal outlays during the period. The last farm bill was well over 2 
percent. So as a share of Federal spending, agriculture's share is 
going down, and the commodity provisions that are so controversial are 
going down significantly.
  In the last farm bill, commodity programs cost less than 1 percent, 
three-quarters of 1 percent of total Federal spending. But in the new 
farm bill that will be down to one-quarter of 1 percent. Still people 
complain. My goodness, I do not think they have any idea what they are 
talking about. I really do not.
  The total farm bill has shrunk as a share of the total Federal 
budget. Commodity programs have shrunk dramatically as a share of the 
total Federal budget. It is worth noting that the cost of extending the 
2001 and 2003 tax cuts dwarfs the funding in this farm bill. In fact, 
when shown on the same chart, the 2007 farm bill funding is barely 
visible.
  This farm bill funding is fully paid for. It is ironic that some of 
the same people who complain about the farm bill funding are calling 
for the far more expensive extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts 
without paying for a dime of it. And they are trying to talk about 
being fiscally responsible.
  Look here. The President wants to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. 
Here is what that costs. Here is what extending the 2007 farm bill 
funding is.
  There is no comparison. There is just no comparison. So if we are 
talking about being fiscally responsible, let's get real.
  In addition, when I say this bill is paid for, it is just not my 
claim, this is the assessment of the Congressional Budget Office. They 
have analyzed the bill. They say it is fully paid for. In fact, they 
say: In the 5 years of the bill, there is a savings, when everything is 
taken into account--the spending, the offsets--that we have $61 million 
left over from 2008 to 2012, $61 million to the good. So there is not 
one penny added to the deficit or the debt as a result of this farm 
bill.
  The administration has claimed this farm bill includes tax increases. 
That is wrong. This bill does not include tax increases. It does 
include loophole closers that have very strong bipartisan support. For 
example, it would codify the economic substance doctrine prohibiting 
businesses from using certain tax avoidance schemes. It revokes tax 
benefits for leasing foreign subways and sewers. I know this is hard to 
believe, but there are actually companies and individuals who are 
reducing their U.S. taxes by buying foreign sewer systems, depreciating 
them on the books for U.S. tax purposes, and leasing those sewer 
systems back to the European cities that built them in the first place.
  Does anybody consider that a tax increase? I do not. I think it is 
cutting a tax loophole. It increases penalties for failure to file 
correct information returns, and it denies deductions for certain fines 
and penalties. I do not consider any of those tax increases.

[[Page 29716]]

  Let's go to the next slide because I want to rivet the point. One of 
the ways of paying for the farm bill, or at least a part of it, is to 
shut down this scam. This is a picture of a European sewer system. And 
you do have to wonder, what has a European sewer system got to do with 
the American farm bill? Well, one of the things we found is, some 
companies and some wealthy individuals are actually buying sewer 
systems in Europe, depreciating them on the books in the United States 
to reduce their tax burden, and then leasing them back to the cities 
that built them in the first place.
  Now, I know this sounds too fanciful to be true, but it is true. And 
it does not apply just to sewer systems. We have people who are doing 
this with European city halls. They are buying European city halls, 
depreciating them on their tax bills here, and then leasing them back 
to the European cities that built them in the first place. That is just 
a scam. So we are shutting down that scam. I do not think that is a tax 
increase. I think that is shutting down an abusive tax loophole.
  The fact is, we actually cut taxes in this bill. Here are the tax 
cuts that are provided: $7.3 billion for conservation, including a tax 
credit for farm land, and a conservation reserve program, $2.5 billion 
for energy initiatives, including a tax credit for small producers of 
cellulosic fuel, and $800 million for agriculture and rural areas.
  Tax relief. That is what is in this bill. Tax relief. But it is paid 
for. The entire bill is paid for. The administration has also 
complained that this bill contains sunsets. I would remind my 
colleagues this is a 5-year bill. And some of the programs, if we would 
extend them, would go on for more than 5 years. But we do not have 
unlimited means, so we have had to cut things off. What does that mean? 
That means when they write the next farm bill, those things are going 
to end unless somebody finds new money or savings to pay for them. That 
is how we always write legislation.
  We cannot determine what is going to happen 10 years from now. This 
is a 5-year farm bill. Over the 5 years, this is the point I want to 
make: This bill is fully paid for. There is no budget point of order 
against this bill. None. This bill fully complies with pay-go. The only 
difference between this bill and simply extending the current farm bill 
is we have added less than 3 percent for energy initiatives to reduce 
our dependance on foreign oil and for certain conservation measures to 
further protect our vital resources. Every dime of it is paid for. That 
is the fact.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. 
There has been a lot of discussion about this being a costly bill. It 
was worthwhile for me to sit here and be reminded again of the nature 
of this investment, the fact that things we are doing in renewable 
energy are the future of America. It is not just about taking care of 
some Minnesota and North Dakota farmers. Every gallon of gasoline we 
replace with ethanol is less money in the pockets of thugs and tyrants 
such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. 
If you recall the last farm bill, there was a lot of discussion about 
whether the President should veto that. Now we look back and across the 
board folks are saying that was a good farm bill. That was a bill that 
in the end cost less. It kept the safety net in place. We moved forward 
with a new world of opportunities with things such as renewables. So we 
have this discussion again. I hope we pass this farm bill, and I hope 
it gets signed.
  The farm bill begins by stating its necessity due to the fact that 
``the present acute economic emergency being in part the consequence of 
a severe and increasing disparity between the prices of agricultural 
and other commodities, which disparity has largely destroyed the 
purchasing power of farmers for industrial products, has broken down 
the orderly exchange of commodities, and has seriously impaired the 
agricultural assets supporting the national credit structure . . . ''
  This is not the start of the 2007 farm bill. It is an excerpt from 
the very first farm bill of 1933. When that farm bill was written in 
1933, net farm income was only one-third of what it was 3 years prior. 
Food went wasted in the field, while Americans went hungry because of 
depressed commodity prices. There was no safety net. It was such a time 
of crisis that folks from across my State of Minnesota came together 
with farmers from the Dakotas, Iowa, and Nebraska to protect each 
other's homes, farms, livestock, and machinery from being taken through 
foreclosure.
  The Senate Agriculture Committee has proven that like minds from 
these States still collaborate to save the family farm. Today I come to 
the floor as part of a bipartisan multiregional coalition not just from 
the Midwest and upper Midwest but from all across this great Nation. On 
the Ag Committee, we came together under the leadership of Chairman 
Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss and my friend from North Dakota, 
Senator Conrad, to build a stronger food safety net for working 
families, an ag safety net for farm families. Over the next several 
days, the U.S. Senate will have the responsibility to pass a farm bill 
that will ensure Americans can meet the bare requirements of human 
subsistence.
  In today's world, relentlessly focused on the future, it can be 
difficult to reach back into the past and conceive of a time before 
food stamps, conservation programs, and a farm safety net. It doesn't 
seem possible that in this country hunger was widespread, massive 
clouds of dust roared from State to State, and farmers couldn't make 
enough money from their crops to even make harvest worthwhile. Yet our 
past bears witness to these struggles. Since these difficult years, 
Congress has struggled to perfect the omnibus legislation we call the 
farm bill.
  In 2007, with the bipartisan bill produced by the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, I believe we move closer yet to our final goal of crafting a 
smarter, stronger safety net. As the Ag Committee has labored over the 
last several months to build this bill, I have worked with my 
colleagues from both sides of the aisle to secure a number of 
priorities for my State of Minnesota. This bill not only strengthens 
the farmer safety net but helps meet the food security challenges of 
America's low-income families, makes a bold commitment to renewable 
fuels, and boosts investment in renewable fuels and conservation.
  As the ranking Republican on the Nutrition Subcommittee, I am proud 
of this bill's efforts to assist those Americans dealing with food 
security issues. This bill now provides an additional $5.3 billion in 
funding for nutrition programs, such as stamps and the emergency food 
and assistance program, TEFAP. The Food Stamp Program, which assists 
over 260,000 Minnesotans, will be significantly strengthened. We will 
stop inflation from creating greater benefit erosion in the Food Stamp 
Program and encourage savings among low-income families. During the 
markup, I fought to bring the bill's funding for TEFAP, which provides 
valuable resources to our food banks and homeless shelters, up to the 
same levels as the House bill. We have found the funds to meet this 
need, providing an additional $10 million a year.
  If you believe everything you read in the editorial pages, you might 
conclude that this bill funds farmers at the expense of the poor, but 
that isn't true. Nutrition spending now makes up over 66 percent of the 
farm bill, while we have found in the Ag Committee $7.5 billion in 
savings in the commodity title. These savings come from programs that 
cost $22 billion less than was expected when the 2002 farm bill was 
passed. My colleague from North Dakota has laid that out. This is a 
bill wherein the commodity program baseline is lower than the estimate 
of the 2002 bill. This is a bill where the percent of dollars that goes 
to farms as a percentage of Federal spending is substantially lower 
than in the 2002 farm bill. Meanwhile, we manage to preserve the basic 
structure of the safety net for our farmers who feed and fuel this 
Nation.

[[Page 29717]]

  For years now as I have driven across the great State of Minnesota, I 
have been hearing from farmers who have told me the 2002 farm bill 
worked. Families growing various crops told me we needed to make some 
adjustments. This bill makes needed updates for sugar, barley, wheat, 
and soybeans, among others. The bill includes a reauthorization of the 
dairy safety net, including the MILC Program, restoring it to the 45-
percent payment rate. The committee included my proposal to create a 
farm storage loan program that works for today's farmers.
  I proudly support the new permanent ag disaster program we now have, 
thanks to the leadership of Senators Baucus and Conrad, that will lend 
farmers a helping hand when faced with natural disaster. The faces of 
thousands of hard-working farmers I have seen over the years come to 
mind as I consider the importance of the farm bill safety net. I also 
reflect on the health of my State's entire economy, the survival of 
small towns on country roads. In Minnesota, the agriculture and food 
industry is the second largest employer, with two-thirds of all 
agricultural jobs being off farm in processing, distribution, supply, 
and service sectors. We rank fifth nationally in farm exports and lead 
the Nation in sugar beet and turkey production. All of Minnesota needs 
a strong safety net for our farmers.
  Nationally, the farm safety net is critical to every taxpayer, to 
every American. First, we all need food. Thanks to our farmers, U.S. 
consumers spend 10 percent of their income on food, the lowest 
percentage in the world. For every dollar Americans spend on food, 
farmers get only 20 cents. Our entire economy benefits. Some folks 
forget that agriculture employs 20 percent of the U.S. workforce, 
accounts for roughly 20 percent of the Nation's GDP, and is America's 
No. 1 export.
  Beyond preserving the safety net for rural Americans who work in 
agriculture, this bill provides significant mandatory funding for key 
rural development programs to build vibrant rural communities, 
including $50 million to rehabilitate small rural hospitals, $20 
million to protect rural drinking water, and provisions to encourage 
local ownership of ethanol plants.
  To revitalize our rural economy, this includes the rural renaissance 
legislation I worked hard to pass with my colleague from Arkansas, 
Senator Pryor, that will provide $400 million in tax credit bonds to 
finance rural infrastructure projects such as water and wastewater 
treatment projects.
  I have no doubt Minnesota is similar to Colorado. We have small towns 
that simply don't have the tax base to do the infrastructure they need. 
This bill will provide some opportunity to assist those small rural 
communities with infrastructure.
  Another key to renewing Minnesota's rural communities has been the 
production of renewable fuels as our farmers work to reduce dependence 
on foreign oil. In the Ag Committee, we worked to take the next step in 
helping power ethanol plants with crop biomass and diversifying our 
biofuels feedstocks to include cellulosic and sugar. All in all, this 
bill delivers over $1 billion in additional investment in the energy 
title. It will also help equip our existing corn ethanol plants with 
the latest in renewable technologies, with $422 million for competitive 
grants and loan guarantees. The future is cellulosic. We know that with 
corn we can do about 15 billion gallons of ethanol. We consume 140 
billion gallons of gasoline each year, projected to go up to 180 
billion. Cellulosic is the future. This bill provides a pathway to 
accelerate us reaching that future.
  This bill helps farmers transition to the production of biomass 
crops. We provide over $200 million to help farmers with production, 
harvesting, transportation, and storage costs. I am hopeful one day we 
will see a cellulosic ethanol plant in Kittson County, MN. This bill 
will bring us closer to that reality. Meanwhile, this bill includes a 
sugar ethanol program which I have long advocated. If Brazil can do it, 
we can do it. They made a commitment in the early 1970s to ethanol. 
They do it with sugar. They didn't let up to that commitment when oil 
prices went down. They stayed the course. As a result today, Brazil is 
not dependent on foreign oil.
  We need to have that same commitment, that same persistence. Sugar 
should be part of it. That opportunity is in this bill.
  Finally, I have been concerned that those living near ethanol plants 
continue to have an opportunity to invest in these renewable 
opportunities. I am thankful to the chairman and ranking member for 
including my local ownership amendment to ensure communities continue 
to hold more of the value created by these plants in their small towns 
through ownership. On top of all these investments, this bill still 
manages to include the single largest investment in conservation this 
Nation has ever seen. Specifically, the bill increases funding for 
major programs such as the Wetland Reserve Program, the Conservation 
Stewardship Program, and the Grassland Reserve Program, as well as 
protecting 39.2 million acres allotted for the Conservation Reserve 
Program.
  This bill also includes Open Fields, a critical, voluntary program to 
encourage property owners to allow public access for hunting and 
fishing. All in all, the bill increases conservation funding by $4.4 
billion above the current budget baseline, which will mean increased 
wildlife habitat, cleaner water, and a healthy environment for all of 
us and it is paid for.
  No bill of this size is going to be perfect. But I believe when the 
sum of these accomplishments is measured, folks will realize what an 
achievement this is. Of course, some will continue to criticize. 
Despite including what I consider to be great advances in farm 
nutrition, conservation, rural development, and energy policy, coupled 
with dramatic reforms, there no doubt will be detractors who look at 
this farm bill and cry that more reform is needed. They will argue that 
money should not to go factory farms. It should go to nutrition, 
conservation, and energy instead.
  As I have traveled around Minnesota, I don't see factory farms. 
Instead, I meet family after family, such as the Meyer Family in 
Nicollet County. They let me know how important the farm safety net is 
to them. They told me the advent of renewable fuels, what it has meant 
to them in terms of transforming their farming operation, has had the 
same impact that electricity had for their grandfather. That is the 
path to hope and opportunity we are on. That is the path this farm bill 
fosters. I wholeheartedly agree this farm bill should invest more in 
nutrition, conservation, and energy. This bill makes remarkable strides 
in these areas. In fact, nutrition spending will grow to represent two-
thirds of the bill's total spending. I also believe we need to reform 
to prevent nonfarming millionaires from getting farm payments and close 
loopholes to get around payment limitations. Ted Turner and Scottie 
Pippen should not get farm subsidies. This bill closes the loophole. It 
succeeds in doing that by the most aggressive farm payment reforms to 
date, by lowering the adjusted gross income limit from $2.5 million to 
$750,000 by 2010, while eliminating the three-entity rule and commodity 
certificate loopholes. No one wants multimillionaires to be getting 
farm subsidies. This bill says that doesn't happen.
  Again, some critics will say reform is not enough. I urge these folks 
to talk to Senator Chambliss, talk to my colleague from Arkansas, 
Senator Lincoln. Ask them how tighter restrictions under the banner of 
reform will throw a disproportionate burden on their farmers, rice 
farmers and cotton farmers who have a greater cost of production for 
cotton and rice than in other regions of the country. Farm bills are 
about achieving broad bipartisan compromise for the good of the 
American people. This bill meets that standard and deserves this body's 
support.
  I finish by asking my colleagues to take a look at the frescos that 
line the corridors of the hall of columns next time they find 
themselves on the House side. Written near the top of one of the walls, 
there is a quote by Carl Sandburg that reads:


[[Page 29718]]

       Whenever a people or an institution forgets its hard 
     beginnings, it is beginning to decay.

  The Senate must not forget this Nation's struggles on the farm and on 
the dinner tables before our farm and nutrition safety nets existed. We 
cannot afford to forget how far our farm bills have come since 1933. We 
have come a long way over the last 75 years in building a thriving 
agricultural economy, responsible conservation policies, and responsive 
nutrition programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
farm bill, which builds on the steady gains agriculture has made and 
continues the economic prosperity it has fueled.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to add my remarks to this debate 
on the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I see our chairman of the 
committee in the Chamber. I wish to say a personal thanks to him for 
his leadership and hard work, along with his staff, who worked 
diligently through the committee process to really come together.
  My colleagues, including Senator Coleman, who is on the committee as 
well, working with others--Senator Conrad has been here--those of us on 
the committee have worked so hard to come up with a compromise, a bill 
that is practical and realistic but also actually exhibits reforms that 
many people have been asking for. But the bill also moves forward in a 
progressive way, a way I think Americans can be proud in the values and 
the priorities we set. So as a member of our Senate Agriculture 
Committee, I am extremely proud of the product our committee has 
produced.
  A lot of time and energy was put into the committee bill to ensure we 
maintain the blessings we have here in American agriculture. Staff and 
the members worked hard to come up with a good compromise, a compromise 
that respects and appreciates the diversities across our country and 
the great wealth and bounty of what our Nation has.
  The farm bill does many other good things. Several of my colleagues 
have already touched on those. Our investment in nutrition, 
conservation, rural development, and energy programs has been 
dramatically increased. All of these things will benefit our country 
greatly.
  As one of the cochairs and cofounders of the Senate Hunger Caucus, I 
find it very important that we focus, through this bill, on nutrition. 
I hope others do, and I hope they are willing to look for resources we 
need to make sure we pay for that, that we are serious about nutrition, 
and that we are going to continue to work on that. My faith requires me 
to look after the poorest among us, and I am very pleased the committee 
bill provides an additional $5 billion increase in programs targeted at 
reducing food insecurity among our children and our elderly, among our 
low-income and those who are in need.
  Conservation is a big part of this package as well. The chairman has 
been a tireless advocate for conservation programs. I am pleased that 
once again he has produced a bill that is progressive in this area. It 
ensures that we are the best stewards of the land we possibly can be 
and that we will leave our children the environment they deserve.
  Having grown up on a farm myself and recognizing that my dad, as a 
farmer, was one of the greatest conservationists I could ever meet--he 
was conscientious with the way he handled his land. He knew it would be 
there for future generations if he took good care of it. He also knew 
if he took good care of that land in the current, it would produce the 
crops that would provide for our family. So conservation is an 
essential part of who we are as Americans. What is exhibited in this 
bill is a step forward--a large step forward--in a very progressive way 
of how we have invested in conservation.
  Rural development is also well represented in this bill. Again, 
growing up in rural America, it is so important to see the investments, 
whether it is investments in small businesses and entrepreneurs. The 
broadband effort we have made here is incredibly important.
  I have a gentleman who bought property in Arkansas to retire on. He 
was not going to move there for another 10 or 15 years. When he 
realized his business actually could access three major cities across 
this country and access those cities through the technology he needed 
to use, he decided to move to Arkansas ahead of time, ahead of 
retirement, because it was a place he wanted to be.
  The outmigration we have seen from rural America has been caused 
largely because of a lack of opportunity. In rural development, we 
provide not only many of those tools to help development, help 
entrepreneurs and small businesses grow their businesses, but we 
provide for communities to invest in their infrastructure so it will be 
a desirable place for people to build their businesses and raise their 
families. That is important.
  Reducing dependency on foreign oil is absolutely critical, and we 
know that as a nation now. We see the passion in Americans for wanting 
an alternative and renewable energy source. In this bill, we have the 
beginnings, particularly of making sure that not only we lessen our 
dependence on foreign oil but we do so in a way that is good for the 
environment. It provides an additional marketplace for our producers 
with their commodities.
  We have a win-win in this situation, with all of these things we have 
brought together in this bill. Yet many of them are new programs over 
the last couple of decades in terms of the farm bill in our outreach. 
It is essential that we recognize the investment we are making in this 
bill and that we do not tarry in getting it passed and that we make 
again the assurances to hard-working families, both on the family farm 
as well as in rural America, that we do believe in them, that we do 
believe as a government in investing in who they are, what their values 
are, and the contribution they make to the fabric of this country.
  Most importantly, to me, as the mother of twin boys, the farm bill 
does something we should all be very proud of: It ensures our Nation, 
the working families of this country, and the children of this Nation, 
a safe and affordable domestic supply of food and fiber. We are the 
envy of the world in how we can do that. Not only do we do it most 
efficiently and effectively, we do it by keeping the cost of our food 
per capita the lowest of any developed country in the world. We do it 
with respect to our environment. It is the envy of the world. Many of 
my colleagues and most, if not all, of the media seem to take that for 
granted when we bring up this bill. It is something we should never 
lose sight of in this debate. As a mother, when I go to the store and I 
know and can see what it is I am purchasing, knowing those crops and 
those food sources--domestically produced--can ensure for me a quality 
food source and sustenance of life for my family, that is 
unbelievable--again, the envy of the world.
  We look at what comes out of the media. One day they are reporting 
about the dangers our Nation is facing with unsafe food entering the 
country or the atrocities of outsourcing jobs, and the next day they 
are on the front page of the news criticizing farm programs that keep 
production agriculture here at home and level the disparities in global 
agricultural trade that U.S. farmers face abroad. The markets out there 
are not that open to certainly the commodities we grow in our region of 
the country.
  But we are a diverse nation. Our crops are different in each region 
of the country. For that reason, we have several different programs to 
support individual commodity needs. In the Midwest, with corn, sugar, 
sugar beets, and fruit and vegetable producers, they enjoy several 
different programs outside our traditional farm programs to provide 
them the support they need to continue producing right here at home. 
They are different programs than my growers would probably access, and 
they have different rules for those programs. With sugar, we limit the 
access for foreign competition into the U.S. market. For corn, we 
provide several

[[Page 29719]]

different provisions in law that support those producers, in addition 
to traditional commodity programs. We mandate a market through the 
renewable fuels standard. We provide a tax credit for blenders, and we 
protect ourselves from foreign competition to give this industry a 
chance to grow and an opportunity to reduce our dependency on foreign 
energy.
  In other States across our country, in fruit and vegetable regions of 
our country, in addition to the nearly $3 billion worth of incentives 
for this industry, we provide a planting restriction to limit 
competition from producers of other commodities.
  Oftentimes, we are told in the South: Why don't you just grow 
something else, something different that may be less difficult or less 
of a problem in the international trade market? Well, in many 
instances, we are unable to do that because of planting restrictions. 
But I am proud of the recognition of this diversity, and I am proud to 
have supported these initiatives tirelessly on behalf of the hard-
working farm families in other regions of the country.
  I have also fought hard to ensure that American agriculture gets the 
respect it deserves in the world marketplace because, as the budget 
chairman pointed out yesterday with his now famous charts, the world 
market for our farmers is not free or fair. My message is simple: We 
should meet our global competition, and we should not unilaterally 
disarm our farmers in the global marketplace.
  The unfortunate reality is that our global agricultural competition 
is heavily subsidized, and their markets are closed to agricultural 
goods that my State particularly produces. We have to fight hard for 
the small bit of market access our crops need in those other countries 
and in those trade agreements. As a result, we have grown our 
operations to create an economy of scale that allows us to be 
competitive. If we are not careful, with the tighter payment limits, we 
are going to make our producers of staple commodities such as rice less 
competitive internationally. As I have pointed out, rice and cotton 
face much greater international competition than any of the other 
commodities we are discussing in this bill.
  So our point, with these commodities we have and what we face in that 
global competitive marketplace, is: Yes, our program might need to be 
just a little bit different, kind of like the sugar program or the corn 
program and the supports they need. I did not invent the global 
subsidies in agriculture, but I am committed to ensuring that the 
Senate helps our farmers meet the global competition.
  Working with both Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley on the trade 
aspects, through the Senate Finance Committee, and the Office of the 
USTR, we are going to continue the fight. I am going to continue to 
fight to ensure that global access is there for us. As we do that as a 
nation, I think it is our responsibility and duty to provide the 
support programs our farmers need. To not do so will simply result in 
an outsourcing of our food supply and our jobs in rural America.
  Within the WTO negotiations, we have asked our trading partners to 
reduce their subsidies and their tariff levels on U.S. agricultural 
products. What we have said is that we will come down further and 
faster on our subsidy programs, on our support programs. But the 
response from the rest of the world has been abundantly clear to us: 
No, thank you, America. We don't want to bring down our subsidies. We 
don't want to bring down our supports. We want you to. But, no, thank 
you very much. We are not going to do that. You go right ahead. You 
lower your subsidies, and we will simply hang on to ours.
  Here at home I have heard some of my colleagues and mostly media 
outlets that have said we needed to lower the caps on programs. Well, 
guess what. The committee bill does just that. It lowers the overall 
cap from $360,000 to $100,000.
  I have also heard we needed to address the loophole that has allowed 
producers to avoid the caps. The committee bill does just that. It 
eliminates both of the loopholes most frequently cited--the three-
entity rule and the generic certificates.
  I heard we needed transparency, so the committee bill--yes, the 
committee bill we bring before this Senate--adds direct attribution, 
which will track payments directly to an individual farmer. Now, let me 
be clear. This is only for traditional, what we refer to as ``program 
commodities,'' not sugar or dairy or ethanol. They will not have direct 
attribution. But in this bill we provide direct attribution for the 
traditional program commodities. As I pointed out, those programs 
operate in a slightly different fashion to provide support to their 
farmers because we have a lot of different farmers in different regions 
around this great country.
  I heard we needed to disqualify millionaire nonfarmers, those who are 
walking around Fifth Avenue or Hollywood. So in the committee bill we 
do just that. We move the adjusted gross income means test from its 
current level of $2.5 million to $750,000.
  Now I notice my colleague Norm Coleman bringing up celebrities such 
as Scottie Pippen. But the fact is, Scottie Pippen won't be affected, 
because most of those individuals--or certainly a large amount of 
them--are reported because of their conservation payments. These are 
contracts they enter into with the Federal Government for contracts on 
conservation, putting their land into conservation. Many of them will 
have an adjusted gross income above that level, but they will still be 
listed and they will still be getting their payments, because they have 
entered into that contract. We don't put an AGI means test on the 
conservation program. I think that is important for people to 
understand. Those people very often are not getting program payments; 
they are getting conservation payments.
  My sincere hope is this will all be seen as what it is. It is a good-
faith effort on my part and the members of the Agriculture Committee--
all of the others on the committee--to address concerns and to 
recognize this is the most significant reform in the history of our 
farm program. We have made a tremendous progressive effort on the 
issues that are important to people, both reform as well as nutrition 
programs, conservation, energy, renewable energy. Now we have some 
time, it seems, to discuss what this farm bill does and doesn't do.
  I am appreciative of this time, because throughout my career I have 
tried to look after family farmers and to respect the needs of farmers 
in every region of this great country. I have tried to do that first 
and I have tried to assist them in providing our Nation and the world 
with the bounty they do. It is something we far too often take for 
granted, the blessing of living in this country, knowing there is an 
affordable, abundant, and safe supply of food and fiber for the people 
of this country. We in this country are fortunate. We are fortunate to 
have this bounty. I am not going to let anyone in this Chamber forget 
it. I am not going to allow anyone to send this bounty to some foreign 
land never to be seen again in this country, to outsource the 
opportunity that hard-working farm families in this country have to do 
what it is they want to do most and what they do most effectively, and 
that is to provide this country with that safe, affordable, and 
abundant supply of food and fiber.
  I look forward to the discussion ahead of us. I have to say if there 
is one unfortunate thing I find in all of this discussion, it is that 
there are those people who would choose to misrepresent the facts. When 
they misrepresent the facts, it breaks down the process. It breaks down 
the process from what is real. What is real is those of us on the 
Agriculture Committee who have come together in good faith to produce a 
bill that makes sense; something everybody can support and that 
respects people all across this country. My hope is we will continue 
this conversation, and that those who choose to misrepresent the facts 
can be countered or at least corrected, and those of us who want to 
work hard to come up with something that makes

[[Page 29720]]

sense, that we can continue to do so. I look forward to that debate. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues. Senator Grassley and 
Chairman Baucus are here on the floor. They have done yeoman's work on 
behalf of farmers across this country, and I look forward to continuing 
to work with them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I know it is my turn to speak, but out 
of deference to Senator Baucus who is negotiating on the Children's 
Health Insurance Program, I ask unanimous consent that he go before me, 
and then I ask that Senator Tester would follow him, because I don't 
want Senator Tester to have to sit around and listen to me. Then I ask 
unanimous consent after those two, I be the next in line.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  WRDA

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my very good friend from Iowa. 
Senator Grassley is a true gentleman and I deeply appreciate the 
courtesy he is offering me, as well as my colleague Senator Tester.
  A few moments ago, the House voted to override the President's veto 
by a vote of 361 to 54--361 to 54--clearly overriding the President's 
veto on the WRDA bill. I stand here today asking the Senate to do the 
same. We too should have a very strong vote to override the President's 
veto. If the House can vote to override, certainly the Senate can too.
  This conference report, as we all know, provides authority for the 
Army Corps of Engineers to move forward on many very long overdue water 
resource projects. Let's not forget the West's battle with drought and 
the coasts' recurring struggles against Mother Nature's harsh storms 
that highlight the pressing need to address our water resource needs. I 
saw a very alarming article not too long ago, 2 or 3 weeks ago, about 
the effects of climate change and global warming. It is not just the 
ice sheets melting and the coastlines rising; there is also increased 
drought--increased drought in the Southeast and in the Southwest, 
especially the Southwest. It is tough enough for my part of the country 
where the average precipitation is about 13 inches a year. That is all 
it is. I think in Washington, DC, the average precipitation is around 
40 inches. In the northern high plains States where we desperately need 
these projects, the annual precipitation is again about 13 to 14 inches 
a year. We need help.
  I must say too it is important to keep in mind that since 1986, 
Congress enacted legislation known as the Water Resources Development 
Act, otherwise known as WRDA. Every 2 years since then, Congress has 
received a WRDA bill from the administration, seeking authorization for 
water resources projects. These requests provided the Corps and local 
sponsors with a regular planning schedule.
  It is kind of like the highway bill. We have people in our country--
the highway bill clearly is the contractors and the States--some 
ability to plan for the future. That is why we have 5- or 6-year bills. 
The same is also true with the Water Resources Development Act. We need 
to give some sense of predictability and some sense of certainty to 
people so they can plan for projects, in this case the Corps.
  I must say, however, that the administration has not requested one 
update of the program--not one--since the year he has been President. 
So the question is, Why? Why has the President not suggested an update 
in the program? Well, according to the President, this is not a 
priority. He says the Congress is not being fiscally responsible. I 
have to disagree. He is not accurate. Why? Well, one reason is the 
costs in this legislation reflect an accumulation of projects that need 
to be authorized because we have not had a WRDA bill for over 6 years. 
It stands to reason that if we haven't had an authorization for over 6 
years, clearly the costs are going to go up a little bit.
  Investing in our water infrastructure is a cost we cannot afford to 
put off. I submit it doesn't make any sense to turn our backs on all of 
these water projects because otherwise they continue to crumble, they 
continue to erode, and it does not make a lot of sense. In fact, many 
people are worried about America's competitiveness, and I am one who 
thinks we do not pay enough attention to our infrastructure; that is, 
if we are going to compete in the future, we have to have strong 
highways, we have to have a power system, a telephone system, and we 
need to have a very good water resource system. We have to get water 
where it is needed because if we don't, there are going to be huge 
costs not just in the immediate term but also in the long term.
  It is very important that this legislation, in my judgment, pass. 
There are several projects in this bill in the State of Montana, my 
home State. One is the Yellowstone River and Tributaries Recovery 
project, and another is called the Lower Yellowstone project at Intake, 
MT; third, the Missouri River and Tributaries Recovery project; the 
Upper Basin of the Missouri River project, and a riverfront 
revitalization project in Missoula, MT. These projects will all improve 
and protect our valuable water resources.
  The old saying about whiskey and water: You fight over water. Whiskey 
is for drinking, water is for fighting over. It is because water is 
such a precious and valuable resource.
  There is also an important authorization for a very important project 
in my State of Montana, and that is the rehabilitation and improvement 
of an aging water project we call the Hi-Line. If you look at the State 
of Montana, it is a highway that goes across northern Montana. We call 
it Hi-Line. It is as though we are high above the Earth because we go 
across northern Montana and up there, there is something called the St. 
Mary Diversion. It is a Federal project built years ago. It is a mess. 
It is dilapidated and crumbling. I have been up there not too long ago. 
I have been up there a couple of times. I am embarrassed that the U.S. 
Government has not kept up the system, not kept up the operation, and 
not kept it going. I am embarrassed and I feel bad, and in fact I am 
angry that half of the people in the area--it is an Indian reservation 
as well, and a lot of people have moved off the reservation, and we 
have to address this. This legislation does address it. It is very 
important. Without it, I might add, the Lower Milk River, which falls 
out of the Diversion, would go dry 6 out of every 10 years. Without 
this St. Mary Diversion, the Milk River would go dry 6 out of every 10 
years. That is 60 percent of the time. This affects thousands of 
Montana families.
  If you have been up on the Hi-Line, if you have been on the Milk 
River, you will get a sense and a feel for how valuable this is. It is 
our lifeblood. The President might not think these projects are a 
priority. I certainly do.
  This conference report authorizes projects that will provide needed 
flood and storm damage protection, as well as a lot of navigation 
improvements and a lot of environmental restoration. There is also 
authority here that is so important for rebuilding and restoring the 
coast of Louisiana devastated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and 
authority for modernizing the lock and dam system on the Mississippi 
River, and authority for ecosystem restoration projects from New Jersey 
to Florida to Colorado--all vitally important.
  The 1986 comprehensive WRDA bill was enacted after a 16-year deadlock 
between the Congress and the executive branch. The deadlock we see 
today between the Congress and the President is about priorities. What 
are our priorities? What are America's priorities? What are the 
priorities of our country? The Congress has set priorities and enacted 
this legislation. The American people clearly value--and it goes 
without saying--the water resources of our country and our need to 
invest in them. The American people see this as a priority.
  Again, the conference report passed the Senate by a strong 81-to-12 
vote, clearly enough votes to override a Presidential veto, and the 
House voted moments ago very strongly to override the President's veto 
361 to 54. So let's not delay any longer. Let's get this conference 
report enacted with a very strong vote and override the President's 
veto. We already did it in the

[[Page 29721]]

House. Let's do it in the Senate when the time comes--I think it is 
tomorrow--and then we can get on with developing these projects, and we 
can be very proud of doing something in the Congress that is very 
worthwhile.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about this farm 
bill. Before I start, though, I thank Senator Grassley for allowing me 
this time to speak. I certainly appreciate his hospitality.
  This farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we 
will vote on this year. Along with the members of the committee, I 
thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss for their hard work 
on this bill in committee. This farm bill just doesn't affect farmers 
and ranchers and folks who need nutritional assistance; it impacts all 
Americans and it ensures that food in this country is secure.
  Our agricultural policy has created the most dependable and 
affordable food system in the world. Americans have incredible choices 
at the grocery store. We have high quality and safe food, and our 
supplies and prices are stable. What makes this stability possible is a 
comprehensive farm bill that helps set national priorities, keeping our 
family farms and ranches productive and food on America's tables.
  I bring a different perspective to the farm bill than a lot of my 
colleagues. I am a third-generation farmer. My wife and I farm the same 
land my grandparents homesteaded nearly a century ago. I have spent a 
lifetime with my hands in the dirt, and I know how difficult it is to 
get by in production agriculture, especially in these days. I am proud 
that Sharla and I are passing that same farm down that my grandparents 
homesteaded to the fourth generation of our family. If this bill is 
vetoed as the President has promised, many families won't have the 
option to pass their farm down, because over the next 5 years, many of 
them will go broke.
  American agriculture is facing very difficult challenges, such as 
skyrocketing land prices, aging populations in rural America, and the 
high cost of fuels and fertilizers. The changing global marketplace 
creates more uncertainties for our producers and challenges when our 
so-called free markets sometimes come with a high price. America's 
family farms and ranches have a lot on the line right now. They also 
have tremendous potential. This farm bill provides new opportunities 
for rural America.
  America's farmers and ranchers can be leaders in energy production as 
they are leaders in food production. For years, Montana, especially 
farm and ranch country, has adapted to our Nation's growing energy 
needs.
  The folks who put food on America's dinner tables also have 
tremendous opportunity in contributing to this country's energy 
independence through biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and wind power--
just to name a few.
  That is good news for rural America, it is good news for our 
pocketbooks, and it is good for family agriculture.
  In Montana, an oil-seed crop called Camelina is being used for 
biodiesel production. It grows on marginal soils, takes few inputs and 
doesn't need a whole lot of water. This year Montana started its first 
biodiesel facility--this farm bill will help this facility get off its 
feet and supply this country with much needed energy. I hope this plant 
is the first of many.
  We have only scratched the surface of our energy potential--and this 
farm bill could really tap into it. This bill will put the necessary 
resources into the production of biofuels, and more incentives for 
rural wind power projects.
  Many folks may not know that the farm bill is perhaps our largest 
conservation program. Our farmers and ranchers are stewards of the land 
and are constantly working to improve their operations to reduce their 
impact on the environment.
  This bill strengthens our working lands conservation programs to help 
make our farms and ranches productive and protected.
  This bill will finally implement mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling. May I say it is about time. In Montana, we passed a country-
of-origin labeling law in 2005. It is time we implement it at the 
Federal level.
  Whether it is the t-shirt I wear, the truck I drive, or the toy I buy 
for my grandkids, I can tell where it was made. It only makes sense 
that we know where our food comes from, too.
  COOL is good public policy. Americans deserve to know where their 
food comes from, and implementation of mandatory country-of-origin 
labeling is long overdue.
  Part of adequate labeling is the ability for our producers to market 
their products. I am happy to see that this farm bill will allow for 
the interstate shipment and sale of beef. Montana has some of the best 
beef in the world and smaller producers should be able to market their 
safe, healthy, quality products across State lines.
  I don't like shopping all that much--but it is even worse here in 
Washington. The lines are too long and the prices too high. But I will 
tell you what, it sure would put a smile on my face to see a t-bone on 
the shelf with a ``Made in Montana'' stamp on it.
  We hope to include in this bill permanent ag disaster assistance. I 
hear that some of my colleagues don't think this is the best way to 
protect family farm and ranch businesses but as a farmer I strongly 
support this measure.
  I know what it is like in the good years when you have a crop to put 
in the bin. And I know what it is like to have no crop. Whether it is 
hail, drought, floods, grasshoppers, or any other disaster, we need to 
make sure that our farmers and ranchers are protected. This is a real 
safety net that will help family farmers get by when disaster strikes.
  This disaster assistance program has strict requirements on who may 
receive assistance and will only help those farmers who have taken 
steps to mitigate their risk. This program will provide the predictable 
and consistent safety net that our family farmers and ranchers deserve.
  This farm bill makes great strides in acknowledging the importance of 
organic agriculture in our food system. Organic foods have been growing 
at a rate of over 20 percent a year for 20 years. This bill offers 
money for research dollars to support organic agriculture. And it will 
provide funds to help family farms--if they choose--convert to organics 
so that U.S. farms can meet the needs of this growing market.
  Organic agriculture is really a value-added program. It allows 
farmers and ranchers to find ways to increase the profitability of 
their products by consumers driving the marketplace.
  As far as nutrition is concerned, of course, the farm bill has a 
tremendous impact on the underprivileged segments of our society.
  The people who use these programs aren't lobbying our congressional 
offices, or sending thousands of letters, or using influence with the 
media to shape public policy. They are our children. They are the 
elderly. They are young, single mothers working two jobs. They are 
disabled veterans who need nutritional assistance until times get 
better.
  In Montana, nearly 20 percent of our children live below the poverty 
line. Each month, more than 80,000 Montanans seek assistance through 
the food stamp program; 20,000 seek supplemental assistance through the 
Women, Infants, and Children program. Out of a total population of just 
under a million people this is a big impact on our State.
  Montana also has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the 
country. We have good schools and college participation. We just can't 
always make ends meet where there is high cost of living and low wages. 
These nutrition programs are just the help folks need until they can 
get on their feet.
  In the wealthiest, most-advanced society in the world, no person 
should go hungry. I am glad that this farm bill has made long overdue 
increases to our food assistance programs.
  This farm bill is something that our Nation can be proud of. It 
strikes a balance between our different regions, and different 
interests. It does not have everything we want, but it has what we 
need.

[[Page 29722]]

  This is a farm bill that meets the needs of this country's family 
farmers, and it takes great strides in helping families with a more 
realistic nutrition component.
  Mr. President, I know firsthand how important this bill is for 
America's producers and America's consumers. This is mainstream, 
bipartisan legislation that was crafted and passed out of the Ag 
Committee without a dissenting vote. The farm bill is too important for 
anyone to obstruct, or to delay, or to play political games with.
  American consumers, from all walks of life, living paycheck-to-
paycheck, depend on this farm bill. American producers, in every corner 
of this country, living harvest to harvest, depend on this farm bill.
  The Senate needs to debate and pass this legislation, and the 
President of the United States needs to sign it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the amendment that is 
before the Senate--the Dorgan-Grassley amendment--on payment 
limitations; in other words, limiting the amount of money that one 
farming operation can get from a farm program in a specific year.
  The second reason I come to the floor is to address the issue of the 
President's suggested veto of the farm bill because it contains tax 
provisions that, presumably, the White House does not like.
  I would like to give a justification for the provisions that are in 
this bill. I think everybody in this body would agree we need to 
provide an adequate safety net for our family farmers. In recent years, 
however, assistance to farmers has come under increased scrutiny. The 
largest corporate farms are reaping the majority of the benefits of the 
farm payment program. These payments were originally designed to 
benefit our small- and medium-sized farmers but instead have 
contributed to the demise of the small- and medium-sized family 
farmers. I believe we need to correct our course and modify the farm 
programs before those programs cause further concentration and 
consolidation in agriculture.
  Today, most commodities are valued off demand, and the market 
dictates profitability. When farmers overproduce by planning for the 
farm program or expand rapidly because of the security of those 
programs, then the markets are not functioning. Unlimited farm payments 
have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to 
overproduction and lower commodity prices.
  I am going to refer to a series of charts that I have. Increased land 
prices and cash rents are driving family farmers and making it 
difficult, particularly for young farmers, to get into family farming--
something that is probably there because for generations families have 
been farming sometimes the same land.
  For instance, in Iowa, you can see how the value of farmland has very 
dramatically increased, particularly very recently. Around my hometown 
of New Hartford, IA, land is selling somewhere between the poor land at 
$4,000 an acre and the very best land for $6,000 an acre. In my home 
county of Butler, the value of an acre is up 64 percent since 2000. 
Across the entire State of Iowa, the average land value per acre rose 
72 percent just in the last 6 years.
  You will see from the next chart that the average typical cash rent 
per acre in Iowa rose 25 percent in that same timeframe. So you can 
legitimately ask, how are family farmers, particularly young farmers 
who cannot buy land and who have to rent land, going to survive when 
they have had such a rapid increase in either the price of land, on the 
one hand, or cash rents on the other hand? How are they even going to 
be able to get into farming for the very first start?
  I have been hearing directly from producers for years what former 
Secretary Johanns heard in the series of farm meetings. I think either 
the Secretary, or his staff, had well over 100 hearings on proposed 
farm legislation prior to--well, during the years 2005 and 2006. So I 
have heard what Secretary Johanns has heard in his farm bill forums: 
Young farmers cannot carry on the tradition of farming because they are 
financially unable to do so because of high land values and cash rents.
  What does all this have to do with farm programs? I am going to quote 
a famous and well-known Midwestern agricultural economist, Dr. Neil 
Harl, now emeritus. He came out with a report on this subject. He is 
and was at Iowa State University. The report states:

       The evidence is convincing that a significant portion of 
     the subsidies are being bid into cash rents and capitalized 
     into land values. If investors were to expect less Federal 
     funding--or none at all--land values would likely decline, 
     perhaps by as much as 25 percent.

  So here we have an article from last year's Washington Post, when the 
Post did a series of articles on the disparity that farm program 
supports are causing. They reported:

       The largest farms' share of agricultural production has 
     climbed from 32 percent to 45 percent, while the number of 
     small and medium-sized farms has tumbled from 42 percent to 
     27 percent.

  I assume the printing on the chart is so small that you will have to 
take my word for it that is what it says. The law creates a system that 
is clearly out of balance.
  If we look at the results posted here, we have a system where 10 
percent of the biggest farmers get 73 percent of the benefits from the 
tax-supported farm programs. Worse yet--or more extraordinary, I should 
say--the top 1 percent get almost 30 percent of all of those payments. 
I tend to concentrate on the top 10 percent of the biggest farmers 
getting 73 percent. But I think this other top 1 percent of--how do you 
say it--the big farmers, the top 1 percent are getting 30 percent of 
all of the benefits out of the Treasury. So we are back where we were 5 
years ago.
  This body passed as part of the farm bill, by a vote of 66 to 31, 
putting limits on farm payments. Well, it didn't survive a House-Senate 
conference. Senator Dorgan and I were working together then, and here 
we are back 5 years later. The farm bill is up for reauthorization, and 
we are filing an amendment that, I believe, will help revitalize the 
farm economy for young people across this country.
  This amendment that Senator Dorgan put before the Senate this 
morning--actually, Senator Reid did it for Senator Dorgan--will put a 
hard cap on farm payments at $250,000. No less important, it will close 
the loophole that has allowed large operations to avoid even the 
existing $360,000 limit and, as a result, receive benefits far 
exceeding the limit.
  If I could say that another way, we have a situation where we do have 
caps in place, but there is legal subterfuge to get around those caps. 
One of them is the three-entity rule--split up your farming operation 
into three entities, and each one of those could qualify for that 
$360,000 limit.
  The other one is where generic certificates are used. Those are not 
included in the limit. So that is why you read where some farmers are 
getting millions of dollars through the farm program.
  We use the adjective, hard cap; $250,000 is the absolute limit. We do 
away with the legal subterfuge of getting around the cap to make it so 
it works and so it is effective.
  I have another article by the Washington Post from last year 
outlining the ongoing abuse of farm support programs. It is entitled 
``Farm Program Pays $1.3 Billion to People who Don't Farm.'' We are 
paying $1.3 billion to people who are not actively engaged in the 
business of farming. Senator Dorgan spoke better about this last night 
and this morning and gave better examples than I can on that point. We 
have examples of people who live on land collecting direct payments 
because a commodity was once grown on that land. Any agricultural use, 
including having a horse on that land, qualifies them for a direct 
payment, even though they are not even growing a crop.
  Our bill addresses these problems by doing away with the loopholes 
people have abused over the years to continue to get the payments. I 
have already referred to the three-entity rule. We also

[[Page 29723]]

put in place a system we call direct attribution. Most importantly, we 
tighten up what is already in the law but not enforced by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, that you have to be ``actively engaged'' in 
the business of farming.
  I wish to make a very clear distinction. Some Members of the Senate 
have advocated that the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is not as tough as 
what is in the Senate Agriculture Committee bill before us. I wish to 
explain why that is not true.
  I have another chart. We have to compare apples to apples. Saying the 
committee has a hard cap on payments at $200,000 is not accurate. They 
only have a hard cap on two categories of payments: direct payments and 
countercyclical payments. The Dorgan-Grassley amendment actually caps 
those at $100,000.
  In addition, my amendment will cap marketing loan gains at $150,000, 
while the committee bill before us that the Dorgan-Grassley changes 
leaves the marketing loan unlimited in the amount of money you can get 
through the marketing loan.
  This actually weakens current law, and if you can believe, after all 
the bad publicity about 10 percent of the biggest farmers getting 72 or 
73 percent of the benefits out of the farm program, why, the 
Agriculture Committee might write a bill that actually weakens current 
law. But I wish to make clear our bill at $250,000 is a hard cap, and 
it is more effective in taking care of this issue of the biggest 10 
percent getting 73 percent of the benefits.
  I anticipate there will be other votes on other types of reforms, 
including even means testing, also known as the adjusted gross income 
limit. I wish to make sure my colleagues are aware that an adjusted 
gross income cap and a hard cap on payments are two very different 
things and each should be looked at and considered individually.
  Back in 2002--and I referred to this before, that Senator Dorgan and 
I have been working together--back in 2002, I voted against the farm 
bill out of conference committee. A lack of payment limits in that bill 
because it was lost in conference, the Senate position was lost to the 
House position, was one of my reasons for voting against the bill.
  I have been fighting to reduce large-scale subsidies since I was a 
Member of the House of Representatives in the 1970s. Then we were, 
believe it or not, arguing over a $50,000 limitation.
  Our amendment produces some considerable savings. Senator Dorgan and 
I have identified very critical and essential programs to help 
producers and farmers, small business owners, conservationists, and 
low-income people, including seniors and children. We support beginning 
farmer and rancher programs and the Rural Microenterprise Program. 
These programs are crucial to bolstering young farmers and to helping 
main streets across America.
  It will also provide funds for the organic cost-share program and the 
farmers Market Promotion Program. These growing components of our food 
supply system will create new opportunities for farmers and increase 
healthy food options for our consumers.
  A large priority of mine has always been seeing justice for Black 
farmers--discrimination cases brought against the USDA, but not 
everybody eligible got in on it. This amendment puts some money, double 
the amount provided by the committee, in for late filers under the 
Pigford consent decree for farmers who haven't gotten a chance for 
their claims to be heard. It is time to make it right for these farmers 
who were discriminated against in their attempts to get help from the 
Federal Government in farming.
  We also support the Grasslands Reserve Program and the Farmland 
Protection Program with additional dollars. Conserving our natural 
resources is one of the most important components of agriculture, and 
this investment will make a substantial difference in the availability 
of these programs.
  Finally, while the Agriculture Committee makes significant 
contributions to the nutrition and food assistance programs, they were 
not able to go far enough due to tight budget constraints. So Dorgan-
Grassley adds money to this program so it can be adjusted for inflation 
and other nutrition priorities to assist low-income seniors, as well as 
children.
  I worked with Senator Dorgan on a similar measure, as I have said for 
the third time, in 2002, and it passed with bipartisan support by a 
vote of 66 to 31. Unfortunately, it was stripped out of conference. My 
colleagues might remember the last time we had a vote on payment limits 
was on the budget resolution. Many of my colleagues said they agreed 
with what we were trying to do, but they voted against us at that 
particular time because they said doing it on the budget resolution in 
the middle of a farm bill authorization of 5 years was not the right 
time. Everybody said it needed to be done the next time the farm bill 
came up for debate.
  Well, that time is right now, and I ask those who maybe thought it 
shouldn't be done on the budget resolution a couple years ago to 
remember what they said. They came up to us individually and said: We 
agree with what you are trying to do, but it shouldn't be in the middle 
of the farm bill reauthorization, and it shouldn't be done on the 
budget resolution. The inference was they will be with us at the right 
time. The time is right now, or within the next 24 hours, when we vote 
on this amendment.
  I remind this body that in addition to what was said by our 
colleagues at that particular time, in the last farm bill, we set up, 
as supposedly a sop for those of us who didn't get what we wanted in 
payment limitations out of conference 5 years ago, a commission on the 
application of payment limitations for agriculture.
  This commission was set up, and for a couple years they studied this 
issue. The purpose was to conduct a study on the potential need for 
further payment limitations on farm programs. The commission met. 
Farmers, agricultural economists--I can't think of everybody who was on 
it, but they knew the business of agriculture. This commission 
recommended the very same loophole-closing measures which we included 
in this amendment that is now before the Senate. Those people who 
thought they threw us a sop or some sort of a compromise that we ought 
to accept a commission instead of the real hard change in law to 
accomplish what we wanted to accomplish, that we would have people 
study it and then give some respectability to it, or maybe they thought 
we would forget about it and go away 5 years later, we haven't 
forgotten about it; we haven't gone away.
  We are taking the recommendations of this commission that was set up 
to say what we ought to do in the area of payment limitations, and we 
are doing exactly what they said. We not only have the promise of those 
people who said it shouldn't be done on the budget resolution, we have 
the recommendations of all these experts of how it ought to be done, 
when it ought to be done, and why it ought to be done. It is for all 
those reasons that we have Dorgan and Grassley back again suggesting 
what we thought should have been done 5 years ago. If it had been done 
5 years ago, we wouldn't have this problem of 10 percent of the biggest 
farmers getting 73 percent of the benefits out of the farm program.
  There are several problems connected with that situation. One, when 
urban people read about this, they are going to say: Why do you need a 
farm safety net if all the help is going to biggest farmers? So we lose 
urban support. We lose support of a farm program in the House of 
Representatives controlled by urban people, and we don't have a farm 
safety net, and family farmers don't have the ability to withstand a 
lot of situations that are beyond their control. We also have a 
situation where we drive up the price of farmland so the next 
generation of farmers cannot get started. But also, we depart from the 
principle of a farm safety net of the last 70 years that was supposed 
to be directed to medium- and small-sized farmers, the very same people 
who produce the food we eat in a way so consumers spend less of their 
income on food than any other society anywhere on this globe, and to 
keep them strong when they cannot withstand natural disasters or the 
politics of agriculture or a war or energy problems.

[[Page 29724]]

They don't have the staying power, but the larger farmers do.
  For 70 years, we have directed the benefit of a farm program, until 
very recently, to small- and medium-sized farmers. How it gets out of 
whack so we get 10 percent of the biggest farmers getting 73 percent of 
the benefits of the program is hard to explain. But it has happened, 
and we are trying to get back to the original purpose of farm programs 
to help small- and medium-sized farmers over the hurdles they have to 
cross, through no fault of their own, situations they cannot control, 
that larger farmers have the ability to have a little more staying 
power.
  So here we are. By voting in favor of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, 
we can allow young people to get into farming and lessen dependence on 
Federal subsidies. This will help restore public respectability for 
Federal farm assistance by targeting this assistance to those who need 
it the most.
  So let us quit dragging our feet and let us pass real reform with a 
real payment for real farmers. I call upon my colleagues to support 
this commonsense legislation that is referred to as Dorgan-Grassley.
  I told you, Mr. President, in my opening remarks that I wished to 
address a second issue as well, directly related to the farm bill, but 
including some issues that are a little bit broader than the farm bill, 
and that deals with the tax policy.
  Remember, a very significant part of this farm bill is tax policy 
that we in the Finance Committee--Senator Baucus, me, and the other 19 
members of the committee--set up that are directly related to soil 
conservation and drought relief, and we raise revenue to pay for it. In 
the process of this broad policy, we have freed up money the 
Agriculture Committee would otherwise spend on a lot of programs, such 
as disaster relief and conservation, so the Agriculture Committee would 
have a little more leeway to do what needs to be done in farm policy, 
and that is directly related to the fact that under the budget adopted 
by this Congress, we find the Agriculture Committee $15 billion under 
benchmark, and that is a big bite to swallow with the needs in American 
agriculture. So we have come up with, in the Finance Committee, a 
little bit of help for the Agriculture Committee.
  As recently as yesterday, the President, or his people, have 
suggested because of the tax policy that is in this bill, they might 
veto the whole farm bill. I want to tell the President why that is a 
crazy idea--a crazy idea--so I will take the time to comment, then, on 
the revenue raisers that are in this farm bill.
  The revenue raiser is a proposal to clarify a judicial doctrine in 
the tax law known as the economic substance doctrine. I am here not so 
much to justify revenue raising through this definition of economic 
substance, but I am here to say there are four circuit courts of appeal 
in different parts of the country that have had four different 
decisions on economic substance and each has said Congress ought to 
define economic substance. So as far as I am concerned, in putting 
economic substance in here, it is not just to raise revenue and to have 
an offset for the programs we have set up, it is for Congress to do the 
job of making the Tax Code on economic substance clear so the courts 
are not defining it, and most importantly so that four different courts 
aren't defining it in four different ways. We need to have some 
certainty, and this bill brings that certainty to the definition of 
economic substance.
  But before I get into that, I have to be a little more general. For a 
lot of folks, this proposal may sound like an esoteric tax policy 
matter, and they might wonder why I am focusing on it today. The reason 
is the White House has indicated the President will veto the farm bill 
if this proposal is included in the bill sent to the President's desk.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Washington Post article reporting on the President's suggested veto 
of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From washingtonpost.com, Nov. 6, 2007]

                  Bush Vows To Veto Senate's Farm Bill

                            (By Dan Morgan)

       The Bush administration, setting the stage for another 
     confrontation with Congress over a major spending measure, 
     issued a veto threat yesterday against the Senate version of 
     the $288 billion farm bill.
       The announcement came as a disappointment to bipartisan 
     Senate supporters, who had hoped the farm legislation avoided 
     some of the pitfalls that prompted a similar veto threat this 
     summer against a House-passed version.
       But in a news briefing held as Senate debate began 
     yesterday, acting Agriculture Secretary Charles F. Conner 
     charged that the five-year legislation had been inflated by 
     $37 billion through the use of ``tax increases and budget 
     gimmicks.''
       ``It will need significant changes. . . . We have a long 
     way to go,'' he said. Conner said details of the 
     administration critique will be issued shortly in the hope 
     that they ``will impel Congress to work with us.''
       Despite the enormous congressional popularity of the bill--
     which funds farm subsidy programs, food stamps, environmental 
     programs and biofuels research--the administration believes 
     it can sustain a veto by rallying Republicans against tax 
     provisions used to fund some of the new outlays.
       Conner charged that the bill's funding depends on $15 
     billion in new taxes and added that ``we don't believe other 
     sectors should pay'' so that farm subsidies can go to 
     ``millionaires living on Park Avenue.''
       Most House Republicans voted against that chamber's version 
     of the bill in July after Democrats offset new spending on 
     nutrition programs by tightening tax rules on U.S. 
     subsidiaries of foreign companies. Democrats said they were 
     merely closing a loophole, but Republicans and the White 
     House branded it a tax increase.
       The Senate version, which includes a new $5.1 billion fund 
     that farmers could tap when hit by weather losses, would be 
     financed in part by a different set of measures clamping down 
     on tax-avoidance techniques used by business.
       Conner also said the bill contains too little reform of 
     subsidies. He said the administration is dissatisfied that 
     the bill does not place stricter limits on subsidy payments 
     to rich farmers.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. The title of that article is: ``Bush Vowed to Veto 
Senate's Farm Bill.''
  Before I discuss the specifics of the economic substance doctrine, I 
wish to put this revenue raiser in context. We have heard a lot about 
pay-go. That is short for pay as you go. If you want to spend money, 
either raise taxes to offset it or cut someplace else to offset it. Or 
if you want to cut taxes, raise taxes someplace else to pay for it or 
cut spending someplace else to pay for the tax decrease. But around 
here we use the term pay-go for short.
  Now, of course, pay-go was in place for many years before the current 
policy was put into place after a few years of absence. The difference 
is the old version of pay-go applied it as a backstop to a budget 
resolution. So if a proposal spent more than the budget permitted and 
added to the deficit, a pay-go point of order was possible. Likewise, 
if a proposal to cut taxes more than the amount of the revenue the 
budget assumed would come in, pay-go would apply.
  This year Congress is struggling because a rigid notion of pay-go has 
hamstrung the committees--meaning every committee of the Congress that 
processes revenue or spending policies. The rubber has hit the road 
with pay-go here, more so at the end of the session than throughout the 
rest of 2007, and it has been a somewhat bumpy road for all of us. Of 
course, I think this road is even going to get bumpier as time goes on 
between now and Christmas.
  As everyone knows, Congress has a lot of unfinished business. I am 
going to focus on the unfinished tax business. I have a chart here I 
want to point to. It is a chart I have used before. This chart shows 
the unfinished tax business that has got to come before the Congress 
between now and Christmas. It accounts for all the bills we passed out 
of the Finance Committee. It also accounts for the expiring provisions 
that are known as tax extenders. The biggest item of the revenue loss 
chart is the alternative minimum tax and the fix for that alternative 
minimum tax so 19 million additional middle-income taxpayers and their 
families are not paying the AMT. You see all of those various aspects 
listed there separately--the 2007 AMT fix, 2008 AMT fix, 2008 
extenders, the Energy bill that has

[[Page 29725]]

already passed the Senate, the airport reauthorization bill, and then 
eventually we will spend some time on the farm bill. But you can see 
they add up to a heck of a lot of money.
  Since we are in the 2008 fiscal year, I have included then extenders 
for 2008 and also carrying a fix for AMT for not only 2007 but 2008.
  This chart accounts for the revenue loss from the farm bill package 
that is there at $13 billion. My chart shows the revenue loss side as 
demands on the water well there. It is at the top of the well in the 
bucket what the shortfall is there. There are a lot of thirsty bills 
that have to be paid for. Those thirsty bills carry a revenue loss of 
$170 billion over 5 years.
  I have accounted for the revenue offsets. This figure includes all 
revenue raisers proposed by Senate Democrats that are specified and 
scored by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. That figure 
includes $32 billion from the Finance Committee-approved proposals and 
$29 billion in other proposals. That total is $61 billion. That is what 
we know for sure that has been thought up and probably has a great deal 
of support to accomplish.
  This offset figure is calculated from the vantage point of the Senate 
Democratic leadership. In this total are proposals that House Democrats 
have opposed, such as shutting off the foreign subway leasing tax 
shelter, known as SILOS. In this total are proposals that most Senate 
Republicans have opposed, such as the reimposition of the Superfund 
taxes. In this total are many proposals that even the Bush 
administration has come out against.
  Now with this favorable assumption to them, the pay-go advocates in 
the Senate need to know that as we stand here today, there is not 
enough known revenue to meet the pay-go requirements that are on this 
chart that obviously have to be dealt with between now and Christmas. 
In other words, the demands on the revenue well are $170 billion, and 
the available revenue raisers are only $61 billion. So that is a 
shortfall that is clear there, in the middle of the well--a shortfall 
of $109 billion. In other words, the revenue well is dry.
  Now, $109 billion is a lot of money even here in Washington, DC. If 
the proposals are scored over 10 years, that shortfall does narrow 
slightly, from $109 billion down to $76 billion, and it is possible 
that some of the revenue raisers in Chairman Rangel's bill may be 
pursued by the Senate Democratic leadership. But as it stands now, for 
unfinished tax business alone, by this accounting, we cannot meet the 
requirements that the Senate must meet that we call pay-go.
  I point this out because everybody has to see this big picture. They 
seem to be missing the big picture on how we wrap up our overdue 
legislative business and meet the demands of the new pay-go rules. On 
the farm bill alone, my chart treats the farm bill as fully offset. My 
chart is created from the perspective of the Senate Democratic 
leadership, and so it shows the farm bill as offset. That is the way it 
is as it came out of the Senate Finance Committee.
  The problem is that President Bush's opposition to the key revenue 
raiser is not accounted for in this chart. President Bush's position 
does matter. His opposition to any revenue raiser, but specifically 
this one, would have to be overcome with a veto override. As my friends 
and the Democratic leadership know, that happens to be a very tough 
hurdle, as we have found out, for instance, on the Children's Health 
Insurance Program recently before the House of Representatives.
  My point is it is time to get practical around here. This chart of 
the water well shows that as we sit here today, looking at it from a 
Senate Democratic leadership perspective, the revenue well is dry. To 
insist on pay-go without a sense of realistically available offsets is 
trying to go up a blind alley. I say to my Democratic friends: At this 
late point in the legislative session, let us focus on what is 
practical. Let us apply the offsets we can agree to and in a manner we 
can agree on. We need to get to a posture of what can be agreed to by 
the House, by Senate Republicans, and by the White House. The AMT fix 
is the 800-pound gorilla in this discussion. It is $55 billion of the 
$109 billion shortfall. It affects 23 million families and could affect 
adversely another 27 million families. The AMT fix is long overdue. It 
needs to be completed expeditiously.
  To address this important matter solely from a pay-go perspective is 
to ignore the realities that it needs to get done. Republicans are 
ready, Republicans are willing, and Republicans are able to help get 
this AMT fix done, and done very shortly, but for many reasons I have 
discussed all year, not at the price of offsets.
  I will now go into the reasons why clarification of the economic 
substance doctrine is an appropriate revenue raiser and why it is basic 
to this farm bill before us, because it is a part of the farm bill; and 
why the President is crazy to use that as an excuse for vetoing the 
farm bill.
  The provision made the Finance Committee package revenue neutral, 
raising $10 billion over 10 years. But I support codification of 
economic substance not just to raise revenue--although it does that, 
and it is important that it do that because otherwise we would not have 
our provisions offset, according to pay-go. As ranking member of the 
Finance Committee, and even when I was chairman in the last two 
Congresses, I have supported codification of economic substance because 
it is the right policy. This provision is an improved version of a 
provision that passed the Finance Committee and the full Senate in the 
last two Congresses.
  The prior version was included in two bills passed by the full Senate 
in the 109th Congress, twice in the tax reconciliation bill, once in 
2005 by a vote of 64 to 33, and again in 2006 by a vote of 66 to 31. It 
also passed the full Senate two times in the 108th Congress, once in 
the 2003 tax bill by a vote of 51 to 49 and again in the 2004 JOBS bill 
by a vote of 92 to 5.
  This Senate is acquainted with the need to codify economic substance 
for us to do our job of making the Tax Code understandable so you do 
not get four different circuit courts of appeal giving four different 
definitions to economic substance. We ought to have one national policy 
on what is economic substance. Codifying it will clarify the test. It 
is a conjunctiva test requiring both a meaningful change in economic 
position and a business purpose, independent of Federal taxes. The 
courts are split on whether a transaction must have both economic 
substance as well as business purpose. This will give courts, then, a 
uniform doctrine to apply to noneconomic transactions that are 
inappropriately motivated solely to avoid Federal taxes--in other 
words, closing loopholes.
  It will also ensure that a court will not overturn the doctrine, as a 
trial judge did in what is called the Coltec case, saying:

       The use of the economic substance doctrine to trump the 
     mere compliance with the Code would violate the separation of 
     powers.

  That judge--I don't have to say that judge was crazy because the 
court of appeals reversed that judge's decision. But I am still 
concerned that another strict constructionist judge might reach a 
similar conclusion. Most important, codifying the economic substance 
doctrine will provide an additional deterrent against taxpayers 
entering into transactions solely for tax purposes, in ways that are 
inconsistent with congressional intent.
  As I said earlier, this provision is an improved version of what has 
already passed the Finance Committee and the full Senate more than 
once. So this Senate agrees with economic substance. But maybe Senators 
have forgotten how they voted 2 and 3 and maybe 5 years ago, so I am 
here to remind them this has been overwhelmingly accepted by the full 
Senate.
  This improved version has modifications made in response to concerns 
of taxpayers that codification would throw legitimate tax planning into 
question and allow the IRS to substitute its business judgment for that 
of the taxpayers. I am going to talk about those modifications so 
people understand, and all these lawyers in this town who are concerned 
about our writing this, that they know we have

[[Page 29726]]

taken some of their legitimate concerns into consideration.
  For instance, the strict liability nature of the penalty has been 
retained in order to effectively deter taxpayers from entering into 
tax-motivated transactions in unintended ways. Indeed, according to the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, the bulk of the revenue score is 
attributable to this strict liability penalty--not because the IRS will 
collect the penalty but because people are going to start obeying the 
law and change their behavior. The penalty will alter taxpayer 
behavior. It will cause taxpayers to forego entering into noneconomic, 
tax-motivated transactions that Congress never intended.
  We have heard complaints that a strict liability penalty will cause 
IRS field agents to overreach and courts to be reluctant to apply the 
doctrine. These are serious concerns, and we have addressed those 
concerns by requiring the IRS to nationally coordinate through the 
Chief Counsel's Office when the penalty is asserted and/or when it is 
compromised. This procedure is similar to a process currently used by 
the IRS to designate cases for litigation.
  As a protective measure, taxpayers will be permitted to make their 
case to the IRS at the national level before a penalty is asserted. Of 
course, cases involving the economic substance doctrine should be going 
through Chief Counsel anyway, and taxpayers currently have the ability 
to persuade the IRS not to assert a penalty. But because of the strict 
liability nature of this penalty, it is important to formalize this 
process and move it to a higher level of review.
  Getting the Chief Counsel's Office involved earlier in this 
controversy will help taxpayers and the IRS resolve or make litigation 
decisions regarding tax shelters earlier.
  We have also lowered the penalty for undisclosed transactions from 40 
percent to 30 percent to bring it in line with the penalty on 
undisclosed listed transactions.
  The proposal to codify economic substance has been controversial, 
even though it has passed the Finance Committee and the full Senate in 
the last two Congresses. Taxpayers and practitioners expressed 
legitimate concerns about it. We have addressed those concerns--maybe 
not in the way everybody wants, but I think we have done it in a 
responsible way.
  As a general matter, in my tenure as chairman of the Finance 
Committee before we went into the minority this year, I am proud to 
have kept taxes down. During my tenure, we enacted bipartisan tax 
relief bills that totaled over $2 trillion over 10 years. So for 
critics who look at any change in the Tax Code, regardless of how 
legitimate it is, even regardless of not doing it for revenue-raising 
measures--they look at everything and say: You are changing the Tax 
Code; you are raising taxes--I am here to tell them on this issue of 
economic substance how ridiculous that is. So for the critics of this 
revenue raiser, I would refer them to my record of keeping taxes down.
  By the way, for those on the liberal side of the political spectrum, 
I point out, as a percentage of GDP, the Federal Treasury is taking in 
a percentage that is above the post-World War II average.
  Codifying the economic substance doctrine should be considered on its 
merits. It should not be dismissed because it scores as a revenue 
raiser. It should not be endorsed either because it scores as a revenue 
raiser. In my view, it should be enacted because it is the right tax 
policy. Folks need to take off the bean-counting green eyeshades and 
look at the tax policy.
  The same goes for the long overdue AMT fix that I have talked about. 
It is not about maximizing Federal revenues. It is about fair taxation 
for 19 million middle-income families.
  I am done, Mr. President, but I want to digress for one minute for 
the benefit of faceless bureaucrats down at the White House. I want to 
talk to those people who maybe were advising the President, and they 
put it in his veto message, that one of the reasons he was vetoing the 
Children's Health Insurance Program is because our bill allowed 
families earning up to $83,000 to have their children in a government 
program--when quite obviously most people making that kind of income 
can have health insurance. What I have said to those very same people 
who put that in the President's message is it was not in our bill; that 
States could do that. That has been in the law for 10 years. But nobody 
pointed that out to the President. Some stupid person said to the 
President: This bill allows people with $83,000 to get it. It didn't 
have anything to do with that. It was in the law for 10 years.
  I want those faceless bureaucrats to read why we are doing economic 
substance. It is about time Congress does its job and the courts don't 
do the job we are supposed to do. Four circuit courts of appeal have 
defined and found fault with various aspects of economic substance. 
They said it is time for Congress to define it.
  Yes, it is a revenue raiser, but it is not one of these changes in 
tax policy that is a change in rates of taxation that you can 
legitimately call tax increases. But somebody down there at the White 
House is telling the President this is a tax increase. What we are 
trying to do is do our job. This cannot be a reason for vetoing the 
farm bill.
  If anybody down at the White House wants to discuss my rationale for 
this, come up and I will sit down and talk with them, or I will even go 
down there if they want to talk about it.
  I yield the floor. I guess nobody else wants to speak, so I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, within the past few weeks a series of 
events has occurred that can help shed light on how tax relief enacted 
in the past 7 years has impacted the budget of the United States. On 
September 27, the Senate voted to increase the debt limit so the 
Treasury would be able to borrow enough to meet our Nation's 
obligations. At the time, I made a statement that this was necessary. 
The proper place to take a stand for fiscal responsibility is when we 
are considering bills that spend money and actually create our debt.
  Unfortunately, some of my colleagues believe the only answer to our 
budget woes is to increase taxes. But I believe this point of view is 
misguided and would prove destructive to our budget in the long term. 
Especially over the past 7 years, discussion of an increase in debt 
limit has prompted excitable statements from my colleagues across the 
aisle on the current administration's fiscal record. I am sure I do not 
have to say these statements from across the aisle have not been 
positive.
  Another event I want to mention is the release on October 5, 2007, of 
the Monthly Budget Review from the Congressional Budget Office. The 
Congressional Budget Office budget review forecasts that the deficit 
for fiscal year 2007 would be significantly smaller than the deficit 
for 2006, and then the Final Monthly Treasury Statement, published by 
the Treasury Financial Management Service, confirmed that. According to 
the U.S. Treasury, the Federal deficit for fiscal 2007 was $162.8 
billion. The deficit for 2006, the year before, was considerably 
higher, at $248.2 billion. The deficit for 2007 then is around $85 
billion less than it was last year.
  The chart I am going to show you, taken from Treasury documents, 
shows how this decrease in the deficit has been driven by a 6.7-percent 
estimated increase in total receipts over fiscal year 2006.
  If you are determined to show that tax relief has led to less revenue 
from the Federal Government, then this data is difficult to explain. Of 
course, the conventional criticism offered against tax relief was that 
it was going to be directly responsible for massive increases in the 
deficit. This argument implies that as a result of tax relief, the 
Federal Government would collect less money in taxes.

[[Page 29727]]

  On May 23, 2003, the Senate voted to agree to a conference report to 
accompany the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. 
The vote was close. The conference report was agreed to only because 
the Vice President cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the report. 
Anyone who reviews the Congressional Record of that debate would see 
that the rollcall vote was preceded by a very contentious discussion. 
Many of my colleagues had very strong criticism of the bill which, 
among other things, reduced the rates for capital gains and dividends.
  Tax policy generally is not seen as something that attracts a lot of 
excitement, but the floor debate of May 23, 2003, could have given a 
listener the impression the sky was falling.
  This chart of Chicken Little reporting that the sky is falling 
illustrates the tone of some of the criticism made by my colleagues.
  One Senator claimed:

       The tax base of the Federal Government is being destroyed.

  This same Senator referred to the bill as:

       One of the most dangerous, destructive and dishonorable 
     acts of Government that I have ever seen.

  Another one of my colleagues claimed that the bill:

       Is about helping the elite few with large tax cuts while 
     burdening the majority of Americans with huge debt.

  Here again, you see the implication that the 2003 tax relief was 
going to diminish revenues collected by the Federal Government.
  A third colleague claimed:

       This bill I call the policy of the three Ds. This is the 
     policy of debt, deficits and decline.

  This comment is especially interesting when examining a statement 
made by this very same Senator on September 27 of this year during the 
discussion on increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. That 
same Senator said at that time that:

       Revenue has been basically stagnant in this country for 6 
     years.

  According to my colleagues in the Congressional Budget Office, 
revenues in 2000 were $2 trillion, just a hair over $2 trillion, while 
revenues in 2007 were calculated by the Treasury to be around $2.12 
trillion, taking into consideration inflation.
  First, I wish to point out that the word ``stagnant'' used by my 
colleague is a far cry from the debt, deficit, and decline that tax 
relief was supposed to inflict on this Nation. I am not saying we do 
not have a massive national debt fed by successive budget deficits, but 
the specific tax relief enacted in 2003 and again within the past 7 
years is not the cause of that.
  As my esteemed colleague pointed out, even accounting for inflation, 
the revenues of the Federal Government are projected to be greater in 
2007 than they were in 2000. So this certainly shows that our tax base 
was not gutted by tax relief as was so profoundly asserted by my 
colleagues.
  I also would like to say that I do not think that $90 billion is a 
trifling amount of money. Maybe it is to some people in some places, 
but it is certainly not for us people, for the Iowa farmer.
  To offer a different perspective, let's consider this year's 
appropriations bills. The Democratic leadership wants to spend $23 
billion more than the President's budget on appropriations. That same 
group is preparing to force a showdown with the President over that $23 
billion. That is one-fourth of the amount I am talking about here. So 
when it comes to spending, extra dollars do count, but extra revenue 
from lower levels of taxation is to be belittled no matter what the 
number might be. It just sounds so inconsistent.
  My excitable colleagues here in the Senate are not the only ones who 
predicted gloom and doom that never came because of the tax relief in 
August of 2003. Even the Congressional Budget Office published a 
document titled ``The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update.'' The 
bill reducing rates on capital gains and dividends had become law at 
the end of May, so the Congressional Budget Office was able to take tax 
relief into account as they conjured their budget projections. This 
chart right here illustrates the discrepancy between what was forecast 
by the Congressional Budget Office in the summer of 2003 and what 
actually transpired. You can see the red line actual figure is way 
above the blue line that was suggested by the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  In August of 2003, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the 
Federal Government would collect about $1,770 billion in revenue. 
According to the historical budget data--also from the CBO--revenue in 
2003 was actually about $1,783 billion. That difference is $13 billion. 
Now, $13 billion may be peanuts to some people, but I think it is a 
good start.
  In August 2003, the Congressional Budget Office projected Federal 
revenues for 2003 to be $2,276 billion. Actually in 2003, Federal 
revenues were about $2,407 billion. The Federal Government collected, 
then, $131 billion more in 2006 than was originally forecast in the 
dark days of 2003, when several of my Democratic colleagues thought 
that tax relief was poised to destroy our tax base. Revenues actually 
collected were higher than projected when considered as a percentage of 
gross domestic product.
  In August 2003, CBO projected that revenues in 2006 would be 18.2 
percent of GDP. Actual revenues collected in 2006 were more than that--
at 18.4 percent compared to 18.2 percent of GDP. In 2005, they were 
17.6 percent; in 2004, they were 16.3 percent; and in 2003, they were 
16.5 percent. After a small downturn in 2004, Federal revenues, taken 
in proportion, increased faster than the GDP.
  Speaking of its 2007 projection, in an October 2007 monthly budget 
revenue, CBO states:

       Revenues rose to 18.8 percent of GDP, which is slightly 
     higher than the average of 18.2 percent over the past 40 
     years.

  Even with lower taxes, the Federal Government is collecting, on 
average, a greater percentage of GDP in revenue year by year than it 
has over the past four decades.
  Incidentally, in 2003, CBO projected that revenues would equal 18.3 
percent of GDP in 2007.
  Next, I want to compare the 4-year period after the 2003 tax relief 
plan went into effect with the 4-year period after the tax increases 
were enacted in the Clinton first year, 1993.
  The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, signed into law by the 
President in August of that year, increased taxes on corporations and 
individuals while increasing taxes on gasoline and raising the taxable 
portion of Social Security benefits.
  I think this may be counterintuitive to some people, especially to 
those who believe that the well-being of our Nation is directly 
proportional to our ability to seize income from taxpayers, but as a 
percentage of GDP, Federal revenues increased faster after tax relief 
than they did after tax increases.
  To set the stage, in 1993, Federal revenues were 17.5 percent of 
gross domestic product. In 2003, Federal revenues were a percent less 
at 16.5 percent of GDP.
  By the way, all of these numbers are Congressional Budget Office 
numbers, and until I get to 2007, they are not projections.
  If you look at this chart we are now putting up, you can see that as 
a percentage of GDP, Federal revenues increased faster in the 4 years 
after the 2003 tax relief than they did after the 1993 tax increase. 
Let me emphasize that. Revenues came in faster after we decreased taxes 
in 2003 than they did after 1993 when we increased the taxes.
  For 1997, Federal revenues were 19.3 percent of GDP. Between 1993 and 
1997, Federal revenues increased by 1.8 percent of GDP.
  Now, in 2007, Federal revenues are projected by the Congressional 
Budget Office to be 18.8 percent of GDP. If this is the case, then over 
the past 4 years, Federal revenues will have increased by 2.3 percent, 
and 1.8 percent subtracted from that 2.3 percent leaves one-half of a 
percent. The tax relief enacted in 2003 grew Federal revenues by one-
half of a percentage point more than the tax hikes of 1993 in the 4 
years following each.
  I like to emphasize this because I think that it just--too many 
people see

[[Page 29728]]

it as common sense that if you raise tax rates, you are going to bring 
in more revenue; if you lower tax rates, you are going to bring in less 
revenue. But I just showed that tax increases under Clinton did not 
bring in as much revenue as tax decreases in this administration. They 
brought in more revenue. So I would like to disabuse people of the fact 
that increasing rates brings in more revenue and decreasing rates 
brings in less revenue.
  What is also important is that as a percentage of GDP, revenues were 
higher in 1997 than they will be this year. In my opinion, they were 
too high.
  The point that I am making is that the rate of change in revenues as 
a percentage of GDP has so far been greater after tax relief than after 
a tax hike. I think it is very important, especially for those who 
reflexively believe that the only way for the Federal Government to 
raise more money is to confiscate more income from taxpayers. Clearly, 
that view is false.
  To conclude, let me summarize the current budget situation.
  Right now, taxes are lower than they would have been under Democratic 
rule. I want to make it clear that I am not saying that no Democrats 
supported any tax relief. Some Democrats voted for the 2003 tax relief 
plan, and many more voted for the 2000 tax relief plan. However, I am 
skeptical that a Democratic Congress or White House would have allowed 
taxpayers to keep so much of their own money.
  The budget deficit is shrinking, and Federal revenues are increasing. 
Anyone who finds fault with this situation is determined to do nothing 
but simply find fault. They would probably be unable to enjoy a sunny 
day because they would constantly be on the lookout for storm clouds 
regardless of what the forecast said. There is a problem with debt and 
with Federal budget deficits, but tax increases are the wrong way to 
approach that problem.
  We have a Federal budget deficit because the Federal Government 
spends too much money, and the best way to get rid of deficits is to 
spend less. Consequently, raising taxes makes the situation worse by 
punishing the overall economy and making conditions more difficult for 
the economy--the source of Federal revenues--to function efficiently. 
We have to remember that our economy supports the Government and not 
the other way around. The budget data I have discussed today shows how 
we can increase revenues and reduce deficits by removing impediments to 
economic efficiency and allowing our economy to flourish.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate everyone's patience. The 
Republican leader and I have been doing our best. Sometimes it is tough 
to work through the process.

                          ____________________