[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 34171-34177]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2419, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
     agricultural programs for fiscal year 2012, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin amendment No. 3500, in the nature of a substitute.
       Harkin (for Dorgan/Grassley) modified amendment No. 3695 
     (to amendment No. 3500), to strengthen payment limitations 
     and direct the savings to increase funding for certain 
     programs.
       Brown amendment No. 3819 (to Amendment No. 3500), to 
     increase funding for critical farm bill programs and improve 
     crop insurance.
       Klobuchar amendment No. 3810 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     improve the adjusted gross income limitation and use the 
     savings to provide additional funding for certain programs 
     and reduce the Federal deficit.
       Chambliss (for Cornyn) amendment No. 3687 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to prevent duplicative payments for agricultural 
     disaster assistance already covered by the Agricultural 
     Disaster Relief Trust Fund.
       Chambliss (for Coburn) modified amendment No. 3807 (to 
     amendment No. 3500), to ensure the priority of the farm bill 
     remains farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of 
     Agriculture spending on golf courses, junkets, cheese 
     centers, and aging barns.
       Chambliss (for Coburn) amendment No. 3530 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to limit the distribution to deceased individuals, and 
     estates of those individuals, of certain agricultural 
     payments.
       Salazar amendment No. 3616 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives 
     for the production of all cellulosic biofuels.
       Thune (for McConnell) amendment No. 3821 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to promote the nutritional health of school children, 
     with an offset.
       Craig amendment No. 3640 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland and grazing 
     land by Federal, State, and local governments for parks, open 
     space, or similar purposes.
       Thune (for Roberts/Brownback) amendment No. 3549 (to 
     amendment No. 3500), to modify a provision relating to 
     regulations.
       Domenici amendment No. 3614 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in 
     clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources.
       Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3674 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
     charges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross 
     income.
       Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3822 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to provide nearly $1,000,000,000 in critical home 
     heating assistance to low-income families and senior citizens 
     for the 2007-2008 winter season, and reduce the Federal 
     deficit by eliminating wasteful farm subsidies.
       Thune (for Grassley/Kohl) amendment No. 3823 (to amendment 
     No. 3500), to provide for the review of agricultural mergers 
     and acquisitions by the Department of Justice.
       Thune (for Stevens) amendment No. 3569 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to make commercial fishermen eligible for certain 
     operating loans.
       Thune (for Bond) amendment No. 3771 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to amend title 7,

[[Page 34172]]

     United States Code, to include provisions relating to 
     rulemaking.
       Tester amendment No. 3666 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     modify the provision relating to unlawful practices under the 
     Packers and Stockyards Act.
       Schumer amendment No. 3720 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     improve crop insurance and use resulting savings to increase 
     funding for certain conservation programs.
       Sanders amendment No. 3826 (to amendment No. 3822), to 
     provide for payments under subsections (a) through (e) of 
     section 2604 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 
     1981, and restore supplemental agricultural disaster 
     assistance from the Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund.
       Wyden amendment No. 3736 (to amendment No. 3500), to modify 
     a provision relating to bioenergy crop transition assistance.
       Harkin/Kennedy amendment 3830 (to amendment No. 3500), 
     relative to public safety officers.
       Harkin/Murkowski amendment No. 3639 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to improve nutrition standards for foods and beverages 
     sold in schools.
       Harkin amendment No. 3844 (to amendment No. 3830), relative 
     to public safety officers.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 9:15 a.m. shall be equally divided between the leaders or their 
designees and shall be for debate only.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I designate 5 minutes to Senator Bingaman 
and 5 minutes to Senator Cantwell, two Senators who have been 
instrumental in bringing this bill to where we are today on energy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for yielding 
me 5 minutes to discuss this bill we are going to vote on, the cloture 
vote we are going to have in relation to the energy legislation a 
little later this morning.
  One of the objections that has been raised to this legislation is 
that it still contains a so-called energy tax package. It is very 
different from what the House passed.
  Senator Baucus has worked with Senator Grassley to take out 
provisions that were objectionable to Members, particularly on the 
Republican side, but it is still a tax package.
  Now, what does it do? What it does is extends the tax incentives and 
credits we put into law in 2005. Those are the tax incentives, the tax 
credit for the production of electricity from wind, biomass from our 
clean energy sources. It provides the extension of the solar energy 
investment tax credit. It provides an extension of residential solar 
credits to encourage people to use solar heating and energy generation 
in their own residences. It provides an extension of existing credits 
for biodiesel.
  It creates a new credit for producing ethanol made from nonfood 
cellulosic material. It tries to extend into the future and expand upon 
the incentives we put into law in 2005 to encourage the transition to 
more of a clean energy technology.
  At the beginning of the week, I had the view or the understanding 
that the disagreement about the tax package centered around the 
question of which offsets should be used to pay for it. I thought there 
was general consensus that we ought to have an extension of these tax 
provisions but that there was disagreement about how we went about 
paying for them.
  It is clear to me that at least for the administration, it is not a 
question of which offsets should be used to pay for it, the real issue, 
from their perspective, is they do not consider these tax incentives 
very important, and they do not believe they are important enough to be 
paid for.
  They believe if they are going to be extended, they should be 
extended without any increase in revenue anywhere else in the Tax Code 
to offset that. This is a very unfortunate view on the part of the 
administration as I see it because it sets up a circumstance where, if 
we are not able to get the votes to pass this tax package as part of 
the overall energy package this morning, then we are in a circumstance 
where the administration says: We will not support--the administration 
will not support--a tax package that is paid for, and the Congress, 
under our pay-go rules, most likely will not be able to muster the 
votes to pass a tax package that is not paid for.
  So we have a checkmate situation that is particularly bad for the 
country and cuts short the effort we tried to begin in 2005 to 
encourage more development of energy from renewable sources and more 
energy efficiency through these tax provisions.
  There are some in the Congress, in the Senate, who are going to say, 
well, they support doing something on taxes but not here, not now. We 
should not do it as part of this bill. We ought to do what we can. It 
is nearly Christmas, and then we will come back next year and deal with 
taxes.
  The problem is, it does not get any easier next year to deal with 
this situation. We have already made dramatic changes in this tax 
package to accommodate concerns of the administration, concerns of 
Republican Members. But the truth is, we need to go ahead and extend 
these tax provisions as part of this bill. We need to do so in a way 
that is paid for. Clearly we need to comply with our pay-go rules and 
not just add this to the deficit and say it is up to the next 
generation to worry about finding the revenue to pay for the tax 
provisions.
  I believe it is essential that we pass this, that we go ahead and 
invoke cloture on the energy package. This energy package that Senator 
Reid is now bringing before the Senate does not have a renewable 
electricity standard in it. He dropped that again because of opposition 
from Republican members, opposition from the administration.
  But it does have CAFE improvements, it does have renewable fuels 
standards, it does have energy efficiency standards, it is does have 
this tax package. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I too rise in support of the cloture 
motion this morning and ask my colleagues if we are going to pass the 
Energy bill before the end of this year. I know the American consumer 
has gotten a wake-up call because they are paying higher gas prices at 
the pump. But the question is whether Congress and the White House have 
gotten the same wake-up call.
  Fortunately, thanks to the hard work of Members on both sides of the 
aisle and many staff members we are within grasp of a very important 
solution. I am not even going to spend my time this morning talking 
about the important details of this bill because many of my colleagues, 
including the chairman of the Energy Committee, has extolled its 
virtues. Perhaps, if I have a minute at the end, I might elaborate on 
some of these. But it is time to get to the heart of the matter. And 
that is, the American people need serious relief from a future of high 
oil prices by making a transition this legislation would provide. That 
is we need to make sure we have an energy package that starts investing 
more aggressively in renewable energy and will actually get us 
competition at the gas pump and on our electricity grid.
  I know some are saying the tax title in this bill must go. And some 
have even been bold enough to say that it's an increase in taxes. That 
is an interesting position because these are really tax subsidies for 
the oil industry. They are not a tax increase on consumers. When we 
passed similar tax provisions in the 2005 energy bill no one on the 
other side called that a tax increase.
  In fact, when the President put broader subsidies in his budget this 
year, reducing some of the same subsidies, it was called a 
modification. So do not tell us now that cancelling a subsidy for the 
oil industry is somehow raising taxes on consumers. What we are really 
doing is continuing to make consumers pay more at the gas pump because 
we are not giving them true competition. At the heart of the matter is 
the fact that of the energy subsidies and investments that our country 
makes--that is, using American tax dollars to invest in energy 
strategies that will help our country--right now 75 percent of them is 
going to the fossil fuel industry. Only about 15 percent is going to 
clean energy.
  Now, I ask my colleagues, when the United States only has 3 percent 
of the

[[Page 34173]]

world's oil reserves, is it smart to continue to have the 75 percent 
investment in fossil fuels? I would say that we should pass this 
legislation and make more investments in renewable and energy 
efficiency.
  If someone says that somehow this is going to impact the oil 
industry, I would like to refer them to a quote from Lee Raymond, the 
former ExxonMobil CEO who said on ``Fox News'' when asked whether Exxon 
was taking advantage of the new legislation that became law to speed up 
the development of refineries and capacity here in the U.S., he said 
``it will not have a major impact.''
  So I do not know why we are so concerned about keeping these 
subsidies when the industry itself, the big five oil companies are 
saying it has had a negligible impact. What it has had an impact on is 
consumers. And even the Joint Economic Committee has pointed out that 
the removal of these tax breaks are going to have very little impact on 
consumers. In fact, another third party observer, the Joint Tax 
Committee, basically said this $300 million in subsidies from the big 
five oil companies in 2008 that would be taken away would be less than 
1 percent. In fact, it would have only a one-quarter of 1 percent 
impact on their profits.
  That is right. They made $120.8 billion in profit in 2006, so taking 
this subsidy away from them it will have a negligible impact. So what 
are we holding this up for? Why are we going to hold up the Energy bill 
because someone does not want to take more subsidies away from the oil 
industry and put them toward clean energy?
  Even President Bush recognized that the oil industry does not need 
more subsidies. President Bush, in April of 2005, said:

       I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to 
     oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of 
     incentives.

  I couldn't agree with the President more. He said that at $55 a 
barrel. Now that we are at $90, we need to move faster in changing 
these incentive programs. We all know that fossil fuels will continue 
to be a big part of the energy mix for decades and that there is a 
great deal of economic benefit from the incentives in oil and gas 
today. But what we have to realize is we cannot continue in this same 
direction. We have to change course. We have to level the playing field 
and take away subsidies from very mature, very profitable industries 
and make investments in renewables instead.
  I know the President also agrees with that because when he signed the 
2005 bill, he said:

       The bill offers new incentives to promote clean, renewable 
     geothermal energy . . . When you hear us talking about less 
     dependence on foreign sources of energy, and one of the ways 
     to become less dependent is to enhance the use of renewable 
     sources of energy.

  Again, I couldn't agree with the President more. But this is about 
getting a package that will help us give consumers the confidence that 
they are going to have true competition over the price at the pump.
  The Energy and Finance Committees had hearing after hearing talking 
to the experts. I know some people on the other side of the aisle would 
say that some of these tax incentives don't expire until the end of 
2008. But this is about giving predictability to energy investment 
strategies. We heard in the Finance Committee testimony after testimony 
from experts saying: If you want to get more investment in renewable 
energy, you need to have more predictable energy tax credits. That is 
why we can see from our failed policies in the past that countries such 
as Denmark have made more headway, because they made more investment in 
renewables. Countries such as Japan have made more headway in solar 
energy because they made the investments. If we want to get beyond 
petroleum, we have to stop subsidizing it.
  The impact of this morning's vote is that our colleagues are going to 
say we should take out the Finance package and that somehow will be a 
completion of an energy strategy. I tell my colleagues, nothing could 
be more important than getting the long-term fundamentals right for 
investment so that America can get off our dependence on foreign oil.
  This legislation does represent nearly a 20-percent reduction in our 
current CO2 output and a 35-percent reduction in our foreign 
oil dependence. But to get those savings, we not only have to pass 
CAFE, we also have to pass incentives for renewable energy and do it 
for more than just 1 year so that we have predictable investment in 
these energy strategies and reap the economic benefits in jobs for 
America.
  I thank the staff and all Members who have worked so hard on this 
legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues not to 
vote for this bill and to insist that we have an energy bill that will 
create more energy for our country.
  The Energy bill before us today for a cloture vote will not increase 
the supply of energy. There are some good parts of this bill. The House 
and Senate could pass a bill that would do major things for renewable 
energy sources, for clean energy sources, and for an increase in the 
supply of energy sources, but the bill that is being brought up today--
and I hope it will not get cloture--is a bill that will not increase 
supply.
  We have two problems we need to address in an energy policy. One is 
the cost of energy. We need to provide more supply in order to bring 
the cost down. The second is, we are 60 percent dependent on foreign 
sources for our energy needs, which is an economic and security risk 
for America.
  I cannot imagine the Congress trying to continue to pass a bill that 
will decrease supply and increase our dependence on foreign sources for 
our energy needs. We are the greatest nation on Earth. We should be 
addressing this aggressively to increase supply.
  The good part of this bill is the CAFE standards which have been 
agreed to in a bipartisan way. That will go a long way toward 
conservation and beginning to make our automobiles more efficient and 
environmentally friendly. But the $20 billion in taxes on oil supply 
takes away the increase in supply that is so important to bring down 
prices.
  We are a country that ought to be the model for the world in 
stability in oil and tax policy. Instead, our country has the 
reputation for not being stable in tax policy, for changing tax policy 
every 2 years or every 4 years, so businesses sometimes would rather do 
their exploration, their production, their refining, their 
manufacturing overseas because they know they can count on stability in 
tax policy and regulatory policy. That is absolutely the opposite of 
what people should be saying about America. America should be the one 
that our businesses say they can rely on for stable policy. Yet the 
bill before us will change the incentives we gave for refineries to 
increase just 2 years after we gave them.
  It was beginning to work. Big oil companies that had not invested in 
refinery capacity for 20 years, because of the regulatory hurdles, were 
willing to go in and have already announced expansions. I know a big 
expansion would be going on in Mississippi, a big one in Texas that 
would add to our refinery capacity so that we would have more supply 
more cheaply. We would have more dependence on ourselves for our energy 
needs, and we would bring prices down. This takes away those incentives 
for refinery capacity to increase. It also will drive overseas the 
production of oil because we are penalizing our oil companies with this 
$20 billion in taxes.
  What this will do is decrease supply and increase price. I cannot 
think of a worse message to send and a worse tax policy that would say 
to the world and to any business that wants to do business in our 
country that you can count on tax policy for a year or two, but you 
cannot make long-term plans in America because we may change policy if 
we change Congress.
  We have changed Congress, all right. What we are seeing is a tax-and-
spend Congress that we haven't seen in 15 years. Once again, we are 
going to increase spending and we are going to increase taxes. That is 
not what we

[[Page 34174]]

should be doing in an environment in which our economy is fragile. 
Raising taxes in this economy is going to increase the price of energy, 
which has a ripple effect throughout our economy. It means every farmer 
is going to have to pay more for fuel. It means every businessperson, 
especially small businesspeople, is going to have to pay more for fuel.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this piece of legislation that the 
President has said he will veto. Let's stop the games in Congress. 
Let's do something that will help our energy supply, that will bring 
prices down. Let's take the good parts of this bill, such as the CAFE 
standards and the incentives for renewable energy and clean energy. All 
of those things are very good.
  I want clean energy. I want solar power. I want wind power. I want 
biofuels. I want cellulosic ethanol and corn-based ethanol. But to take 
one segment of our energy, which happens to be the biggest source 
today, and increase the price on that, decrease the incentives for the 
refinery capacity which we must have--these companies do not have to 
invest and go through all of the regulatory procedures and millions of 
dollars off their bottom line to go into refinery expansions. They 
don't have to do it. They had tax incentives to do it 2 years ago. 
Taking that away pulls the rug out from under those who have already 
made those investments. It is counterproductive for the economy.
  I hope we will provide adult leadership in the Congress. Let's not 
pass cloture on this bill. Let's do an energy bill that the President 
will sign, that will have bipartisan support, that will make CAFE 
standards much more environmentally friendly, and that will increase 
our supply of renewable and environmentally friendly energy needs. 
Let's keep the bread-and-butter energy supply we have by increasing 
refinery capacity so that we bring the cost down to consumers and keep 
our economy on a more even keel.
  I hope my colleagues will vote no today so we can pass an energy bill 
that will have the support of a bipartisan majority in Congress and get 
the President's signature. That should be the goal, not political game-
playing, which we are seeing this week at the very last minute in 
Congress. It is not going to do what is right for the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 11 minutes 45 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are there any other commitments to speak on this?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No, Mr. President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I don't need the entire time, but I will speak a while 
and see what happens.
  I am here because there is a misunderstanding somewhere about the 
CAFE bill that is coming before us. We all acknowledge the CAFE 
standards bill that is before us is long overdue. We all understand 
that it is very good legislation. We all understand that the cellulosic 
provisions--the postcorn ethanol--are very important. It is here, 
although it has some problems. The President finds some problems with 
it. So do many on our side find problems with it. But it is in here.
  But the issue is not whether that is a good package. The issue is 
what is going to happen if we decide we are going to pass this bill 
with the taxes that are in it as it sits before us at the desk, $21 
billion worth of taxes. What is going to happen to the bill if we pass 
it with those taxes in? It is very simple: It is going to get vetoed. 
We have heard it. The President has said it. The only thing we could do 
would be to get a tape recorder and ask him to say it and bring that 
down here and make it legal and let him tell us. He has said he doesn't 
want those taxes on this bill.
  We still have people voting for this, as I talked to them, because 
they want this bill. They say it is great; it is a wonderful bill. I 
ask you, how are you going to get a bill if you leave the taxes on and 
send it to the President when he has already told you in advance he was 
going to veto it? What we should do is, if you want the bill, produce a 
bill the President will sign.
  We have already taken one giant step. We took out the mandatory wind 
for electricity production. A percentage was mandated, and we took that 
out. Now, today, the issue is, Are we going to take out the taxes? That 
is the vote when we come to a vote on the Energy bill.
  Some people think that is a nice vote; I like the taxes; I am going 
to vote for them. But the point is, you are not going to get the taxes 
and you are going to lose with it the energy portion of the bill 
because the President is going to veto it. I can't answer any more than 
to repeat what he has said. I am not his spokesman on the floor; I am 
merely repeating what has come up Pennsylvania Avenue from down there 
where he lives and up here where we work. He has said: If the taxes are 
in, the bill is gone. So it looks to me as if those who want a winner 
ought to vote to take the taxes.
  Those who want a loser ought to vote to leave the taxes in and they 
will get their wish. But they will not only lose the taxes--which some 
say: They are pretty good; I like them--they will lose the entire 
Energy bill on CAFE and cellulosic, which follows right
  ter ethanol and is desperately needed to buttress the ethanol market, 
as my friend who spoke eloquently for her side of this bill knows.
  We need the bill on cellulosic. I call it ethanol 2 for simplicity. 
We need it because we need to get that ethanol market stabilized a 
little better and come in with a second kind of product instead of just 
corn. But we are not going to get that, so the wishers are not going to 
get their wishes, if they vote for the taxes, even if they say: I have 
looked at them, and I love them. Lots of people love taxes. Some have 
looked at this $21 billion or $20-plus billion and said: We love them. 
They are great. They are incentives. They are the right thing.
  But, look, the point is, this is not the bill you are going to get 
them on. You are not going to get the taxes on a bill that is 
essentially an energy bill. Send the President an energy bill. Send the 
President an energy bill and look around for another time when we could 
send him the tax bill.
  I still talk to Senators--some yesterday--and they say: Well, I think 
the taxes belong in. And I ask them: How do you think we are going to 
get the CAFE standards, which you certainly would acknowledge is one of 
the most important energy measures we could do? ``Well, we will just 
vote for it.'' No, we won't. The President is going to veto it if the 
taxes that you like so much are in it.
  So why don't we take the taxes off and send the President a clean 
bill with CAFE, cellulosic, and a couple other things? It would then be 
an energy bill which he would want and he would sign, and instead of a 
veto, we would have a victory party. That would be good, it seems to 
me.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican side has 5\1/2\ minutes and the 
majority has 6 minutes 52 seconds.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
prior to the cloture vote, each leader be permitted to use leader time, 
with the majority leader speaking last.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could respond to a couple of things 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said because this is an 
important debate. If there are people who want to continue to debate 
the farm proposal we are going to be voting on this morning, I will be 
happy to yield the floor. But not seeing that, I am happy to continue 
the discussion on the Energy bill.
  Both Senators from New Mexico have played an incredible leadership 
role in energy, and the 2005 Energy bill was a bipartisan effort. I 
certainly know

[[Page 34175]]

what it is like to take half a loaf. That was not the bill I would have 
written myself, but I voted for that legislation. I think it started us 
on a course of making investments in renewable energy technology that 
was beneficial.
  In particular I happen to disagree that the 2005 tax provisions, as 
they related to more subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, have been 
a big benefit for us. We even had an executive of an oil company say 
they did not think they were going to have much impact. So now 
consumers in my State are paying over $3 at the pump, and home heating 
oil prices are up 35 percent. So I do not think those subsidies to the 
oil industry have had any kind of magnificent impact that my colleague 
from Texas was saying.
  What we do know is the investment we started in the 2005 bill in 
renewable energy is having an incredible impact. The question is 
whether we are going to give predictability to that industry. I would 
hate to think this is a vote--whether it is on this bill or any future 
bill; and this Senator would certainly take these provisions and put 
them on lots of different vehicles. It does not have to always be in 
this precise fashion--but the fact is, this bill and these tax 
incentives will generate over 50,000 megawatts of new, clean energy 
supply and efficiencies. That is right, it does create new generation.
  Mr. President, 50,000 megawatts, in case anybody wants to know, is 
the same amount of electricity that is used in 26 States today. So the 
question is whether we are going to have a 1-year extension--that is, 
until 2008--for renewable energy, or whether we are going to give them 
2, 3, 4 years of predictability so we can get that generation, as I 
said, that will produce enough electricity for 26 States out of 
renewable and efficiency generation, instead of continuing to use those 
tax subsidies for the oil industry that, even by their own account, 
they say are not having a significant impact.
  So I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I 
have heard what the President has said. We have heard all along that he 
thinks these particular provisions are raising revenues on one 
industry. The President included in his own budget a broader reduction 
in the subsidies that we had previously passed, and nowhere did he call 
that raising revenue. So by his own account, it is hypocrisy to now 
start claiming these are somehow different.
  What we need is to pass this Energy bill. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion on many of the provisions 
that are in this legislation that will diversify us off of fossil fuel 
and get us into renewables and biofuels, so we can lower the price at 
the pump for consumers.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in morning business at this time?


                    Amendment No. 3695, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is debating the Dorgan-Grassley 
amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time remains before the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 2 minutes 25 seconds, and 
the opponents have 5 minutes 29 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, would you like a 
couple minutes?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me understand, we are debating my 
amendment, and I have 2 minutes left on my amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, somebody spoke off 
your amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand. About energy?
  Mr. DOMENICI. About energy.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me take the time that remains on our 
side, at least.
  We have a 9:15 vote, and the vote is a vote on determining whether we 
are going to continue to do business the way we have always done 
business on these issues or whether we are going to vote for some 
change here and some reform.
  This amendment is very simple. It provides some payment limitations 
with respect to the farm bill. It says those people who have never 
farmed and are never going to farm, living on land that has not 
produced a crop for 20 years, should not be getting farm program 
payments. But they are today, and they will under the bill that is here 
on the floor of the Senate.
  I support the bill on the floor of the Senate, but I want to improve 
it by amending it with these payment limitations. My colleague, Senator 
Grassley, joins me. My colleague, Senator Nelson from Nebraska, joins 
me, and others.
  This issue is some payment limitations. We are supposed to provide a 
farm program that helps family farmers during tough periods. This farm 
program has become a set of golden arches for some of the biggest 
corporate farms in this country. Millions of dollars are being sucked 
out of this farm program in large payments for large corporate 
agrifactories. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, as I have indicated, we have farm program payments going to 
people who have never farmed and never will farm. Mr. President, in the 
last 5 years, $1.3 billion went from this country's Treasury in farm 
program payments to people who are not farming. Think of that: $1.3 
billion.
  Do you think there might have been a better use for that? Do you 
think maybe if we recovered that $1.3 billion we could provide a better 
safety net for family farmers when they run into a tough patch or a 
tough spell? In my judgment, the answer is yes, we could do much 
better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me ask my colleague from New Mexico if 
he is intending to use the remaining time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 5 minutes 21 
seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I was, I say to the Senator, but I will 
be glad to give you a couple minutes. Go ahead and take a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I virtually said what I intended to say. 
If my colleague from New Mexico wishes to speak about the Energy bill, 
there has been a lot of work on an energy bill which is very important. 
There has not been much debate or discussion about it. I do not object 
to continuing that discussion.
  But I do want to say this 9:15 vote is very important. It is about 
change and reform. It is about doing the right thing for family 
farmers. I hope the Dorgan-Grassley-Nelson amendment will be supported 
and that we will finally say to the American people: Yes, we are about 
change. We are about reform. We are about doing things right.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time 
I have.
  I want to start over again to make sure everybody understands what I 
have to say. Sometimes the most simple thing is the most difficult to 
explain.
  This is a very simple proposition. We have put in a bill--the Energy 
bill--the work of two or three committees. It is not all an Energy 
Committee bill. The lead pony in the bill is an important provision 
with reference to the mileage on automobiles, and we have, for the 
first time in more than two decades, changed that in this bill.
  We have an ethanol 2, which is cellulosic, which follows on right 
behind ethanol to make sure ethanol is stabilized and we get a huge 
product in years to come to take the place of oil-based petroleum.
  Those were in a bill, and they were working their way through, and 
the decision was made: Well, we will put on that some taxes. They put 
on $21 billion in taxes and another item that was long passed--we will 
leave it alone--and all of a sudden the President of the United States 
said: Well, don't send me that bill. I will veto it.

[[Page 34176]]

  Now, I am one who happens to believe him. Since I believe him, I 
think what we ought to do is see what we can do to make it most 
probable we will get these two energy provisions that we need--the ones 
I have just alluded to for the third time today.
  It would appear to me what we ought to do to get those energy 
provisions, to most probably get them--you never know until the 
President signs; and this still has to go one time to the House--but it 
appears to me rather simple. The way to do that is to take out the 
taxes the President does not want.
  They may be good incentives. They may be good taxes on bad people--
whatever it is Senators have to say--but they are bad taxes for those 
who want this Energy bill. They are bad taxes for anyone who wants 
these two new provisions of the Energy bill, bad because the President 
will veto them and we will get nothing.
  So I urge that you vote today against cloture so we will have this 
bill before us, and we know, then, the majority leader will do 
something to see that we get a bill. He will have some time to work on 
what kind of language he wants to send to the House. It is very limited 
with amendments because this is not a very ordinary way the House sent 
us this bill. They sent us this as a message on one of their bills, and 
that is very unique.
  Nonetheless, let's not get into that.
  It is simple today: Do you want an energy bill? If you want an energy 
bill, then don't vote for cloture so taxes can be taken out of this 
bill, and then all you have to do is send it to the House after you fix 
it up, if you would like to, if the majority leader wants to repair it, 
because it needs some repair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So there we go. I thank the Senate for listening. I 
think it is a pretty simple proposition and I hope everybody 
understands. If they want this bill, they ought to know how to vote. 
Thank you.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Dorgan-Grassley 
amendment No. 3695, of which I am a cosponsor, to enact commonsense, 
meaningful farm program payment limitations. My bipartisan colleagues 
from North Dakota and Iowa and I have offered a straightforward and 
fiscally responsible proposal that would target our farm program 
payments and safety net.
  The current farm program payment structure has, quite simply, failed 
rural America. Approximately 71 percent of our farm benefits are 
absorbed by only 10 percent of the farming community. Our omnibus farm 
bill is intended to promote programs that function as a safety net for 
farmers, in contrast to the cash cow they've become for a few 
producers. I do not favor eliminating our farm program benefits, but 
rather prefer that they are targeted to small- and medium-sized 
producers instead of large agribusiness.
  According to farming data from the 2002 census, farms in South Dakota 
that received program payments collected $16,518 on average. The 
average producer in my State, then, received under $17,000 in benefits, 
which pales in comparison to the $360,000 current supposed ``limit'' 
and does not touch the proposed $250,000 hard payment cap.
  The Dorgan-Grassley amendment includes several specific limits. Under 
this amendment, direct payments could not exceed $20,000 per producer; 
countercyclical payments are capped at $30,000; marketing loan gains 
are limited to $75,000; and total payments are restricted to $125,000. 
The amendment would allow for doubling by a spouse, and also require 
direct attribution. The amendment closes the triple entity loophole 
that has opened up an avenue of opportunity for excessive payments.
  In 2002, the Senate saw a strong vote in favor of payment limitations 
with 66 Senators voting in favor of a $275,000 cap for farm program 
payments. We need 60 votes this morning to pass the Dorgan-Grassley 
amendment, because of the filibustering that has been threatened by the 
minority party, and we are working to achieve that goal. That being 
said, in a time of budgetary constraints, I find it unconscionable that 
a Member of Congress would not vote to restrict such egregious spending 
and vote to promote our rural communities. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin and the 
distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, 
for their leadership during the debate of this farm bill.
  I commend them for their response to the needs and interests of our 
Nation's farmers and ranchers. In my State, most of our farmers are 
deeply concerned about the amendment offered by Senator Grassley and 
Senator Dorgan. If it is approved it will adversely affect family farms 
in many States by eliminating the ability to receive financing and 
making it harder for farmers from efficiently marketing their crop.
  Since the passage of the 2002 farm bill there has been a good bit of 
controversy surrounding the issue of payment limits. Much of this has 
been based on misinformation and is a result of misunderstanding of 
modern agricultural practices. While I am pleased that the legislation 
passed by the committee contains significant reforms to address the 
concerns raised over the past 6 years, these reforms are not easy for 
producers in my State of Mississippi to accept and will result in many 
farms having to significantly alter their farming operation.
  I believe it is important for us to understand just how significant 
the reforms in the committee passed bill are. This legislation applies 
direct attribution to the individual farmer, thus making all farm 
payments transparent. The committee passed legislation would limit the 
direct payment a single producer can receive to $40,000. The 
legislation reduces the amount of a countercyclical payment to $60,000. 
In addition, the Senate language reduces the adjusted gross income 
means test for producers from $2.5 million to $750,000. While this may 
still sound like a lot of money, when you consider production costs 
such as a four-hundred thousand dollar cotton picker, fuel prices, 
fertilizer costs, and technology fees for seed, these support levels 
are quite low.
  Many crops of the Midwest are enjoying record prices right now due 
mostly to the use of corn in the current ethanol boom. The most 
prevalent crops in the South, cotton and rice, are not seeing the 
record prices created by renewable fuel incentives and tax credit 
subsidies; and it is important to point out that none of these 
subsidies are subject to an arbitrary limit.
  Mr. President, this amendment would have a very negative impact on 
the livelihood of thousands of farmers. It would undo what many farmers 
today and generations before them have established through hard work, 
surviving natural disasters, and the Great Depression. This amendment 
is an attempt to make farmers in my State to conform to the way others 
operate in very different regions of the country. Mr. President, not 
every farmer should be made to fit in the same mold. I urge the Senate 
to reject the Grassley-Dorgan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 3695, the Dorgan-
Grassley payment limit amendment.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is a 
unanimous consent order in the Senate that prior to the next vote, 
Senator McConnell and I would be recognized; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the chamber 
desiring to vote?

[[Page 34177]]

  The result was announced --- yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 424 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________