[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10396-10409]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--VETO--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the veto message on H.R. 2419.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message to accompany H.R. 2419, entitled an Act to 
     provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through 
     fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.


[[Page 10397]]

  Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: I understand under the agreement, 
we each have 7\1/2\ minutes; that Senator Gregg has 15 minutes; and the 
two leaders have reserved 15 minutes each?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again for Senators and those staff who are 
watching, now we are on the override of the veto of the farm bill 
conference report we passed here last week.
  To remind everyone, that bill, as you know, passed here 
overwhelmingly 81 to 15, a remarkable margin for a farm bill. It was 
widely supported on both sides of the aisle and by regions of the 
country, so we were very pleased with that outcome and that vote.
  Of course it had passed the House with 318 votes; so again a very 
strong vote on the bill. It went to the President. We were hoping that 
maybe he would not veto it, but the President did exercise his 
constitutional right and he vetoed the bill.
  The farm bill came back to the House yesterday and the House overrode 
the veto 316 to 108. So basically what we have before us is exactly 
what we voted on last week and approved with 81 votes but for one 
thing: The farm bill is missing a title.
  Let me try to be as succinct as I can in this. What happened is when 
the enrolling clerk on the House side enrolled the bill and sent it to 
the President, the clerk did not put in title III, which includes the 
several Department of Agriculture trade programs and food assistance 
programs for foreign countries, mainly the P.L. 480, Food for Peace 
Program, the delivery of which goes through USAID, and other programs. 
So the President vetoed the enrolled bill which is missing that title. 
Well, I know Senator Chambliss and I and others have had numerous phone 
calls and conversations with Parliamentarians and others to figure this 
out. The enrolled bill is properly attested to and fully effective and 
valid as to all of the provisions it contains. We will have to enact 
title III in another legislative measure. Again, I remind everyone, its 
omission was inadvertent. It was an innocent mistake; maybe 
inexcusable, but nevertheless an innocent mistake that title III was 
dropped out.
  But for that title III, everything else in this bill is exactly what 
we approved with 81 votes. So I am here to ask Members to vote to 
override the President's veto and to make this bill the law of the land 
in accordance with the overwhelming wishes of both the Senate and the 
House.
  This bill is a good bill, as I said earlier. It responds to needs all 
over this country, from farmers and small towns and rural areas to 
Americans in urban areas. The largest part of the bill is nutrition and 
food assistance. Over two-thirds of the total spending in this bill 
goes to nutrition. This bill does more to strengthen Federal food 
assistance than any bill we have passed since George Herbert Walker 
Bush was the President.
  This bill does a lot for food assistance for low-income people. 
Basically all the added money above the budget baseline that we put 
into this bill goes for nutrition. We increase the food supplies to 
food banks. Our Nation's food banks are getting hit pretty hard. We put 
$1.2 billion into supplying them with more food. I might add, one of 
the reasons we must enact this bill in a hurry is because food banks 
are hurting. As soon as this bill becomes law with this override, $50 
million will get out immediately to our food pantries and food banks 
across the country.
  We also in this bill, as you know, provided more money to help 
growers of specialty crops, fruits and vegetables, than we ever have 
before. We include in this legislation a higher level of funding than 
in any previous farm bill for helping farmers and ranchers in 
conserving our natural resources, saving soil, cleaning up our water 
and our streams, protecting wildlife habitat.
  Look at it this way: Of the combined total spending in this bill on 
commodity and conservation programs, 41 percent of that total is 
devoted to conservation. That is slightly more than double the highest 
percentage share for conservation in any previous farm bill.
  The rural development title helps rural communities through a number 
of new initiatives, including a stronger broadband program, and by 
devoting mandatory funding for water and wastewater systems to fund 
some of the tremendous backlog of qualified applications that are on 
hold.
  We have in this bill several important initiatives and improvements 
in programs to help beginning farmers. We improve the farm income 
protection system in various ways, including for dairy farmers, yet 
attain budget savings in the title of the bill covering commodity 
programs. We have a new option in here, a new reform, called the 
Average Crop Revenue Election, or ACRE, Program. This is going to be 
very significant for farmers to be able to choose whether to stay under 
the current farm program or do they go to the new program of income 
protection based on revenue.
  I read the editorial in the Washington Post this morning and, of 
course, they have never editorially, as far as I know, ever supported a 
farm bill, at least in my time here. I have to take exception to one 
thing they said in the editorial this morning. They are talking about 
the ACRE Program, claiming how it will be some kind of boondoggle for 
farmers. They say here:

       [It] means farmers would get paid if prices fall back to 
     the historical and, for farmers, perfectly profitable norms.

  If the prices that our Nation's farmers receive for their grain and 
other commodities fall back to what the Washington Post calls 
``historical norms,'' we will have tremendous economic hardship in the 
countryside. Here is why I say that: What the Post is missing is that 
from 2002 to 2009, the production costs for farmers have skyrocketed. 
The gasoline prices we are paying at the pump, farmers have got to pay 
even more for the diesel fuel for their tractors, for their combines. 
For example, fertilizer costs for producing corn are up 141 percent in 
7 years. From 2002 to 2009, the cost of production for corn is up 22 
percent; soybeans up 28 percent; wheat up 28 percent.
  Now, if prices, God forbid, should fall to the levels they were 
before 2002, farmers will be wiped out all over this country. We will 
have bankruptcies and families forced out of farming on a huge scale.
  That is why we have the ACRE Program to reflect the new realities, 
the new realities of what farmers have to pay for their fertilizer, 
their fuel, their equipment, their land. All of these expenses have 
gone up tremendously. We need a program that helps farmers deal with 
those higher costs and potential volatility in market prices for 
commodities, and that is why we put this new program in. It is a 
reform. It is one of the features of this bill that I believe will help 
family farms survive in America. So, again, this is a good, solid bill, 
the same bill we voted on last week minus title III, which we will 
enact later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as my chairman said, I think everything 
that could be said about this bill has been said. We were on the floor 
off and on for a couple of weeks, and we, at the end of the day, after 
a lot of controversial votes and whatnot, achieved a milestone in the 
Senate for farm bills; that is, we had 81 Members of the Senate who 
voted in favor of this bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a very 
good bill for any number of reasons.
  In the commodity title, we are spending significantly less money on 
our so-called subsidy program. I refer to it as an investment by the 
Government in agriculture, because that is exactly what it is. We are 
not guaranteeing farmers any kind of income. In fact, under the way 
this bill is written, the prices being what they are at the farm gate 
today, very little, if any, in the way of payments is going to be going 
from Washington to farmers. That is the way it ought to be. That is the 
way farmers want it. They would rather get the stream of income from 
the marketplace. Certainly that is the way we, as policymakers, want to 
see it happen. That is what will happen.
  We have made significant changes in the payment limit provision. We 
have AGIs in this bill now that have never

[[Page 10398]]

been thought of before. Nobody ever thought we would achieve the number 
we did from an AGI standpoint. But it is real reform. It is going to 
work.
  We are also eliminating the three-entity rule. Again, if you had told 
anybody in this distinguished Senate 3 years ago that we would be 
eliminating the three-entity rule in the farm bill, you would have 
gotten blank stares. Nobody ever thought that would happen, but we were 
willing to make those kinds of reforms.
  In the conservation title, we have expanded a number of programs, but 
we have done something significant in the conservation title. For the 
first time ever we are applying payment limits to the conservation 
title. So the so-called millionaires that have been beneficiaries of 
the conservation title in years past are no longer going to be able to 
participate in that program, and they should not.
  I am pretty excited about the energy title. In my part of the world, 
we do not grow corn with the abundance that the Midwest part of the 
country does. Therefore, we are a little bit handicapped when it comes 
to the construction and manufacturing facilities to produce ethanol. 
Because out of the 201 ethanol-producing facilities that are in place 
or will be in place over the next 18 months, all but 2 of them are 
resourced with corn. The two that are not resourced with corn happen to 
be resourced with cellulosic products. One of them is in my State.
  I am very proud of the fact that we are going to have a facility in 
Soperton, GA, that is under construction right now by Range Fuels that 
is going to produce ethanol from pine trees, because I will match our 
ability to grow a pine tree with anybody else in the country. It is a 
resource that is not going to increase the cost of food, which is an 
unintended consequence of the use of corn for the production of 
ethanol.
  The title I am just as excited about is the nutrition title. We are 
seeing an expansion of the nutrition title again like none of us ever 
imagined we would see in this farm bill. Most people across America 
think because of what they read in the Washington Post and the Wall 
Street Journal and the Atlanta Constitution that farm bills are 
strictly payments to farmers when, in fact, about 11 percent of the 
outlays in this bill go to the commodity title which goes to farmers.
  About 73 percent of the outlays in this bill go to the nutrition 
title to provide for the food stamp program, to provide for the school 
lunch program, to provide for payments to our food banks. All of those 
programs are designed to feed people who are hungry and needy in this 
country. We are the most abundant country in the world from an 
agricultural standpoint. We have the ability to feed people inside of 
America as well as outside of America, and we have an obligation to do 
that. In the nutrition title, that is exactly what we are going to be 
doing.
  This is a bill that has been talked about an awful lot. And, again, 
it is not a perfect bill. There are some provisions in it that I wish 
were not in it. But it is a massive piece of legislation, as is every 
farm bill, and we have to reach compromise to be able to get a bill of 
that massive size passed by the House and by the Senate.
  We did accommodate the White House. We negotiated very diligently 
with the White House. We moved a long way in the direction of the White 
House. They did not get everything they wanted, and we did not get 
everything we wanted. At the end of the day, we passed it with a big 
vote. And the White House, unfortunately, decided we did not move far 
enough for them. Obviously that caused the President's veto to the 
bill. At the end of the day here today, we are going to have at least 
14 of the 15 titles hopefully passed into law.
  I do not know what happened to the one title. They tell us that a 
clerk on the House side failed to include 33 pages of title III in the 
bill that was transmitted from the House to the White House.
  Those things happen. Now it is up to us to figure out the best way to 
efficiently and in an expeditious manner fix the problem and move ahead 
to allow farmers and ranchers to have some certainty as they move into 
the planting season of 2008.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand I have 15 minutes under the 
prior order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are here to vote on the override of some 
portion of the farm bill which the President has vetoed. First, there 
is the great irony that the bill we are voting on isn't the bill that 
passed the Senate or the House. It is some element of that bill, other 
parts of the bill having not made it to the President. That sort of 
becomes an allegory for this entire exercise. This is a bill that 
really doesn't do the job it should, is incomplete in the sense that it 
fails the American taxpayer and consumer, and is misguided in that it 
spends a great deal of money, perverting the marketplace relative to 
the production of agricultural products. But we are here because of 
what was a bureaucratic snafu, I presume.
  We all know the President's veto is going to be overridden, but the 
President was right to veto this bill. He was absolutely right. I said 
earlier--I know my colleagues take this in the sense of irony with 
which I make it, not in any personal way--this bill truly is a product 
of commissar politics, of the old approach that we saw years ago in 
countries that thought that they could have a top-down management of 
their farm production system.
  I said in my earlier talk, where did all the economists who worked in 
the Soviet Union go, all those folks who sat behind desks and thought 
about 5-year plans and how to disconnect supply from demand and how to 
set arbitrary prices which caused the Soviet Union, a nation which was 
one of the great producers of agricultural products, to become 
basically a net importer of product? Where did all those economists go 
when the Soviet Union failed? It appears they moved to the Midwest and 
the South and developed our farm programs.
  These programs have no relationship to the market or setting prices 
for commodities, which are basically totally out of tune with the 
market. They have no relationship to market forces. As a result, the 
American consumer ends up with a much higher bill and the short end of 
the stick.
  Take sugar alone. Sugar prices in this bill are at least twice the 
world price for sugar. So the American consumer ends up getting hit for 
a much higher cost for any product that uses sugar. And just about any 
food commodity of any complexity uses sugar.
  In addition, you have the huge effort to subsidize ethanol, which has 
driven up dramatically the price of corn and has the effect of 
basically creating an international incident in the area of food 
availability. We are hearing from numerous countries around the world 
that are finding they have shortages of other commodities because the 
American subsidization of ethanol has perverted the marketplace 
relative to the production of corn. That certainly is inappropriate. So 
the policy of this bill is not only an attack on the American consumer, 
it is basically bad policy for the world population just trying to make 
it through and avoid hunger.
  In addition, this bill sets up all sorts of new programs, programs 
which make no sense on their face but which are in here because they 
have somebody who is protecting their initiatives, their ideas, their 
purposes. We have a new program for asparagus, a new program for 
chickpeas, an initiative for a National Sheep and Goat Industry 
Improvement Center, a new program that creates a stress management 
network for farmers. Then, according to the Washington Post--and I was 
not aware of this--there is the potential for a $16 billion boondoggle 
for agricultural products because of the new way that prices are set 
and payments are made, setting prices at their present high level, 
setting subsidy rates at their present high level under this new 
program called ACRE.

[[Page 10399]]

  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the editorial of 
today's Washington Post which does a much better job than I of 
explaining how outrageous this new subsidy is and how much it will cost 
the American consumer, $16 billion.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 22, 2008]

   Pasture of Plenty: You Thought You Knew How Bad the Farm Bill Was

       ``Life is like a box of chocolates,'' Forrest Gump's mother 
     used to say. ``You never know what you're going to get.'' The 
     same could be said of federal agricultural legislation. 
     Arcane and often irrational, its subsidy provision can be 
     difficult to understand and, sometimes, even difficult to 
     identify. Even after Congress passed a subsidy-riddled 673-
     page farm bill last week, with a price tag conservatively set 
     at $289 billion, it was not entirely clear just how big a 
     burden lawmakers had imposed on taxpayers. Now, however, the 
     fine print is coming into focus, and--surprise!--the bill 
     could authorize up to $16 billion more in crop subsidies than 
     previously projected, according to the Agriculture 
     Department.
       The culprit is a new program called Average Crop Revenue 
     Election, or ACRE for short. ACRE gives farmers an 
     alternative to direct payments, which come regardless of how 
     much money they make, and other subsidies. Starting in 2009, 
     farmers can choose to trade in some of their traditional 
     subsidies in return for a government promise to make up 90 
     percent of the difference between what they actually made 
     from farming and their usual income. In principle, this 
     provides farmers a federal safety net only in those years 
     when prices or yields fall drastically--that is, when they 
     really need one. Congress added the optional ACRE program to 
     the bill as a sop to reformers who, sensibly, wanted to 
     replace the current subsidy system with a simpler insurance-
     style program. Such a wholesale change would, indeed, have 
     been a real reform. But since the farm bill continued direct 
     payments and other old-style subsidies, no one expected huge 
     numbers of farmers to volunteer for the new ACRE deal.
       Then farmers got a look at the bill's formula for 
     determining benefits under ACRE. It pegs the subsidies to 
     current, record-high prices for grain, meaning farmers would 
     get paid if prices fall back to their historical and, for 
     farmers, perfectly profitable norms. A program that started 
     out as streamlined insurance policy against extraordinary 
     hardship has mutated into a possible guarantee of 
     extraordinary prosperity. Small wonder that, as The Post's 
     Dan Morgan reports, a farming blog is urging farmers to sign 
     up for ACRE, which it describes as ``lucrative beyond 
     expectations.''
       The farm bill's defenders insist that a budgetary disaster 
     will not come to pass, because grain prices will not come 
     down much during the five years the bill will be in effect. 
     ``The program does not look excessively expensive for the 
     lifetime of the farm bill,'' said Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte 
     (Va.), the ranking Republican on the House Agriculture 
     Committee. In other words, even if they don't have to pay 
     extra for ACRE, Americans will have to pay higher food 
     prices--so they may as well get used to it. None of the 
     legislators who rushed to override President Bush's veto of 
     the bill yesterday will have the decency to blush the next 
     time they pontificate about fiscal responsibility. But we can 
     only wonder what other expensive surprise still lurk within 
     this profoundly wasteful legislation.

  Mr. GREGG. This bill has a lot of substantive problems. It probably 
will aggravate food consumption for nations around the world, their 
ability to produce product, and certainly dramatically increase the 
cost of product in the United States. It perverts the marketplace so a 
product that might be produced more efficiently would not be produced 
more efficiently. It spends a heck of a lot of money, $289 billion.
  As we have seen, once again, it uses all sorts of budget gimmicks--
when it was originally passed, and it will have to be replaced, or 
parts of it will because of the bureaucratic snafu--to get around the 
rules of the Senate and the House, for that matter, in the area of 
trying to discipline spending. There is $18 billion worth of budget 
gimmicks in this bill.
  Then we just had a new budget avoidance exercise when the chairman of 
the Budget Committee declared that the new baseline under a new 
budget--this bill would have violated the original baseline, as was in 
that new budget--will now be adjusted so this bill would not violate 
that baseline--another exercise, unfortunately, in gaming the pay-go 
rules. The budget chairman has a right to do that, but it cannot be 
denied that is an effort to try to get around pay-go rules, as they 
should be applied under the budget we will be passing the week after 
next. So there is 18 billion dollars' worth of budget gimmicks in this 
bill; the worst, of course, the changing of years and the assumption 
that some program, which we know is going to continue, will terminate 
at an arbitrary date so that you can spend the money up to that date 
and claim there is no budget failure and, then, later on, adjust it, 
put the program back in place, and avoid the budget pay-go rules--
really inappropriate, to say the least, in the way this has been 
handled.
  It is, of course, a bill that comes to the floor every 4 or 5 years. 
But the problem is, every 4 or 5 years the American consumer gets 
basically hit beside the head by this bill. Last time I spoke, I said 
they get hit beside the head with a lamb chop and they end up with a 
black eye the next day. As a result, I thought I would just stay away 
from that statement. But the fact is, the American consumer isn't doing 
very well under this bill. The American taxpayer is doing worse.
  There is a claim that there is reform in this bill which is fairly 
specious on its face, considering all the new programs added to the 
bill, such as asparagus. One of the reforms they claim is that they are 
not going to pay farmers who have high incomes outrageous subsidies. 
Today you can get $2.5 million theoretically.
  Well, unfortunately, the way the bill is structured, they say that, 
but that is not the way it works. Under this bill, a person with 
$500,000 of nonfarm income and $750,000 of farm income can still get 
the subsidy. If they are married, their spouse can have $500,000 of 
nonfarm income and $750,000 of farm income, so they end up basically 
with approximately the same amount of subsidy. Yet it is alleged this 
is some sort of major reform. It is not reform. It is simply an attempt 
to obfuscate the fact that these subsidies go to extremely wealthy 
people on products that should compete in the marketplace for a price 
and should not be subsidized in the manner in which this bill 
subsidizes.
  Obviously, we are going to lose this vote because the way the farm 
bill is put together--and the American people should know this--one 
commodity goes to the next commodity and says: We will vote for your 
commodity, even though it is in my State and not in yours, as long as 
you will vote for my commodity which is in my State but not in yours. 
You go around the country and you pick up commodities. That is why 
asparagus has appeared here. Somebody in an asparagus district said: If 
you will cover asparagus and give us a new subsidy, you will get my 
vote for all the other subsidies in this bill.
  That is the way it works. It is called log rolling. That is the 
historical term that comes out of the 1800s. But it is not the way to 
legislate. Certainly, it isn't a healthy way to legislate. It certainly 
takes the concept of using the market completely out of the exercise of 
developing a farm bill.
  This farm bill runs counter to all the concepts of a free market 
society from which this country has benefited so dramatically and which 
we believe to be true and effective ways to produce product and control 
costs and to make product more cost-effective for the people who use 
it. Adam Smith was right; Karl Marx was wrong. Under this bill, one 
would think Karl Marx was right and Adam Smith was wrong. This is top 
down, let's manage the economy, let's set arbitrary prices that have no 
relationship to production, supply, or demand in place of going to a 
market where you use supply and demand to determine what will be 
produced.
  I suppose if Patrick Henry were around today, his famous statement 
would have to be modified. He would have to say: Give me asparagus or 
give me death. That is what this bill has come down to.
  We either get these farm subsidies and get the consumer rolled and 
the taxpayer rolled or we don't get anything around here.
  As a practical matter, I, obviously, know I will lose this vote. The 
President knew he was going to lose this vote when he vetoed the bill. 
But he

[[Page 10400]]

was absolutely right in doing so. It was the appropriate decision. It 
was the fiscally responsible decision. It was also a good decision from 
the standpoint of not only domestic policy but international policy, 
where we are seeing strains on production of commodities for the 
purposes of feeding people.
  I regret we are going down this path one more time. We have been down 
it a few times in the past. But the simple fact is, the forces that 
support, for example, the sugar subsidy are too strong to be able to 
give the taxpayers a break.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Displays of approval or disapproval are not 
appropriate from the galleries.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the leader on this side has 
15 minutes reserved; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield whatever time the Senator from North Dakota 
desires from the leader's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could the Chair alert me after I have consumed 10 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we ought to get straight world agriculture 
economics. The Senator from New Hampshire, for whom I have high regard, 
has been a consistent opponent of a national agriculture policy, one 
that has produced for our country the lowest priced food in world 
history, measured by a share of our national income. Not only do we 
have the lowest cost food in the history of the world as a share of our 
income, we also have the safest supply, the most stable supply, the 
most abundant supply. Something is working. Beyond that, he does not 
deal with world agriculture as it is.
  Our major competitors are the Europeans. We have about equal shares 
of the world market. But here is what they do to support their 
producers versus what we do to support ours. They are spending $134 
billion to support their producers while we spend $43 billion. That is 
more than a 3-to-1 ratio.
  What happens if you pull the rug out from under our producers? Mass 
bankruptcy. It is one thing to ask our producers to go up and compete 
against the French farmer and the German farmer. They are happy to do 
that. It is quite another issue to compete against the French 
Government and the German Government as well. That is not a fair fight. 
That is why it is essential we have a farm policy in this country.
  Now, my colleague on the other side said a whole series of things 
about the cost of this bill, the scoring of this bill, that are not so. 
This administration has said this bill costs $20 billion more than the 
baseline. No, it does not. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office--that is independent, that is nonpartisan, that is 
professional--this bill costs $10 billion above the baseline. End of 
story. What the administration is talking about and what the Senator 
from New Hampshire is talking about are fictional numbers based on 
made-up scorekeeping that the administration has never applied to its 
own legislation or budgets.
  Under Congressional Budget Office scoring, our farm bill spends $10 
billion baseline over the budget window. That is not my number; that is 
the number from CBO, which is nonpartisan, professional, and 
independent.
  The $10 billion is offset with $10 billion in outlay reductions from 
Customs user fees. Every penny of new spending is paid for.
  On the tax side, we are paying for agriculture tax relief with 
agriculture tax reforms, such as a reduction in the ethanol credit and 
Schedule F reforms to limit the use of farming losses to shelter off-
farm income. There is no tax increase.
  The administration argues the farm bill contains timing shifts. That 
is true. But that is also true of almost all major legislation dealing 
with revenues or mandatory spending. That is what we do to true up the 
numbers between the timeframes where various budget requirements are 
imposed. The simple fact is, when you do major reform such as we are 
doing in this bill, you change programs, you change payment schedules. 
That is precisely what one would expect. These changes have real-world 
consequences for farmers. They are making crop insurance payments 
earlier, for example, under this bill, and getting farm program 
payments later. That has a real-world cost.
  The administration has repeatedly used timing shifts, itself, in 
legislation it has proposed. In fact, the timing shifts in this bill 
pale in comparison to the cost of sunsetting the tax cuts which the 
President had in his tax packages repeatedly.
  Now, in terms of where the money goes, 66 percent of the money in 
this bill goes for nutrition--two-thirds. Nine percent goes for 
conservation. Only 14 percent--actually, less than 14 percent--goes for 
the so-called commodities. That is a dramatic reduction from the last 
farm bill. In the last farm bill, three-quarters of 1 percent of the 
Federal budget went to support commodities. In this bill, it is one-
quarter of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget going to support 
farmers and ranchers. That is a dramatic change.
  The Senator from New Hampshire mocked the reform elements in the 
bill. They are not to be mocked. They are very real. We have a dramatic 
reduction in the adjusted gross income limits that will apply in order 
to qualify for farm program payments. One example: Nonfarm income used 
to be a $2.5 million limit. It is reduced to $500,000 in this bill.
  We require direct attribution in this bill. That means it has to be a 
living, breathing human being collecting these payments; no paper 
entities. We have eliminated the three-entity rule that was 
consistently used to get around farm program limits. We have reduced 
direct payments by $300 million. We have reformed Schedule F to prevent 
the abusive use of nonoperating losses to shield nonfarm income--a 
savings of over $450 million. We have crop insurance reform of over 
$5.6 billion. We have decreased the corn ethanol support by $1.2 
billion.
  We have eliminated these so-called cowboy starter kits where people 
down in certain States were selling farm and ranchland off as 
subdivisions and having a farm program payment go with those lots, 
those 10-acre lots. We brought a screeching halt to that abuse.
  The disaster assistance in this bill is budgeted and paid for. In the 
last 3 years, every State in the Nation has received disaster 
payments--every State--none of it budgeted for, none of it paid for. 
These disaster provisions are budgeted and paid for, and they further 
reform disasters because in the past you could have losses on one part 
of your operation, even though you had gains on the rest of it, and 
still get a disaster payment. Under this proposal, under this new law, 
if you have not had losses on your whole farm operation--disaster 
losses on your whole farm operation--you are not going to get a 
disaster payment.
  I wish the Washington Post, when they write their editorials, would 
bother to read the legislation they are critiquing because clearly they 
do not know what they are writing about.
  The final point I want to make: The Senator from New Hampshire, the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, who is my friend, somebody for 
whom I have respect and affection, suggests over and over that somehow 
this is not paid for, that it is going to add to the deficit. No. The 
Congressional Budget Office, who are the official scorekeepers, and the 
Joint Committee on Taxation have scored this bill. This is what they 
say. We reduce the deficit over 5 years by $67 million; over 10 years, 
by $110 million. This bill is fully pay-go compliant--fully. This bill 
is paid for. It is paid for without a tax increase.
  One final point: The Washington Post wrote another egregious story 
the other day saying: Oh, there is this $16 billion additional cost 
that might be out there. Yes, and elephants fly. Look, when are they 
going to get objective in

[[Page 10401]]

their reporting at the Washington Post? They have suggested there might 
be this $16 billion cost. Really? There also might be $16 billion of 
savings. A lot of things could happen. You know--lightning strikes. A 
lot of things could happen.
  Look at the last farm bill. We brought that in $17 billion in the 
commodity provisions below what was forecast at the time. Did the 
Washington Post ever write a story about that? Did they ever? No.
  This bill is paid for. It is paid for without a tax increase. The 
professional scoring of this legislation is that it is $10 billion over 
baseline, completely paid for, without a tax increase.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to address the importance of the 
nutrition assistance title of the farm bill. The bill goes a long way 
toward ensuring that families in America will have food on their table, 
even when times are tough. The bill also clarifies that their rights to 
certain nutrition services are enforceable.
  Sections 4116 through 4118 of the bill specifically reinforce 
Congress's longstanding intention that the Food Stamp Act's provisions 
and its regulations are fully enforceable and should be enforced. The 
courts have historically and correctly understood Congress's intent 
that low-income households have the right to enforce these provisions.
  The language of the Food Stamp Act and its implementing regulations--
parts 271, 272, 273, and so on--have the kind of clear language 
required for judicial enforcement. We made sure that they are 
mandatory, not aspirational, and that they set out requirements for how 
each individual is to be treated, not general program-wide goals. They 
clearly define the benefited class as low-income people receiving or 
seeking food assistance. Nothing in the act or regulations suggests 
that substantial compliance overall excuses denying any individual the 
benefit of these rules.
  Along with oversight by the Department of Agriculture, lawsuits by 
families participating in food stamps are one of the ways we can ensure 
the Food Stamp Program fulfills its purpose. Indeed, it is partly 
because applicants and recipients can and do bring lawsuits to enforce 
program rules that the Department has not been required to withhold 
funds from States to enforce service standards in the program.
  This legislation also makes explicit that various civil rights laws 
are binding in the Food Stamp Program. This is not a change--these laws 
and their regulations have applied since they were written, and both 
have been intended to be fully enforceable. This legislation just 
reiterates a point that we hope and believe was already clear.
  None of this would have been a question until two recent, unfortunate 
court decisions. The first case, Reynolds, comes from the Second 
Circuit. It applied a standard of analysis that departed from all prior 
Federal court precedent and held that applicants and recipients could 
hold a state accountable for the maladministration of the program by 
local food stamp agencies only in the rarest of circumstances. The act 
is and has been clear that States are responsible for full compliance 
with all applicable regulations. States' responsibility is no less 
because they have chosen to have counties or other local agencies 
operate the program for them. The option of local administration exists 
only as a courtesy or convenience to the States, not to reduce their 
accountability. The State is just as responsible for what the local 
agency does as if the State agency performed those acts itself. This 
legislation emphasizes that point.
  In the other case, called Almendarez, a Federal district court 
refused to consider a suit brought by low-income people who need 
assistance in a language other than English to apply for food stamps. 
The Department's regulations clearly provide rights for families that 
need language assistance. Now the act explicitly confirms that those 
regulations are enforceable. Future cases can be decided on the merits, 
as they should be.
  This bipartisan legislation goes a long way toward providing food for 
working families, and providing the security of knowing that help is 
enforceable by law. I thank the chairman and the committee for their 
tremendous work.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How much time 
remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Iowa will hold for a 
second--the Republican leader has 14 minutes, the Senator from New 
Hampshire has 2\1/2\ minutes, the majority side has 11 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Eleven minutes.
  Mr. President, I understand that, obviously, in a quorum call the 
time is taken evenly off of both sides. Since we have 11 minutes left, 
I yield myself 4 minutes of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, would the Chair please remind this Senator 
when his 4 minutes have elapsed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to respond to a couple things my 
friend from New Hampshire said. He talked about the sugar provisions in 
the bill and the support price of sugar, that it is over world prices. 
I always point out to people that when you go in a restaurant, or 
anywhere you go to eat, the sugar is free. You get these little packs 
of sugar wherever you go. You go to Starbucks, you get free sugar. You 
go to the airport, and you go down and get a cup of coffee, or 
something like that, there is free sugar. It cannot get much cheaper 
than that.
  Does anyone believe if we were to drop these sugar support prices 
down about 50 percent--which is what would happen with what the Senator 
from New Hampshire wishes to have happen--do you believe candy prices 
are going to go down? Do you believe food prices are going to go down? 
Come on. It just means that the manufacturers, the processors will just 
make more profits, that is all, and our nation's sugar farmers won't. 
So you can't get much cheaper than free when it comes to sugar when you 
go into your restaurants and coffee shops and places such as that.
  The next thing the Senator talked about is the $16 billion that the 
Washington Post keeps talking about in new spending because of this new 
program, this new option we have, this new reform program. That is a 
doom's day scenario. Sure, if the bottom falls, if commodity prices 
fall 40 percent, yes, we could see significant expenditures. But even 
the Department of Agriculture in this administration has said they 
don't expect prices to decline much if at all over the next 12 to 18 
months. As pointed out earlier, because of the increased prices of 
fertilizer, fuel, equipment--all of the input costs of agriculture--if 
these prices drop to where they were 8 years ago, Lord help us. We 
would have real economic hardship in rural America. So we have this new 
program in the bill to help farmers deal with the new economic 
realities in agriculture.
  So, yes, you can take a doom's day scenario, but we don't plan our 
lives around the fact that we have perhaps a 1 in 40 million chance of 
getting hit by an asteroid. We don't plan our daily excursions by the 
fact that we face on the order of a 1 in 50,000 chance that we could 
get hit by a tornado or struck by lightning. Of course you can always 
have doom's day scenarios. That is not how we crafted this new program 
nor is it a reasonable way to judge it. We planned it in relation to 
what is really happening in agriculture.
  The last thing the Senator said was something about logrolling, where

[[Page 10402]]

some members will help other commodities or regions and then in return 
members who have been helped will support policy for other commodities 
in a different area. That is a total distortion of how this process 
works. The fact is, in my area in Iowa, we don't grow cotton and 
peanuts, let's face it. We just don't. I don't have much expertise in 
that area, to be honest about it, so I rely upon Senator Chambliss or 
Senator Cochran or those Members from other parts of the country who 
know their agriculture. They know those commodities. So we rely upon 
their expertise. You bet we do. I hope they rely a little bit on our 
expertise when it comes to crops such as wheat and corn and soybeans 
and other crops. The same goes for ranches. The distinguished Presiding 
Officer comes from an area of the country where they have ranches. We 
don't have ranches in Iowa, so I rely upon the Presiding Officer, who 
is on the Agriculture Committee and who knows a lot about ranching and 
what it means in his part of the country and what it means to have 
livestock and livestock producers who run ranches. The Presiding 
Officer also knows what it means for this nation to shift to new and 
renewable forms of energy, including cellulosic energy, which he has 
been a leader on. So we rely upon each other for this kind of 
expertise. That is not logrolling; that is just recognizing that 
different Senators who come from different parts of the country have 
different expertise, and they can bring that expertise to the 
Agriculture Committee. That is exactly how we develop these farm bills. 
It is not logrolling, it is simply recognizing that we want this 
legislation to work effectively everywhere across the nation, 
regardless of the commodities grown or region involved, and to cover 
the whole broad range of issues and challenges encompassed in this 
bill.
  That is why I think we have a very good bill here. As my friend 
Senator Chambliss said, of course we don't agree with every single 
thing in it, but that is the art of legislation, which is to compromise 
and to work things out so that we can get good bipartisan support and 
multiregional support. We did that in this farm bill. You can't get 
much more bipartisan than 81 votes in the Senate or 318 votes in the 
House. When you have that kind of overwhelming support, then you know 
you probably have a good bill.
  So, again, I urge Senators to vote to override the President's veto.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.


                     FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENERGY USE

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I will be introducing 
in the Senate today a resolution to express the sense of the Senate 
regarding the use of gasoline and other fuels by the departments and 
agencies of the Federal Government. We simply refer to all of the 
problems we see every morning, as we get up, in the papers and on the 
television about how families are coping with this gas problem. We 
simply say in a respectful way in the last paragraph--I will read it:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the President should 
     require all Federal departments and agencies to take 
     initiatives to reduce daily consumption of gasoline and other 
     fuels by departments and agencies.

  I thank my colleagues. The full text will be available to all Members 
this afternoon. It is not as if we will be able to vote on this, but it 
will be some message to take back home that you are in support of it.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I request to be added as an original 
cosponsor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I also request to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are automatic under the 
Constitution.
  All time having been yielded back, the question is, Shall the bill 
pass, the objections of the President of the United States to the 
contrary notwithstanding?
  The yeas and nays are required.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Bennett
     Collins
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Murkowski
     Reed
     Sununu
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     DeMint
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coburn
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are 
13, one Senator responding present. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, 
a quorum being present, having voted in the affirmative, the bill on 
reconsideration is passed, the objections of the President of the 
United States to the contrary notwithstanding.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, now that we have had this vote on the 
veto of the conference report, none of us had wanted to have to 
override a veto. As we move ahead now, because of the technicality and 
the little glitch that we have had, we are not sure where we are going 
to be when we come back, but there is going to be, possibly, the chance 
that we are going to have to take up the full bill again as the House 
did and passed it with a big vote. Over the next several days, I hope 
maybe these waters will smooth out, and we can move ahead with the 
concurrence of the White House so farmers and ranchers will have some 
dependability on what type of programs we are going to have out there 
for them.
  Let me say again to my chairman, Senator Harkin, it has been a 
pleasure to work with him and Senator Conrad, who has been such a great 
ally in this process. It was great leadership to get us to where we are 
now. Thank you on behalf of all farmers across America. Senator Baucus 
and Senator Grassley have been so valuable in our process.

[[Page 10403]]

We named all the staff the other day, but we wouldn't be where we are 
without them.
  Mr. President, I thank you and everybody have a safe holiday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from Iowa 
is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks made 
by my good friend from Georgia, Senator Chambliss. This has been a long 
effort. We worked very hard on this bill. I wish to reassure Senators, 
this is a good bill. I know there are some editorials out there written 
about it in the Washington Post and other publications. That is all 
part of the process of debating and enacting legislation. But you have 
to think, a lot of those editorials are written by those who likely 
have never supported a farm bill anyway, so there you go. It is like 
anything else, is this bill exactly what I would have wanted or Senator 
Chambliss would have wanted or Senator Conrad would have wanted or 
anybody else? No. But that is the art of legislation. It requires 
cooperation, bipartisanship, compromise, and getting legislation 
through that benefits all of our country.
  As I have said many times, this farm bill benefits everyone from 
farmers and ranchers, people in small towns such as my hometown of 
Cumming, population of 162, to people who live in New York City.
  The fact that we had 82 votes now on the override--81 before on the 
conference report on the bill--and the overwhelming votes in the House, 
I believe indicates people understand this is a broad bill that covers 
every American--not just farmers, not just ranchers but everyone. It is 
good for our country, good for our future. It is a bill that will make 
sure we will continue to have an abundant, safe, affordable supply of 
food for our people in this country, that we help low-income families 
put food on their tables and that we help farmers and ranchers conserve 
and protect our nation's priceless resources for present and future 
generations.
  This bill helps us move ahead to producing energy from cellulosic 
materials--we have laid the foundation for having that in the future. 
Just as we laid the foundation before for grain-based ethanol, now we 
have laid the foundation for cellulose-based ethanol in the future.
  It is a good bill, good for America. Again, I thank Senator 
Chambliss, first, for when he was chairman actually starting this 
process and then working together to get this bill through to its 
conclusion; Senator Conrad, who has been such a valuable ally in this 
effort, bringing the expertise that he has as the budget chairman and, 
as I often said, making sure we keep on track. I have often said, in 
writing legislation if you do something here that affects something 
there and that affects something else, the Budget Committee and the 
budget chairman have the knowledge and the expertise to know the budget 
impact of such actions. It has been an invaluable resource to us, to 
have that expertise of Senator Conrad on this committee and during this 
whole debate and development of this farm bill.
  I will also thank, again, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, our 
chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, who worked so 
closely with us to develop this legislation and make sure we had the 
proper funding so we could get this bill through. They were invaluable 
helping us to get this bill finally through.
  I wish to make sure there is no doubt in anyone's mind now--14 of the 
15 titles in the farm bill conference report are now law. We do not 
require anybody else's signature; 14 of the 15 titles are now the law 
of the land. As Senator Chambliss said, we do have this one little 
glitch--evidently an innocent mistake, a clerical error that title III 
was not included. We will deal with that at some other point. I don't 
know exactly when, but that should not be much of a problem, since it 
was simply a clerical error. We will take care of that.
  I want people to know we have been in contact with both USDA and 
USAID, the Agency for International Development. They told my staff 
basically they could get by for a couple of weeks without our having to 
do more today. We will have to move ahead as soon as we can, perhaps 
that will not be until right after the recess, so our Pub. L. 480 
programs and our development assistance programs, our market access 
program, which is so important for our fruits and vegetables, specialty 
crops and other programs in the trade title are taken care of.
  Again, I thank everyone. As Senator Chambliss said, we have already 
thanked our staff, but I don't know if we can thank them enough. They 
have hung in every day on this.
  I was going to say now they can take a vacation, but they have to 
wait until this other title gets taken care of; but sometime soon our 
staffs will be able to take a break.
  Mr. President, I would like to expand upon my remarks on the 
nutrition title of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 so 
that I may provide my colleagues with more information about the very 
important changes made in the nutrition title, particularly to the Food 
Stamp Program. The Food Stamp Program is the single most important 
antihunger program in our Nation, helping millions of families, 
seniors, and people with disabilities afford an adequate diet. It is 
our country's largest child nutrition program and serves as a critical 
work support program, enabling low-income working families to make ends 
meet and put food on the table every month.
  I know that many Senators have not had the opportunity to pore over 
the details of the legislative language and conference report for the 
nutrition title. So let me take this opportunity to provide some 
background on what has been accomplished in the nutrition area of this 
bill.
  The conference report makes major investments and improvements in the 
Food Stamp Program in this bill--starting with changing the name of the 
program to the ``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program'' or 
``SNAP.'' The change reflects the reality that food assistance benefits 
are no longer ``stamps'' but have been updated and modernized and are 
now provided on special cards, like the debit or credit cards that most 
Americans carry in their wallets. For the purposes of my remarks today, 
I will use the term ``Food Stamp Program'' throughout my comments one 
last time before this historic change is made.
  One of the primary goals for the Food Stamp Program was to end the 
decades of erosion in the purchasing power of food stamp benefits. 
Because of harmful cuts to the program enacted in the midnineties, with 
each passing year the purchasing power of most households' benefits has 
actually decreased. The biggest annual cut, which has so far cumulated 
in about $25 less in food assistance each month for the typical working 
family, was from a freeze to the program's standard deduction. This cut 
has affected about 10 million people a year, including many low-income 
working families with children, senior citizens living on a fixed 
income, and persons with disabilities.
  The largest benefit improvement in this bill is an increase in the 
standard deduction, which has been frozen for households of three or 
fewer people for over 10 years, and end any future erosion in its value 
by inflating the deduction each year. The inflated amounts will be 
calculated based on the previous year's unrounded amount, so over time 
we will not lose any more ground to inflation. This change will improve 
benefits for about 13 million people and provide a typical working 
family an additional $6 a month in food assistance in 2009, rising to 
$17 a month by 2012.
  Similarly, because it was not adjusted for inflation, the $10 monthly 
minimum food assistance benefit purchases only about one-third as much 
food today as it did when it was set more than 30 years ago. The 
minimum benefit is set at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan, rounded 
to the nearest whole dollar. This will mean it will be about $14 per 
month in 2009--almost a 50-percent increase. The Thrifty Food Plan is 
automatically indexed for inflation. As a result, the minimum benefit 
will maintain its purchasing power. And,

[[Page 10404]]

because the Thrifty Food Plan is set at different levels for high-cost 
areas like Alaska and Hawaii, a new and slightly higher minimum food 
assistance benefit will be provided in those areas. For example, in 
fiscal year 2009 the Hawaii minimum benefit level will be $22 a month. 
Additionally, about 15 States have special combined application 
projects where SSI recipients receive standardized benefits. I expect 
USDA will reevaluate the cost-neutrality of these projects so that 
these households also can receive higher standardized benefit amounts 
to account for the higher monthly minimum benefit and standard 
deduction levels.
  The conference report ends erosion in other areas as well, including 
the dependent care deduction and asset limit, about which I will speak 
more briefly, but also the commodities for The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program, TEFAP, and grants for community food projects and 
fruits and vegetables in schools. For the first time since I have been 
working on farm bills, we have clearly established the principle that 
the value of benefits in our nutritional help for low-income families 
and individuals should not erode over time, just as they do not in our 
income tax code or the Social Security and Medicare Programs. This is a 
remarkable achievement.
  Another core principle that is addressed in this bill is that 
building savings and accumulating assets is an important path to 
financial independence. And here I want to especially thank the ranking 
member, Senator Chambliss, for his leadership. Many agree that it is 
counterproductive to discourage savings by forcing people to liquidate 
their retirement savings or other financial assets when they lose their 
jobs and need to turn to food assistance to feed their families. 
Policymakers from across the political spectrum agree that asset 
development is important to helping low-income Americans make a 
permanent transition out of poverty as well as avoiding it in their 
later years. After all, a family does not spend its way out of poverty. 
Quite the opposite, most families build a path to financial security on 
the foundation of assets, whether it be a home, a small business, or 
retirement savings.
  This bill ensures that all retirement accounts and education savings 
accounts are excluded from a household's financial assets when 
determining whether or not they are eligible for food assistance. And 
for the first time in nearly two decades the $2,000 and $3,000 asset 
limits will be adjusted for inflation each year.
  It is also important to note what the Congress did not do in the 
asset area. The administration proposed eliminating a State option 
called expanded categorical eligibility which allows States to conform 
the food stamp asset rules to those used in a TANF-funded benefit, and 
proposed using those savings to finance the exclusion of retirement 
accounts from eligibility determinations. Both the House and Senate 
rejected that approach because of a belief that some assets, such as 
retirement funds, should be excluded from the program on a national 
basis.
  In addition, by leaving the existing State option on categorical 
eligibility in place, States have the full flexibility to set their own 
asset policy. I strongly encourage USDA to work with States to expand 
the use of this State option beyond the 15 States that thus far have 
expanded categorical eligibility. States with nearly 40 percent of the 
food stamp caseload do not currently use the national asset policy. I 
hope that in the coming months and years we will see more and more 
States take the option.
  Another major improvement in this bill supports working families by 
allowing them to deduct the full amount of their childcare expenses 
from their income for purposes of food assistance eligibility and 
benefit determinations. The current cap on the dependent care deduction 
has not been raised in 15 years, but child care costs have continued to 
grow. Even when a low-income working family gets help paying for child 
care, the family's share, or copayment, can be substantial. Now, 
because of changes in this bill, the amount of food assistance that a 
family receives will reflect the actual child care costs families pay 
to be able to hold down their jobs. By lifting the cap, families 
eligible for the deduction will be able to deduct the full value of 
their childcare costs, rather than just a portion of the costs. The 
change would provide an average of almost $500 a year--more than $40 a 
month--to approximately 100,000 households that pay high childcare 
costs.
  This change was made cognizant of current USDA policy on the 
childcare deduction, which takes a broad view of what constitutes a 
dependent care cost, defers to parents about what is appropriate 
childcare, and lets States determine how to set verification policy. 
This proposal was part of USDA's original farm bill proposal and they 
have given us every reason to believe they will continue these policies 
and do nothing that would limit what is deductible or the amount 
families may deduct.
  For households that apply or recertify their eligibility after 
October 1, 2008, the dependent care cap will no longer be in effect. We 
expect that States will notify households already participating in the 
program with dependent care expenses at or above the current cap about 
the policy change. These households should be given the opportunity to 
receive the higher dependent care deduction that corresponds to their 
full costs as soon as the provision takes effect. A benefit increase 
for these households however, is their option. In no case should a 
household have its benefits terminated or reduced for not responding to 
paperwork requesting verification for the amount of childcare costs 
they have above the current cap. In two areas, this bill builds upon 
the very successful State options provided in the 2002 farm bill. These 
simplifications have made the program less burdensome on States 
agencies and families alike, have helped to keep low-income households 
connected to the Food Stamp Program, and have been a major factor in 
the sustained drop in State food assistance error rates.
  The 2002 farm bill allowed States to extend ``simplified'' reporting 
rules to most households. Some 48 States and the District of Columbia 
have adopted this popular State option, which dramatically simplifies 
the rules for how many food stamp participants inform the State about 
changes in their income and other circumstances.
  Unfortunately, due to an oversight in the 2002 bill, States are not 
allowed to apply simplified reporting to several categories of 
households, such as households with only elderly or disabled members. 
USDA wisely, through guidance and in its proposed regulation, allowed 
States to extend the option to some households that might be excluded, 
such as homeless households and migrant and seasonal farmworkers. This 
bill specifically allows these households to be included in simplified 
reporting and extends the State option to households with only elderly 
and disabled members, so long as States extend the simplified option 
for 1 year rather than 6 months for such households to reflect the fact 
that many of them live on fixed incomes and have stable living 
situations and thus do not have many changes to report. In fact 
imposing 6 month reports on these households would make them worse off 
by putting their food assistance at risk more often than is now the 
case.
  This change will allow States to simplify their operations and reduce 
confusion, by having just one reporting system with common forms, staff 
training, and other rules. I urge USDA to implement this provision and 
the underlying simplified reporting option in a way that allows it to 
achieve its full intent of minimizing the number of changes that 
households need to report and that States need to respond to, whether 
those changes are for food stamps or for another program that the State 
administers along with the Food Stamp Program. Simplified reporting 
cannot be simple if USDA allows exceptions to our basic principle that 
changes should only be made to the case if a household reports that 
their income exceeds the gross income limit.
  Another popular and successful provision from the 2002 farm bill gave

[[Page 10405]]

States the option to provide 5 months of transitional food assistance 
to families that leave welfare. We did this not only because we wanted 
to reduce the paperwork burden but also to keep eligible families 
connected to food assistance when they left welfare for work. This is 
important because we know that, for families who are leaving welfare 
for employment, the first couple of months are particularly vulnerable. 
Having work supports such as food assistance help them to weather this 
period and actually decreases the likelihood that they will return to 
cash assistance.
  The 2002 farm bill made this State option available to families that 
leave Federal TANF-funded cash assistance programs. Since then, some 
States have established separate State-funded cash assistance programs 
for certain groups of poor families with children. These State programs 
give greater flexibility to States to develop services and supports 
that can serve these families appropriately.
  This bill extends to States the option to provide transitional food 
assistance to individuals participating in these State-funded public 
assistance programs. Several States have specifically indicated that 
this change will be beneficial to them and the families with children 
that they serve.
  For all of these benefit improvements, I expect USDA to implement the 
provisions in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the State 
agencies that administer the program. It is with some disappointment 
and disbelief that I note that the administration still has not yet 
issued final regulations for the 2002 farm bill's food stamp 
provisions. In implementing this bill I urge USDA to provide 
sufficient, flexible guidance to States in a timely manner. One of the 
helpful implementing policies USDA allowed in 2002 was to extend the 
120-day quality control hold harmless protections to provisions that 
are State options, such as simplified reporting and transitional food 
stamps. I expect USDA to allow that policy for this farm bill as well.
  In addition to major improvements in the benefit levels and rules, 
the nutrition title contains numerous program oversight and integrity 
provisions, as well as provisions that address basic program 
operations.
  As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, this bill finalizes the 
replacement of paper coupons in favor of the electronic benefits on 
plastic cards that are now the way people access their food assistance 
across the country. The bill prohibits States from issuing any new 
coupons and provides that existing coupons shall be redeemable for only 
1 year from the date this bill is enacted. This is a minor change in 
the operation of the program, since no State currently issues coupons 
and fewer are redeemed each month. Nonetheless, the change required 
numerous technical and conforming revisions in the statute to purge the 
act of ``coupons'' and other trappings of the old system. No policy 
changes are intended in making these revisions other than to reflect 
the existing reality. For example, in replacing the word ``coupons'' 
with ``benefits'' Congress did not intend to change policy beyond 
simply recognizing that coupons do not exist anymore. The term 
``benefits'' refers to the food voucher-like benefits that households 
receive on electronic benefit transfer cards, EBT, but does not include 
auxiliary activities under the act, such as nutrition education or food 
stamp employment and training services.
  Despite the overwhelming success of electronic benefits in 
modernizing benefit delivery, reducing retailer fraud, and removing a 
large source of stigma for recipients, there is one area where there 
remain concerns about EBT benefits, and this bill has tried to address 
the concern. Under the old food stamp coupon system, some households, 
especially seniors who qualify for small benefits, could store up those 
smaller amounts and use several months' worth in one shopping trip or 
for a special occasion, such as a holiday gathering. With food stamp 
coupons there was no deadline for how long they were good for.
  Under EBT systems, however, some States have moved households' 
benefits ``offline'' after as few as 3 months if there is no activity 
in the account. This can be a problem for households that receive small 
benefits and want to store them up for a special supermarket trip.
  So this bill strikes a balance. It allows States to move a 
household's benefits offline if the household has not accessed the EBT 
account for 6 months. But the State will be required to notify the 
household of this step and to reinstate its benefits within 48 hours if 
the household makes a request.
  I expect States to make the process for recovering benefits after 
they have been moved offline easy for households. Any inquiry about 
food assistance, or general request for assistance from a household 
that has had benefits moved offline, should be considered a request for 
reinstatement of lost benefits. In other words, households should not 
have to contact a particular phone number or ask for some complicated 
reinstatement option in order to get benefits restored to their 
accounts. Rather, eligibility workers and local office or call center 
employees should assist households and should help them to initiate the 
process of reinstating their benefits.
  I recognize that some States may need to renegotiate the terms of 
their EBT contracts, and I urge USDA to work with States to implement 
the provision as quickly as possible given the time constraints set by 
the effective date constraints.
  This bill also responds to another benefit issuance matter that has 
come up recently in Michigan and in other places over the years. States 
currently issue food stamps in one monthly installment for each 
household. They may, and usually do, ``stagger'' food stamps by issuing 
the month's food stamps to different households on different days of 
the month, for example, based on the last digit of the household head's 
Social Security number. This practice spreads out the state's workload 
and helps supermarkets smooth out the demand for food.
  Some States--most recently Michigan--have faced pressure from 
retailers and others to divide each individual households' monthly 
allotment into two or more issuances over the month. I do not support 
such a change and was surprised to learn that the law permitted it. 
Dividing households' monthly food stamp allotments could prevent some 
households from making large buying trips or from purchasing large, 
economy-size containers of staple foods. It also would be burdensome on 
households with small benefit amounts--such as seniors--because they 
would have to use their food assistance EBT card at multiple shopping 
trips during the month instead of only one. In fact, the Michigan 
Department of Human Services polled current food assistance recipients 
about such a potential change and learned that recipients strongly 
opposed splitting food assistance benefits into a twice-monthly 
allotment.
  The bill includes a provision that would prevent States from dividing 
monthly allotments. No other policy changes are envisioned. The bill 
does not intend to change the rules with respect to the issuance of 
expedited benefits, the proration of benefits for partial months, the 
issuance of supplemental benefits in the event a benefit correction is 
needed, the way that people who reside, or formerly resided, in drug or 
alcohol addiction treatment facilities receive food assistance, or any 
other area.
  The nutrition title also clarifies a provision that has inadvertently 
denied food assistance benefits to innocent people. Individuals who are 
being actively pursued by law enforcement for outstanding felony 
charges or for violations of probation or parole are not eligible for 
food assistance benefits. This rule appropriately ensures that 
fugitives do not receive public support.
  However, in practice, this rule occasionally denies food assistance 
to the wrong people--innocent people whose identities may have been 
stolen by criminals or those whose offenses were so minor or so long 
ago that law enforcement has no interest in pursuing them. If the 
issuing authority does not care to apprehend the applicant when

[[Page 10406]]

notified of his or her whereabouts, there is no public purpose served 
by denying food assistance benefits.
  Unfortunately, inadequate guidance to States has resulted in exactly 
that. This provision would correct this by requiring USDA to clarify 
the terms used and make sure that States are not incorrectly 
disqualifying needy people who are not being actively pursued by law 
enforcement authorities.
  One important area of the bill has not gotten a lot attention. It has 
to do with our own, as well as USDA's oversight of State administration 
of the program. Several provisions in the nutrition title are included 
to improve oversight of States with respect to computer systems, 
eligibility processes, and access to benefits.
  For example, the bill requires States to adequately test and pilot 
new computer systems. I do not wish to see another instance of a State 
implementing a multimillion dollar computer system that does not work, 
and which USDA knew would not work. Time and time again, I have read 
about computer systems that do not work and either cause families to 
wait 3 months for food stamps or that issue benefits inaccurately. That 
is unacceptable management of the program. USDA must demand adequate 
testing and hold States, not clients, accountable for any mistakes in 
benefits when there is a major systems failure.
  The bill also includes a provision that was proposed by USDA to 
increase the penalties on States if, despite these measures, a ``major 
systems failure'' nonetheless occurs. If the Secretary determines that 
overissuances have occurred because of a ``major systems failure,'' the 
States, rather than households, as is usually the case, are to be 
liable to repay the Federal Government for the cost of the 
overissuance. This is entirely appropriate because the mistake is 
clearly not the household's fault, and their ability to purchase food 
should not be compromised because of the State's egregious mistakes. 
When major State problems occur, the State's energy and resources 
should be focused on fixing the problem, not on collecting from low-
income households that had no role in the mistake.
  New automated systems are not the only program area that requires 
more oversight, monitoring, and enforcement of standards. States are 
now using online applications, conducting business with clients over 
the phone, and in some cases closing local offices and reducing staff 
as a result of these changes. New technologies present enormous 
opportunities to improve customer service, but they also carry risks if 
the technology does not work or the State agency lacks sufficient 
oversight. The bill is, in part, responding to a recent GAO report that 
found that USDA has not collected sufficient information on the effects 
of alternative methods of benefit delivery on program access, payment 
accuracy, and administrative costs. The bill requires USDA to set 
standards for identifying when States are making major changes in their 
operations and for States to notify USDA and report on the effect these 
changes have on program integrity and households' access to benefits.
  Though the provision of which I am speaking, section 4116 does not 
specifically pertain to the privatization of the Food Stamp Program, it 
does have particular relevance given recent efforts by two States, 
Texas and Indiana, to privatize major components of their food 
assistance delivery mechanism. Prior to the approval by the Food and 
Nutrition Service of both the Texas contract and the Indiana contract, 
I communicated extensively with the Food and Nutrition Service by 
letter as to the kinds and manner of data collection that I deemed 
critical in each instance. I continue to be extremely concerned that 
USDA is not properly monitoring those projects, as well as other State 
efforts to transform the way that services are delivered with respect 
to how these new systems are affecting the most vulnerable members of 
our society. Because that correspondence was extensive and because it 
is in the records of USDA, I will not submit it here for the record. I 
would note however, that in implementing section 4116 of the conference 
report, I expect USDA to closely review my prior correspondence 
regarding the Texas and Indiana contracts regarding what kinds of 
information should be collected. In particular, I expect USDA to review 
my letter to Secretary Johanns sent on January 19, 2006. That letter in 
particular clearly laid out expectations as to proper evaluation 
criteria, especially as they pertained to program access for certain 
vulnerable populations, such as individuals with disabilities and those 
with limited-English proficiency.
  I would also like to note that USDA has thus far refused, both in the 
case of Texas and the case of Indiana, to gather appropriate quality 
control data in the specific geographic areas that were initially 
rolled out for testing. In those cases, I asked USDA to gather quality 
control data that was specific to the geographical area that was being 
initially rolled out so that a comparison could be made to the rest of 
the State that was still operating under normal parameters, and I asked 
USDA to gather data that would allow for a timely evaluation of the 
pilot area. USDA responded that this was not possible because quality 
control data is not gathered for substate geographical areas and 
quality control data is not available for evaluation until many months 
after it is first gathered.
  This provision allows USDA to rectify this situation and, in addition 
to other reporting measures, I fully expect USDA, in implementing this 
provision, to ensure that quality control data is gathered when there 
are major changes in program design that allows for comparison of 
substate areas that are being tested and which allows for the timely 
use of the State-reported data in evaluation prior to moving ahead with 
later phases of a project.
  Another provision of the bill creates an explicit State option for 
accepting food assistance applications over the telephone. As I 
previously mentioned, innovative States have experimented with online 
applications and telephone interviews as a way of streamlining the 
process for people who have difficulty coming to welfare offices, such 
as working families with busy schedules and senior citizens.
  The nutrition title would allow households to apply for food 
assistance over the telephone and have their benefits date back to the 
date of the telephone application. This is important to ensure that 
households that apply over the telephone do not have a delay in their 
benefits and receive smaller benefits for the first month. We have 
provided that a telephone signature should be accepted as adequate for 
all purposes. No subsequent mail-in application should be required in 
order for the application to be considered filed by the State agency.
  Throughout the history of the Food Stamp Program, the courts have 
played a positive, constructive role in ensuring that congressional 
intent is carried out. The program has not been overrun with litigation 
because both Congress, in writing statutes, and USDA, in writing 
regulations, have taken great pains to be clear and specific. On those 
rare occasions when courts have misunderstood our intent on an 
important matter, Congress has amended that statute accordingly. 
Because USDA keeps the Agriculture Committees closely apprised of its 
regulatory actions, Congress also has been comfortable with--indeed 
supportive of--litigation to enforce the Department's regulations. On 
numerous occasions when we leave a matter open in the statute, it is 
because USDA has told us exactly how it plans to address the matter in 
regulations. Congress has always operated on the assumption, and with 
the intent, that the program's regulations would be fully enforceable 
and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute.
  I was disturbed to learn of two recent cases in which courts 
disregarded the longstanding history of judicial enforcement of the act 
and regulations. A district court in Ohio refused to entertain a suit 
brought to enforce the Department's regulations for serving people 
whose primary language is not English, and an appellate court in New 
York held that States are less responsible for compliance with the act 
and

[[Page 10407]]

regulations when the program is administered by local governments than 
when the State administers the program itself.
  Accordingly, this legislation clarifies that States must comply with 
the Department's rules on service to non-English-speaking households as 
well as with the statute. The regulations, no less than the statute, 
create rights for households to ensure that they can receive benefits.
  Responding to the New York case, the legislation clarifies that 
States' responsibility is no less in locally administered systems. 
Congress has granted States the option for local administration as a 
convenience; nothing in the law reduces States' responsibility if they 
take this option. If the State could not be held fully accountable for 
strict compliance with the act and regulations in these cases, local 
administration would not be permitted. These amendments correct that 
problem.
  I have been a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee or the House 
Agriculture Committee for over 30 years. I have always operated on the 
assumption that the act and regulations create enforceable rights for 
actual and prospective participants and that litigation may properly 
arise under provisions of either. When I have heard of examples where 
applicants or clients were not provided with the service that the act 
and rules provide, such as timely and fair service, assistance for 
those who need it by the State agency or 10 days to turn in requested 
paperwork, I have supported the right of an individual to file a claim 
against the State to enforce the rules established by Congress and the 
regulations stemming from the statute.
  With very few exceptions, the old Food Stamp Act and the new Food and 
Nutrition Act are based on the principle of individual rights. Much of 
that stems from a history in the 1960s and 1970s of clients not being 
able to gain access to the program. To be sure, section 2 has little in 
it to enforce: subsections (a) through (g) of section 7 do not affect 
individual households, and sections 9, 10, 12, and 15 focus on 
retailers and wholesalers. Within section 11, paragraphs (e)(19), 
(e)(20), (e)(22), and (e)(23), as well as subsections (f) through (h), 
(k), (l), (n) through (r), and (t), regulate state agencies rather than 
households. The same is true in section 16 of the beginning of 
subsection (a) as well as of subsections (c), (d), and (f) through (k). 
Sections 14(a), 18(e) and (f), 19, 23, 25, and 27 similarly do not 
convey rights to households. A few other provisions by their terms no 
longer apply to anyone. But by and large, the Agriculture Committees, 
and Congress as a whole, have consistently intended that the Food Stamp 
Program be administered in strict conformity with the Food Stamp Act 
and with regulations the Secretary has duly promulgated under this act 
and that prospective and actual participants be entitled to enforce 
these provisions legally.
  The legislation also clarifies the act's privacy protections to 
ensure that those receiving confidential information for legitimate 
reasons are not free to make other uses of that information or to 
retransmit it to third parties. Any decisions about releasing or using 
information should be made in advance by the Department or State food 
stamp agencies. The focus was on retransmission of information. Other 
than the provision explicitly allowing these records to be accessed in 
households' litigation, the bill does not expand initial access to 
confidential information. Confidential records would continue to be 
unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate 
reason relating to program administration.
  In the program integrity area the bill responds to USDA's request for 
more flexibility in how they penalize retailers who have committed 
fraud against the program. Electronic benefits have greatly reduced the 
occurrence of clients converting their food assistance benefits into 
cash, but there sometimes remain problems with stores finding ways to 
enrich themselves at the expense of the Federal Government and low-
income households. Under this bill USDA will have more flexibility in 
the types of penalties it can impose on such stores. USDA will be able 
to disqualify an offending retailer, subject the retailer to financial 
penalties, or both.
  Elsewhere in the bill, the Secretary is provided expanded authority 
to penalize individuals and companies that defraud USDA programs. While 
that provision does not apply to any of the individuals and families 
who receive food assistance it could be used with respect to retailers 
and other program operators. Given our history of collaboration with 
the Department on crafting this retailer fraud provisions as well as 
fraud detection and enforcement systems in the other nutrition 
programs, it is not my expectation that the Secretary would ever use 
that authority without extensive consultation with the Agriculture 
Committees.
  The bill also adds two new specific disqualifications for recipients 
who have intentionally used their food assistance benefits 
inappropriately. I do not think these kinds of behaviors are common 
among food assistance recipients, but they are nonetheless 
inappropriate, and people who engage in them should be penalized. The 
first came up because of a story in my State. Apparently someone used 
their food assistance benefits to buy water in returnable containers. 
The individual's real goal, however, was to discard the water and 
return the container for the cash deposit. This kind of activity is 
obviously not consistent with the purpose of the program and States 
will now have specific authority to deal with it when it occurs.
  The second would address instances where food assistance recipients 
intentionally resell food that they have purchased with food assistance 
benefits. This is a little bit of a grey area, and I want to be clear 
about what we do and do not intend with this provision. It is not 
consistent with the goals of the program for individuals to resell 
large quantities of food for a profit that they have bought with food 
stamp benefits. However, I recognize that food stamp households may 
occasionally buy a cake mix which is used to make cupcakes for their 
child's elementary school bake sale or they may shop for one another 
and reimburse each other for food. Two families who share an apartment 
may sometimes share or swap food, even though they generally purchase 
and prepare their meals separately. These are not fundamental affronts 
to the integrity of the program. In fact, these are facts of life for 
honest low- and moderate-income families. USDA and States should only 
treat the egregious cases--where recipients intentionally sell food 
that was clearly purchased with food assistance benefits for a cash 
profit--as fraud. Innocent, well-intentioned low-income individuals 
should not be disqualified under this new provision.
  The bill also includes $20 million in the nutrition title for pilot 
projects to test innovative ways of using the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program to improve the diets and overall health of 
recipients and to especially reduce the problems of obesity and the 
related bad health outcomes. Particularly, this funding is provided for 
USDA to carry out a pilot program that would test whether certain 
incentives can be effective in helping food stamp households to 
purchase healthier foods. The funding is intended to be used for a 
pilot program using the existing EBT infrastructure. For example, a 
participating household that purchases fruits and vegetables with their 
food stamp benefits would receive a discount on the portion of their 
purchase that is deemed healthful. Or alternatively, the household 
would have extra benefits added onto its EBT card for the component of 
their grocery store purchases that are healthful.
  This provision is an investment in a very important area. But I must 
be clear that it is very important for these pilot projects to be 
rigorously evaluated and that the evaluations be independent, so the 
Agriculture Committee can have reliable information on what really 
works and does not work to change people's food purchasing behavior, 
diets, and health status. To provide USDA with maximum flexibility in 
implementing this provision, the statute does not go into great

[[Page 10408]]

deal about the structure of the pilot program. However, I have every 
expectation that USDA will consult closely with the Agriculture 
Committee as it works to implement this provision.
  The bill also requires USDA to study the cost and feasibility of 
reinstating the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico into the national Food 
Stamp Program. Since 1982 Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant 
amount for food assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program 
like the 50 States, District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. 
This block grant does not take into account changes in economic or 
demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people 
who are in need of food assistance. Puerto Rico operates their 
Nutrition Assistance Program with rules very similar to the Food Stamp 
Program, except that it has been forced to impose much lower 
eligibility criteria as a result of capped funding. For example, a 
Puerto Rican household has a maximum net income limit of only 23 
percent to 34 percent of the poverty level, instead of the 100 percent 
cut off used in the Food Stamp Program. It is important that Congress 
gain a better understanding of whether we are meeting the food needs of 
U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico and whether inclusion in the Food 
Stamp Program would be appropriate in the Commonwealth. With this study 
I hope to get a better understanding of what the local conditions are 
in Puerto Rico and how to address the issues in the next farm bill.
  Another provision of the bill seeks to ensure that all children who 
live in households receiving food stamps are getting the free school 
meals to which they are entitled. Forty percent of all food assistance 
recipients are school-age children and about 45 percent of food 
assistance benefits go to families with school-age children. Food 
assistance benefits are a critical factor in reducing food insecurity 
amongst families with children. All children in families receiving food 
assistance get another important benefit--automatic enrollment for free 
school meals provided through the National School Lunch and School 
Breakfast Programs. Such children have been eligible for free school 
meals for some time, but the requirement that they be automatically 
enrolled without completing a duplicative paper application was enacted 
in 2004 and will be effective nationwide for the first time in the 2008 
to 2009 school year.
  The goal of the direct certification requirement is to move to a 
system that seamlessly enrolls 100 percent of school-age children in 
households receiving food assistance benefits for free school meals 
without imposing any additional paperwork on already stressed families. 
Unfortunately, it appears that some States are not implementing this 
provision effectively. As a result, families and schools must fill out 
and process needless paperwork that was already processed by the food 
stamp agency. I strongly encourage USDA to work with States to ensure 
better implementation of direct certification. Government need not and 
should not be unnecessarily redundant and wasteful. This legislation 
requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's progress 
toward that goal and to identify best practices. The report can thus be 
used to help States assess their own progress and expand the reach of 
direct certification.
  The farm bill nutrition title makes a significant new investment in 
food purchases for emergency food organizations, increasing the Federal 
mandatory funding that is available from $140 million per year to $250 
million, adjusted for annual food inflation. Because the amount has 
been flat since 2002 it has lost purchasing power, while food prices 
have climbed by more than 15 percent. TEFAP also will receive $50 
million in additional funding for the remainder of fiscal year 2008 to 
deal with the short-term immediate needs of food banks in light of the 
recent economic downturn and high food price inflation.
  I would also like to highlight some of the changes we made to the 
Food Distribution Program on Indian reservations. As my colleagues may 
know, under the Food Stamp Act, tribal governments have the authority 
to run a commodity program for their tribal members who would prefer 
commodities to food stamps. The program helps ensure that low-income 
Native Americans who live in very remote areas and for whom food stamps 
are not an option have access to nutritious foods. Currently, there are 
approximately 243 tribes receiving benefits under the FDPIR through 98 
Indian tribal organizations and five State agencies.
  The bill makes a number of changes to the program. First, the statute 
is clarified to ensure that individuals disqualified from the Food 
Stamp Program are also disqualified from FDPIR. Second, the bill 
provides more authority to ensure that traditional and local foods are 
included in the food package based on input from program participants. 
Finally, and perhaps most important, Congress is requiring USDA to 
submit a report on the FDPIR food package and its ability to meet the 
food and health needs of low-income Native Americans. I am deeply 
concerned that FDPIR may be failing as a substitute for the Food Stamp 
Program. Unlike food stamps, it does not differentiate between the food 
needs of the poorest versus those with more income. Moreover, I am 
concerned that the quality of the food provided in the food package is 
not as healthy and nutritious as it ought to be, nor does it respond to 
the diet and health challenges of Native Americans. The Secretary has 
open ended authority to improve or expand FDPIR, which is an 
entitlement to Native Americans in lieu of the Food Stamp Program. I 
look forward to hearing from USDA about if or how FDPIR needs to be 
modified to respond to the food security needs of its participants.
  The nutrition title also make a very significant investment in the 
health of our Nation's children by expanding the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program, which will receive $150 million annually within 5 
years and thereafter be indexed to inflation. Several important policy 
changes are also made to the program. First, because eating habits are 
established early in life, we limit the program to just elementary 
schools, with an appropriate transition period for currently 
participating secondary schools. The bill also includes significantly 
strengthened targeting of program funds to low-income children by 
specifying that priority be given to applicant schools that have the 
highest proportion of children who are eligible for free or reduced-
price meals. I expect USDA and states to take this income targeting 
very seriously. The statute is very clear. It does not suggest that the 
prioritization of low-income schools is optional but clearly indicates 
that first priority be given to the schools with the greatest 
proportion of low-income children. The statute also removes any 
reference to dried fruits that previously existed. The program is 
intended to provide fresh fruits and vegetables only.
  As my colleagues may gather from my remarks, I am extremely proud of 
what we have accomplished in the nutrition title of this farm bill. We 
have made the title a top priority within the bill and taken pains to 
ensure that we strengthen our Federal nutrition programs for the tens 
of millions of children, seniors and families they serve. Of course, we 
still have a long way to go before we end hunger in this country. But 
with this legislation we will be moving in a direction of reducing 
hunger, strengthening our people and building healthier, stronger 
communities.
  Mr. President, in addition to the more than 1,000 farm, conservation, 
nutrition, consumer and religious organizations who urged us to 
override this veto, more than 2,700 Americans signed an online 
petition, which said the following:

       We urge Congress to override President Bush's veto of the 
     2008 farm bill . . . It protects the safety net for all of 
     America's food producers, increases funding to feed our 
     nation's poor, enhances support for important conservation 
     initiatives, and helps make America more energy independent . 
     . . Please vote to override President Bush's veto and enact 
     the 2008 Farm Bill into law.

  I will not enter all the names into the Record because there are e-
mail addresses listed here, and I don't want to make all those public.

[[Page 10409]]

  I ask consent to have the petition printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       We urge Congress to override President Bush's expected veto 
     of the 2008 Farm Bill which takes our country in a bold new 
     direction. It protects the safety net for all of America's 
     food producers, increases funding to feed our nation's poor, 
     enhances support for important conservation initiatives, and 
     helps make America more energy independent.
       The House and the Senate passed the Farm Bill on May 14-15 
     with enough bipartisan support to override a possible veto by 
     President Bush.
       We urge members of Congress to continue to vote for the 
     interests of Americans instead of caving to President Bush 
     who is out of touch with the everyday needs of middle 
     America.
       Please vote to override President Bush's veto and enact the 
     2008 Farm Bill into law.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we should take a moment to appreciate the 
historic nature of this vote. This is the first time ever a 
Presidential veto of a farm bill has been overridden. Of course, we all 
know this is far more than a farm bill. In fact, that is a misnomer. 
This is a food bill, a conservation bill, an energy bill--all those 
things combined in a way that I think should make us all proud. It got 
82 votes for a reason. It is a good product. It got 316 votes on a 
Presidential override because it is a good product.
  I thank especially the leadership of the Agriculture Committee. Our 
chairman, Senator Harkin, who is indefatigable, to have a vision to 
turn farm policy in a new direction, to be more conservation oriented--
history will treat him very kindly. Senator Chambliss--we call him, in 
our office ``Cool Hand Luke'' because you couldn't ask for a better 
partner throughout an effort than Senator Chambliss has been to all of 
us. He has been steadfast. He has been calm, cool, and collected in a 
lot of situations that demanded real restraint in order to keep things 
together. I also thank him for the friendship we have formed throughout 
this effort.
  To the staffs--I wish to especially thank my staff: Jim Miller, my 
lead negotiator who has given body and soul to this effort. I calculate 
he spent more than 3,000 hours over the last 2 years on this effort; 
Tom Mahr, my legislative director, who has a lot of brainpower that he 
brought to this effort, as he does to so many jobs in my office. I 
deeply appreciate all the assistance Tom has given me and the other 
members, the other negotiators; Scott Stofferahn, my other negotiator, 
who helped write the disaster provisions that have proven to be so well 
done. John Fuher is a member of my staff who has taken on a lot of 
responsibility at a young age. He has stepped up onto the stage. I 
appreciate it. Miles Patrie and Joe McGarvey handled key sections of 
the legislation; on Senator Harkin's staff, Mark Halverson, the staff 
director. I joked the other day he started to go gray in this process. 
You know, it may go further than gray with the little glitch that 
happened over on the House side; and Susan Keith, who is so determined 
to write good agriculture policy, she can be proud of what she has 
helped accomplish in this bill; Martha Scott Poindexter is a consummate 
professional, somebody for whom we developed high regard. It has been a 
delight to work with her; Martha Scott, we appreciate the good humor 
you have brought to this effort, as well as Vernie Hubert, a consummate 
pro. These are talented people, good people. They deserve our thanks.
  I also wish to thank, if I can, the occupant of the chair, Senator 
Nelson of Nebraska. He is a critically important member of the 
Agriculture Committee who has provided that kind of mature leadership 
that is so often necessary in writing legislation of this importance. I 
thank the occupant of the chair for all he did to make this a reality 
as well.

                          ____________________