[Pages S4212-S4243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--CONFERENCE REPORT

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

Conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, a bill to provide
for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal
year 2012, and for other purposes.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S4213]]

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, there will be 3 hours
evenly divided.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Ninety minutes, evenly divided.
Mr. HARKIN. I am sorry, an hour and a half--45 minutes on each side--
and then we will proceed to start voting on the farm bill.
We had a great debate last night. I appreciate all the Senators who
came over and spoke so forcefully and favorably for this bill. There
are a few more speakers who want to speak this morning, and then we
will have a little bit of a wrap-up again.
Mr. President, I yield the floor for others who want to start
speaking on the farm bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Harkin for his
leadership on this issue. We did have a good, long debate last night,
and a number of folks had an opportunity to come over and voice their
opinion about the bill. We look forward to wrapping this up this
morning and having a vote, hopefully, around 11:15, 11:30.
I urge those folks who want to speak--we have had a number who have
indicated they wish some time. Obviously, we are pretty squeezed with a
compacted morning this morning, so folks need to make their wishes
known and be here to be ready to speak.
I wish to start off by recognizing the Senator from Idaho, who has
been a critical asset to us with respect particularly to the specialty
crop section in this farm bill. I ask the Chair to recognize Senator
Craig for 5 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to come to the
floor in the final hours of the debate over agricultural policy in this
country and to, first and foremost, thank the two principals, who are
here on the floor, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Ag
Committee. They have done yeoman work in a very difficult process--15
titles and 673 pages of policy--in what is, without question, one of
the most complicated efforts at putting public policy and interest
groups within the agricultural community together in some degree of
harmony. I thank my colleagues for the work they have done.
Mr. President, I will be brief, as I have already come to the floor
several times to discuss the valuable programs included in this bill.
But I would be remiss not to take the opportunity to thank my
colleagues--and this Congress--for producing a good product for the
American people.
We have been ``tangled in inaction'' on so many issues. The American
people want a functional Congress.
The 2008 farm bill conference report represents a monumental feat for
the U.S. Congress. Every 5 years, we undertake the task of
reauthorizing our farm policy. This version includes 15 titles; 673
pages.
Though some who have not yet served on an agriculture committee
during the reauthorization of a farm bill may disagree, let me assure
you this is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation
considered by Congress, and it is also one of the most important.
In an age of skyrocketing energy prices, economic uncertainty, and
now a global food crisis, there is at least one thing we should be able
to be certain of: our Nation's food security. We cannot take for
granted our ability to feed ourselves, lest we become dependent on
other countries for our food in addition to our oil.
How do we achieve food security? Here are a few key principles.
First and foremost, we enact policy designed to keep our food
producers productive and profitable, and ensure access to those foods
for all Americans. This includes things such as a safety net to protect
farmers from volatile price swings; and nutrition programs that give
access to fresh fruits and vegetables in schools.
We enact policy that incentivizes state-of-the-art conservation
practices to encourage the best possible stewardship of our
agricultural lands. This will ensure these lands stay productive and
profitable for future generations. And we enact policy that helps
American agriculture continue to diversify--including becoming a larger
player not only in our food security, but also in our energy security.
This bill does just that. This bipartisan work product--aptly named
the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008--sets a strong and secure
direction for our food, conservation and energy future.
The bill has broad support from virtually every corner of my State of
Idaho, and every corner of the Nation.
Congress has heard from rural farmers to urban food banks calling for
passage of this vital piece of legislation.
Mr. President, 500 farm, conservation, nutrition, consumer, and
religious groups sent a letter supporting passage of the farm bill
conference report.
These groups--with one voice--recognized that the bill ``makes
significant farm policy reforms, protects the safety net for all of
America's food producers, addresses important infrastructure needs for
specialty crops, increases funding to feed our nation's poor, and
enhances support for important conservation initiatives.''
It is not a perfect bill--we all will admit this--but it is a great
bill. I commend my colleagues for their work.
The President has stated his intention to veto this bill. It is not
often that I so strongly disagree with our Commander in Chief, but on
this I must. There are too many great things in this bill to deny its
passage over a few areas of disagreement, too many important things for
my State of Idaho, and for the Nation.
We began several years ago to ensure that specialty crops were
adequately recognized in this new farm bill. We now have a new title
devoted to horticulture and organic agriculture. It dedicates
approximately $3 billion for specialty crop, pest and disease,
nutrition, research, trade and conservation priorities important to
this vital industry that represents nearly half of all crop cash
receipts in our country, including: $466 million for Specialty Crop
Block Grants to support local efforts to enhance competitiveness of
local products; $1 billion to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Snack Program to all 50 States--which will help our school children
develop healthy eating habits; $377 million for a pest and disease
program to combat costly damage to crops such as our famous potatoes;
$230 million for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative to address food
safety, mechanization, plant breeding, and other priorities; $59
million for trade assistance and market promotion to maintain and grow
our international markets; and many other programs.
Idaho's famous potatoes, our burgeoning table grape and wine grape
industry, our apples and onions and carrots and nursery and ornamental
crops--and this just touches the surface of both our current production
and our potential to continue to diversify.
Now, it should be noted that this is only one part of the effort to
ensure the competitiveness of our specialty crop industry. The next
step is to ensure that we have an adequate workforce to conduct the
labor in which the average American refuses to participate. The
harvesting of those healthy fruits and vegetables--this, I contend, is
as important, or more important, than these ``competitiveness''
priorities that we have finally set forward in the farm bill. So our
work is not done.
And I could go on for a great deal of time, talking about: the
commodity programs that create a vital safety net for our wheat,
barley, peas, lentils, chickpeas, oilseeds, sugar, wool producers, and
so on; the conservation programs that will help Idaho's booming dairy
industry address environmental challenges associated with their growth,
and our crop producers to incorporate better stewardship practices; the
nutrition programs that are vital to improving the health of our youth;
the rural development programs that will ensure funding for things such
as water and wastewater programs, broadband, and rural housing; the
energy programs that will help us reach the 36 billion gallon RFS by
creating new incentives for cellulosic ethanol and beginning to pare
down the subsidy for corn-based ethanol; the wildlife programs, such as
the provision authored by my colleague from Idaho, that creates
incentives for endangered species recovery; the forestry, trade,
credit, disaster programs.
Those programs that will benefit the Nation--and my State of Idaho in
particular--are simply too vast to cover.

[[Page S4214]]

I thank my colleagues once again, and urge support for this vital
piece of legislation.
I will now speak, again, specifically to Idaho and to the specialty
crops provision that Senator Saxby Chambliss spoke to that is now a
very important part of agricultural policy.
We know specialty crops are about 51 percent of the gross revenue of
American agriculture, and yet they were never mentioned in agricultural
policy from a Federal level. Oh, yes, we had research and experimental
programs, and we targeted money into the specialty crop area, but the
program crops--those kinds of base crops we think about, be it cotton,
soybeans, corn, wheat--all of those were the staples, if you will, of
American agriculture, while today they do not represent the majority of
the portfolio.
That is why several years ago I thought it was critically important
we begin to work to include a specialty crop title. So we began that
effort. Today, we have completed that effort with the help of these two
Senators and a broad-based coalition to now have a title devoted to
horticulture and organic agriculture.
In my State of Idaho, specialty crops are a big deal. Many people
have heard about potatoes and Idaho. It is almost synonymous in the
minds of the average American. Yet, by definition, that is a specialty
crop. Is this a loan guarantee? No, it is not a loan guarantee. It is
an effort to advance specialty crops in a variety of ways: specialty
crop grants to enhance competitive local markets; expanding the Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program in our high schools and grade schools
in all 50 States; pest and disease management control; research
programs in these areas; initiatives for food safety, mechanization,
plant breeding and priorities to keep our edge, if you will, our world-
class edge in the area of specialty crops; along with trade assistance
and market promotion.
That is a full title. Not only did these two Senators--our chairman
and ranking member--who led the effort for us, get this in the bill,
they also got money behind it. Frankly, I thought maybe we would have
to go the first 5 years simply authorizing the program and then
beginning to fund it. But there is now substantial money behind it. It
will go a long way toward helping the specialty crop areas and organic
agriculture in the kind of farming many of our agricultural areas are
moving into.
When you get at the edge of urbanization and agriculture and
agricultural farmland, boutique farming, small specialty crop farming
oftentimes becomes the transitional form of agriculture. To keep it
profitable on the land, so we can keep the land in agricultural
production, is very important, and I think that is offered in all of
this.
I also thank my Idaho colleague, Mike Crapo, who has worked a long
while on making the Endangered Species Act and those private properties
that care for endangered habitat--to have a relationship, to have an
advantage, to incentivize landowners to appreciate the reality of
having an endangered species on their property. He has done that. Our
colleagues have recognized it. It is very important we do that.
I could go on a great deal more about the programs that are there:
the commodity programs that create a vital safety net for our wheat,
barley, peas, lentils, chickpeas, oil seeds, sugar, wool products, and
so on; conservation programs that are adjusted and important.
A great deal of effort has been focused on energy over the last
several years and agriculture's role in that. It is not by accident
that this bill has a title that recognizes energy, and that being a
part of--a very valuable part of--American agriculture. To transition
dollars out of a mature market in corn-based ethanol into cellulosics
is a major step and a correct step in the right direction.
My time is up, but I want to thank my colleagues for the effort at
hand. We had a solid vote out of the House last night. I think we are
going to have a strong vote in the Senate today on this conference
report.
Let me say in closing, to the White House and to our President: Mr.
President, you and your people have been at the table working on this
program with us for well over a year. It is time you recognize the
value of this program, what has been put into new agricultural policy,
and support us in that effort.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes--and maybe more if he
needs it--to the Senator from North Dakota, who has been so
instrumental in getting us to this point.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Acting President pro tempore,
and I especially thank the chairman of this committee, Senator Harkin.
I said last night that without his vision, we would not have a vehicle
of this quality that is this forward looking. I think now of the
chairman of the committee as the father of a new conservation movement
in this country because it was the steady pressure from the chairman of
the committee that has pushed us in a new direction for farm policy,
one far more oriented toward conservation. I believe in future years
Chairman Harkin will be looked upon as somebody who led a fundamental
reorientation of agriculture policy, and he will be recognized as
someone who broke the path for this new direction, and he deserves
enormous credit for it.
I also again thank the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, who is a
pro's pro. If ever you were to want a partner in a very complicated
endeavor, one in which trust among colleagues was absolutely essential
to an outcome, you would want Senator Chambliss involved because his
word is like gold. All of us who have dealt in difficult negotiations
know how critically important that is.
I also salute his superb staff: Martha Scott Poindexter, and Vernie
Hubert, who played such a critical role in advancing this legislation.
At the same time, I want to recognize the staff of the chairman: Mark
Halverson, who I said last night has actually gone gray in this
exercise--that is how much he has put into it--and Susan Keith, who has
played a central role in the developing of the policy, deserves our
credit as well.
I also recognize Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, for the extraordinary contribution he has made throughout.
He has provided the kind of leadership you would hope for in an
endeavor of this complexity, and I will be forever in his debt for what
he has done for not only production agriculture but what he did to
construct the financing of this bill that made it possible to achieve
widespread bipartisan support.
Certainly I thank his ranking member, Senator Grassley, who played
such a critical role as well.
I conclude my thank-yous by again thanking my staff: Tom Mahr, my
legislative director, who is exceptional and extraordinary and whose
intelligence and good judgment have made such an important contribution
to this result; and certainly to my lead negotiator, Jim Miller, who,
as I said last night, is encyclopedic in his knowledge, but also wise
in his construct of policy, and especially in his dealing with people,
including me. Jim, I deeply appreciate the extraordinary sacrifices you
and your family have made to help us write this bill. And finally, I
thank Scott Stofferahn, my other lead negotiator, who also has a deep
knowledge of farm policy, and who played such a key role in the
disaster provisions that themselves represent significant reform.
Let me conclude by saying: Why a bill at all? Well, because our major
competitors have much more ambitious support for their producers than
we have for ours. This is a fact. The Europeans are providing more than
three times as much support to their producers than we provide to ours.
If we pulled the rug out from under our producers, it would be a
calamity for farmers and ranchers in this country. Where does the money
go? Well, this chart shows it I think as well as any could. Two-thirds
of the money in this bill goes for nutrition. This is misnamed when we
call it a farm bill. This is a food bill. This is an energy bill
because it helps reduce our dependence on foreign energy, a critically
important priority for this country, and it is a conservation bill.
Conservation of our natural resources is critically important to the
future.

[[Page S4215]]

The other point I wished to make in conclusion is that this bill is
paid for. It is pay-go-compliant. These are not my estimates; these are
not the Agriculture Committee's estimates, these are the professional
estimates of the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on
Taxation, which show this budget saves $67 million--not a lot of money,
but nonetheless it does not add to the deficit; in fact, it slightly
reduces it. It saves $67 million over 5 years, and it saves $110
million over 10 years. It is completely paid for with no tax increase.
Final point: I received last night from the IRS what I think is a
very interesting set of facts. We have seen reported in the mass media
that a couple could earn $2.5 million and still get benefits. Well,
that is akin to the chance of getting struck by lightning because it
turns out there are no tax returns in the entire country between $1
million and $1,250,000 that would have farm income below $750,000 and
nonfarm income below $500,000. Zero. So all these press reports they
have written about how millionaires are going to be able to qualify,
they are wrong because there are no people in those rarified
categories. You would have to have $750,000 of farm income and $500,000
of nonfarm income and both husband and wife would have to be in
precisely those categories. Do you know what the problem with all those
stories is? There are no people in those categories. That is not my
report; that is the report from the Internal Revenue Service.
Again, I wish to close by thanking those who have provided such
extraordinary leadership, and I would be remiss in not mentioning Harry
Reid, who played behind the scenes a very quiet but strong leadership
role in helping us bring together all the people necessary to get this
bill done. We should also thank the Speaker of the House on the other
side and certainly the chairman, Chairman Peterson, who gave blood,
sweat, and tears to this effort, and our own Congressman Earl Pomeroy,
the only Member serving on both the Ways and Means Committee and the
Agriculture Committee, who made an important contribution to helping us
get a breakthrough in the Ways and Means Committee on the financing.
This is good legislation. It is good for the country and certainly
good for my State but also fair to the taxpayers of this country
because it is paid for, and it represents the most dramatic reform
since the 1949 act itself. That is a fact.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota, Senator Coleman, who also has played a very valuable role in
crafting this bill. He has been a strong member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee and a great advocate for not just the farmers and
ranchers in Minnesota but farmers and ranchers all across America.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Georgia. Along
with all the thanks that have been set forth by the Senator from North
Dakota, I wish to thank the Senator from North Dakota.
I went to Lake Bronson in northwest Minnesota in 2005, and the room
was filled with family farmers who were talking about disaster
assistance. We look at the farm bill--and today we are at a time when
commodity prices are high. Folks look at that and say: Why do we need a
safety net? Why do we need a farm bill? Two years ago, I had people who
were struggling. The pain and fear on their faces was something I wish
I had a picture of that I could show you.
My colleague from North Dakota has been a champion--a champion--for
ensuring that there is a safety net, particularly regarding disaster
assistance. With all the partisan divide we have in this body, here we
have an example where it is not about partisan politics; it is about
doing the right thing. Folks have dirt under their fingernails who are
helping provide the safest, most affordable food supply in the world,
and we are talking about a safety net. My colleague from North Dakota
has been a tremendous champion, and I wish to express my thanks.
Also, I see the chair of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who
has also been involved in providing the kind of safety net that when
bad things happen, we are going to be proud of this bill; we will be
proud. So I wish to express my deep appreciation for the continuous
effort that finally has yielded some fruit right here. It will be a
shame if we don't make sure this becomes law.
These are tough times right now. Folks are worried about their jobs,
they are worried about the cost of food, they are worried about the
cost of energy. I don't need an economist to tell me whether we are in
a recession or talk to Minnesota families and business owners to know
folks are worried out there. We need something that promotes job
growth.
I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to work with me to pass one
of the most critical economic stimulus packages this body will have a
chance to vote on all year. This is a balanced proposal, both ensuring
the viability of a key economic sector--agriculture--and helping the
many Americans who are struggling to put food on the table. It is a
farm bill that we will soon vote to send to the President. At only 1.9
percent of the Federal budget, this farm bill will have enormous
impact--providing, as I said, a safety net for American agriculture
that in turn employs one out of five Americans and contributes roughly
$3.5 trillion a year to the U.S. economy. In my State of Minnesota,
agriculture generates $55 billion in economic activity and underpins
367,000 jobs.
We labeled this bill, as folks have said, a farm bill, when in
reality it is a food bill, a nutrition bill. Over 66 percent goes to
the nutrition safety net. We have all seen the rise in foreclosures and
the impact of food prices depleting our food shelters. Families are
being hit hard right now. This farm bill helps meet the increased
needs. It provides an additional $10 billion above baseline to
nutrition.
As the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, I worked hard to
see that nutrition programs--and the Emergency Food Assistance Program,
EFAP, in particular--saw substantial increased funding. Well, we got
it. The farm bill conference agreement will provide an additional $1.3
billion for our food banks. I have been to Second Harvest and Heartland
in St. Paul. The needs are great, and we are meeting those needs today.

The Food Stamp Program receives an almost $8 billion boost in this
bill. Our Nation is too prosperous not to lend a helping hand when it
is needed.
Despite the importance of the farm bill safety net for hungry
families, most of the attention is centered on the commodity programs.
Commodity prices are high, critics say. The farmers are doing well. Why
should they get a safety net? The reality is the critics don't
understand agriculture. They don't understand that although the
importance of agriculture to our economy is certain, the survival of
individual farm families is not. Once again, the farm bill supports a
sector of the American economy that provides millions of jobs, and it
is insulting to farmers who put their necks on the line every year to
wake up with the Sun and work all day to say they should be able to
farm without a safety net.
I urge my colleagues to step into the shoes of one of my Minnesota
farmers for a moment. We see high prices in the world market today, but
we have no way of knowing whether the drought in Australia is going to
continue or whether the consumption habits in countries on the other
side of the world will change. Input costs for diesel and fertilizer
are going through the roof. Meanwhile, depending on where your farm
lies, Minnesota weather has kept you off the tractor, threatening your
yields, and not knowing whether you will even have a product to sell
for those high prices.
What price is too high for a safety net that keeps farmers, such as
those in Minnesota, farming, despite all the uncertainty that allows
the agricultural economic engine to continue generating trillions of
dollars? How about 0.27 percent of the Federal budget? That is what
this bill's commodity title costs. By the way, this bill's safety net
is based on the structure of the 2002 farm bill that costs $20 billion
less than expected.
From a jobs perspective, this bill is a bargain, and from a commodity
payment reform perspective, this bill is historic. I firmly believe we
should

[[Page S4216]]

eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in farm programs and try to get the
Ted Turners of the world out of the commodity payment business. At the
end of the day, no bill is perfect, but this bill is something we can
be proud of.
This bill will prevent payments from going to nonfarmers with an
adjusted gross income over $500,000, an 80-percent reduction from
current law; repeal the triple-entity rule, reducing title I benefits
by 50 percent for some producers. We require direct attribution of all
benefits to natural persons so we know exactly where it is going--100
percent transparency. We explicitly prevent farm benefits from ever
going to a deceased person. There are other reforms. I could go on and
on.
I read a headline the other day: ``Fiscal Hawks Eye Farm Bill.'' They
should, because this is a fiscally responsible piece of legislation
that delivers big bang for the buck.
When I talked with my farmers, again, they told me the 2002 farm bill
had the right safety net, it just needed to be improved. And in this
conference report, that is what we do. Building on the existing safety
net, the bill updates target prices and marketing loan rates for key
Minnesota commodities such as wheat, barley, and soybeans. For sugar
beet farmers who have been waiting 15 years for updated loan rates,
there will finally be an increase. Minnesota's dairy farmers will be
relieved to hear the payment rate for the MILC Program will return to
45 percent. I have appreciated Senator Leahy's leadership on this
issue.
In addition to tweaking the current safety net, this farm bill also
creates entirely new programs that American farmers desperately need.
One I have talked about: permanent agriculture disaster assistance. The
other is about sugar to ethanol. I take great pride in the sugar-to-
ethanol provision in this bill. This was a proposal that was once met
with indignation when I first raised it a few years ago. Even some
folks in Minnesota sugar country said it couldn't be done. But I
believed then as I believe now--and clearly the conference report lays
this out--that it only makes sense to take excess sugar from trade
agreements, get it off the market, and use it to help address our
dependence on foreign oil. I saw what Brazil was achieving with oil
independence, largely as a result of the production of sugar ethanol.
The technology for sugar ethanol isn't out of reach. It is at our
fingertips. U.S. sugar producers now share this vision and when this
sugar ethanol program is implemented, we will be able to quickly add
more diversity to our economic food stocks. We have to end our
dependence on foreign oil. We have to stop sending billions of dollars
out of this country into the pockets of thugs and tyrants, such as
Ahmadinejad and Chavez, and we need to do it again with the renewables
being a part of it. This bill does it.
The renewable energy vision doesn't stop there. It looks to the
future by paving the way for the next generation of biofuels:
cellulosic ethanol. Included in this bill is a program I have supported
to promote the production, harvesting, and processing of biomass. The
bill's biomass loan program will prioritize local ownership--local
ownership--so it is not the fat cats on Wall Street, as some say, but
it is folks in our local communities who will benefit from America's
energy independence movement, which is renewables, which is biofuels.
On the tax side, there will be a $1 production tax credit for
cellulosic ethanol. All in all, this bill provides $1.2 billion in new
energy investment.
This conference report is a real victory for Americans fighting
hunger and working to feed the Nation, but it is also a victory for
bipartisanship. I wish to thank the chairman, Senator Harkin, Senator
Conrad, and Senator Baucus for committing to a bipartisan process from
the very start and working with me throughout this process. It has been
a pleasure to sit across from them and my colleague, Senator Chambliss,
and I appreciate the work they have done to produce something this
Nation needs right now.
I am disappointed the President intends to veto this bill. If he does
that, that is a mistake. I will work hard with my colleagues to
override that veto. This country needs this farm bill. I urge my
colleagues to join with me in supporting this bill.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am going to yield 10 minutes to the
Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus. Before I do, let me publicly
thank Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, who is
also a very valuable member of our Agriculture Committee, for all his
help on this farm bill. I can honestly say we wouldn't be here today
had it not been for the effort and the work of Senator Baucus and of
course his ranking member, my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to
come up with the funds we needed not by raising taxes but by closing
loopholes and thereby saving some money that they were able to give us
so we could meet our needs in this farm bill. Senator Baucus and I came
to Congress together in 1974. We were classmates. We have been friends
throughout all these years.
I thank Senator Baucus for all of his diligence also in attending all
of the meetings of our conferences which went on and on for hours at a
time. He was always there as a valuable member giving his input into
getting us to this point. The farmers and ranchers of Montana and the
people who live in rural communities in Montana have no stronger voice,
no better champion for them than the senior Senator from Montana. I
publicly thank him for all of his help on this bill.
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. First, I deeply thank my good friend from Iowa, Mr.
Harkin. It has been a wonderful experience working the conference on
the farm bill where everybody worked together--both sides of the
aisle--and, frankly, both bodies. Basically, there were eight members
of the conference, led by Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, who
were also invaluable. All of the core members of the conference could
go on and on about how great everybody was to work with. I have not
experienced anything like this before.
Mr. President, I am glad the Senate debated the farm bill. I am proud
we will pass a strong farm bill. This farm bill is very important to my
home State of Montana and for farmers and ranchers across America.
But too few Americans realize how important America's farmers and
ranchers are to the economy and the security of this country.
As we finish debate on the farm bill I want to take the opportunity
to discuss how important a robust American agriculture sector is.
I also want to address some of the criticisms aimed at America's
farmers and ranchers.
Over the last few years, major newspapers and Washington special
interest groups have been busy demeaning our Nation's farmers and
ranchers.
The articles come with some pejorative titles, such as ``High Plains
Grifters,'' ``Farmers at the Trough,'' and ``Hungry Kids, Greedy
Farmers.''
These attacks are disappointing to many of us who have worked hard
over the years to enact successful, supportive agriculture policy.
But there is a wide gulf between the claims being made in these
articles and the reality of what is going on in farm and ranch country.
The articles waver between portraying farmers and ranchers in
completely opposite ways. Either the corporate businessman leaching off
the Government dole or or the hayseed farmer unable to compete in the
market economy without a handout.
Either the corporate businessman leaching off the Government dole or
the hayseed farmer unable to compete in the market economy without a
handout.
These portrayals are disappointing to me and disheartening to rural
America. And they are false.
I know that in this high-tech age it is tempting to downplay the
importance of those who put food on our table and clothes on our back.
But the better part of history would teach us to avoid the temptation.
The portrayals also inaccurately depict the agriculture economy while
entirely missing the underlying problems that plague farmers and
ranchers.
One common attack on U.S. farm policy is that it is no longer for the
family farm and ranch, but rather has become corporate welfare.
But even the most basic of research quickly uncovers that today
nearly all

[[Page S4217]]

producers in America remain family farms and ranches not corporations
and conglomerates. In fact, only 2.2 percent of farms are nonfamily
farms.
Negative articles frequently refer to ``protectionist'' policies
intended to shield farmers and ranchers from competition and to raise
consumer prices.
One group recently stated that we should simply ignore all the
subsidies and trade barriers of other countries. Unilaterally disarm
our own farmers and ranchers. And then sit back and enjoy the benefits
of cheaper imported food.
This makes zero sense. American consumers today spend a lower
percentage of their disposable income on food than consumers anywhere
else around the world. In fact, American families are the only families
in the world who spend less than 10 percent of their disposable income
on food.
Agriculture is also important to our economy, as became apparent
earlier this decade when farmers and ranchers helped get the country
through a manufacturing crisis.
Our farmers and ranchers managed this even as the average foreign
tariff rate on agriculture products was and remains about 62 percent,
while the United States average tariff is only around 12 percent.
President John F. Kennedy once said ``the Farmer is the only man in
our economy who buys everything at retail, sells everything he sells at
wholesale, and pays the freight both ways.'' That is true.
Farmers and ranchers are--and in my memory always have been--in the
middle of a never-ending cost squeeze. For too many years we have asked
our farmers and ranchers to do more and more and always with less.
So while all the negative news articles focus on the symptoms, they
never seem to get around to identifying and discussing the real
problems that plague our farmers and ranchers: skyrocketing costs and
stagnant returns.
The next generation of farmers and ranchers, growing up all across
rural America, has a more accurate view of what farming and ranching
life is really about than do urban newspapers and think tanks.
They see long days in the fields, unpredictability caused by
droughts, hail storms, hurricanes and floods and a low payoff at the
end of the day. Too frequently, they decide it is not worth the effort
to come back to the family farm.
That is one reason I was proud to champion the dependable, reliable
disaster program that is included in the farm bill. It is wrong when
our farmers and ranchers are forced to wait up to 3 years for a
disaster payment. We can do better for our farmers, and we can do
better for our taxpayers.
Farmers deserve a program and provides dependable, equitable relief
when disaster strikes. Taxpayers deserve a program that requires
farmers to manage their risk through crop insurance. We have done both.
As we finish debate on this farm bill, I am proud to say that my goal
has been, and will always be, to increase the net income of America's
farmers and ranchers. I want a strong agricultural economy in this
country. I want a strong, homegrown source of safe, affordable, and
abundant food and fiber.
I believe this farm bill will strengthen our farm economy. I want to
mention a couple provisions in the farm bill that will increase
producer's bottom line as well as strengthen rural America's Main
Streets.
One of the biggest reforms in this farm bill is the country-of-origin
labeling compromise. The conference report simplifies COOL and makes it
workable for both our ranchers and our packers. These changes are a
major step forward and will help as we undergo the transition this fall
to mandatory COOL. I call this COOL reform.
Another major reform we have fought for since the 1990s is allowing
interstate shipment of State-inspected meat. There is no reason our
smaller packers should not be able to sell their meat out of State.
Now, nearly 20 years later. This farm bill establishes a program that
allows smaller, State-inspected packers to market their high quality
meat nationwide. This is a huge win for ranchers, packers and rural
America.
Whether it's a dependable disaster program, COOL reform, interstate
shipment, a $10 billion bump to our nutrition programs, or a $4 billion
increase to our working-land conservation programs, there is a lot to
be proud of in this farm bill.
While the urban media creates visions of agriculture producers lining
up for Government payments, I am more worried about our next generation
of producers lining up to leave those family farms and ranches. It's so
hard and such a tough life.
The great irony in the debate that swirls around U.S. farm policy
today is that it is getting so much criticism from so many different
quarters and yet it remains one of the truly great success stories in
the world.
As with anything else, there is always room for improvement. And I
believe we have made improvements in this farm bill. But, every now and
again, especially in an age of such cynicism, I know my Montana farmers
and ranchers would like to open their papers, turn on their televisions
or radios, and just hear a simple thank you.
We really appreciate what you do to keep us clothed and fed like
nobody else in the world has ever been before.
Mr. President, Emerson wrote:

What is a farm but a mute gospel? The chaff and the wheat,
weeds and plants, blight, rain, insects, sun--it is a sacred
emblem from the first furrow of spring to the last stack
which the snow of winter overtakes in the fields.

The farm bill conference report before us today is a tribute to that
sacred emblem, that mute gospel, the farm. This bill will help to
address some of the challenges facing the farmer and rural America.
The conference report provides permanent disaster assistance for
farmers and ranchers. And the conference report also includes farm tax
reforms that fund farm tax relief as well as agricultural and trade
measures.
The tax package in the conference report will help farmers to
preserve land and to protect endangered species. It will provide tax
relief for farmers and ranchers, and it will help America find
homegrown energy independence.
The trade-related measures in the conference report accomplish a
number of vital purposes for this agriculture legislation. Trade
provisions help to fund the farm bill's provisions. And trade
provisions level the trade playing field for softwood lumber producers.
The new program in this conference report for relief from
agricultural disasters is a notable achievement. Currently, Congress
addresses agricultural disasters through ad hoc bills. Ad hoc disaster
bills are not dependable. They are never timely. And they are often
unfair.
After a disaster strikes, farmers and ranchers often have to wait
years to receive disaster assistance. We need a permanent disaster
relief program for our farmers and ranchers. We need a program that is
dependable, timely, and equitable. The new program in this conference
agreement will provide that.
Many Americans--including many leaders in Congress--say that
America's farm policy is ripe for reform. The farm bill conference
report includes important farm tax reforms.
The conference report will prevent the use of farm losses as a tax
shelter by limiting the amount of farming losses that a taxpayer may
use on nonagricultural business income. It will ensure that farmers
know their tax obligations by requiring the Commodity Credit
Corporation to always provide the IRS and the farmer with information
returns when the farmer repays a CCC market assistance loan. It will
allow farmers to pay additional self-employment taxes to qualify for
Social Security.
Taken together with a slight decrease in the ethanol tax credit and
other offsets, these reforms fully offset the tax and trade package in
this conference report.
American farmers and ranchers want to be responsible stewards of
their land. But the financial pressure to sell to developers can be
extreme. The farm bill conference report includes tax incentives to
encourage and enable private landowners to promote conservation on
their land.
The conference report provides conservation tax relief for retired
and disabled farmers. It would exempt CRP payments to these individuals
from self-employment taxes. And it would keep these payments from
reducing their Social Security or disability payments.

[[Page S4218]]

Nearly two-thirds of endangered and threatened species are found on
private lands. So the conference report establishes a tax deduction for
the cost of landowners' actions to implement recovery plans under the
Endangered Species Act.
More than 10 million acres of conservation easements are held by land
trusts nationwide, many of them donated. The enhanced charitable tax
deduction for conservation easements has proven to be a valuable
incentive for making these kinds of gifts. So the conference report
extends the enhanced deduction for conservation easements.
The conference report also includes important provisions to protect
American timber jobs and American lands. This conference report will
help the American timber industry to remain globally competitive. And
it will help to keep timber land from being sold for development.
America's farming families sacrifice a lot to feed this country. The
farm bill conference report includes a number of tax relief provisions
to help them to start farming, help them to stay financially afloat,
and help to make the Tax Code fairer for those who make a living
working the land.
The conference report improves ``Aggie Bonds.'' These are tax-exempt
bonds that provide low-interest loans for first-time farmers and
ranchers.
Agricultural chemicals and pesticides purchased for legitimate uses
are increasingly vulnerable to theft because of the drug trade and
national security threats. The conference report provides support for
agricultural businesses by providing a credit for the costs of
protecting these agricultural chemicals and pesticides.
Some State water rules keep farmers and ranchers from selling their
land when they need to or want to. The conference report will allow the
tax-free exchange of stock that represents a holding of water rights.
This will allow this stock to be treated like real property under
section 1031 of the Tax Code.
As summer approaches, American families are paying higher prices than
ever for gasoline. Our country needs to break its dependence on foreign
oil and fossil-based fuels. And America's agricultural sector can help,
with homegrown energy solutions.
Cellulosic biofuels can be produced from agricultural waste,
woodchips, switchgrass, and other nonfood feedstocks such as brewer's
spent grains. With an abundant and diverse source of feedstocks
available, cellulosic biofuels hold tremendous promise as a homegrown
alternative to fossil-based fuels.
But because cellulosic biofuels are very expensive to make,
government assistance can help to spur these fuels to commercial
viability. The farm bill conference report includes a new, temporary
production tax credit for cellulosic biofuels. The credit will be worth
up to $1.01 per gallon. And it will be available through December 31,
2012.
The farm bill conference report also contains a number of trade-
related measures. Enforcement of the softwood lumber agreements is one
of these provisions. Timber is an important agricultural product. And
America both produces and imports significant amounts of timber-related
products, including softwood lumber.
As the downturn in the housing market continues to hurt American
softwood lumber producers, America's trading partners must be held to
fair trade standards for softwood lumber.
The conference report includes an importer declaration program that
will require American importers of softwood lumber to ensure that their
imports are consistent with America's international agreements. The
softwood lumber provision will also force the administration to take
affirmative steps to enforce American softwood trade agreements.
And, Mr. President, this is a good conference report. We should pass
it, and send it to the President.
Let us pay tribute to that sacred emblem, that mute gospel, the
American farm. Let us address the challenges facing the farmer and
rural America. And let us pass this much-needed conference report.
I have never been more proud of what all you do in helping to provide
food and fiber for America.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, my good
friend for all these years. We first came here in 1974. I thank him for
working diligently to make sure we had funding for this bill and some
tax provisions we had in this bill that help correct inequities we did
in the past. I thank the Senator. I will have more to say.
I have other speakers we need to recognize. I yield 4 minutes to the
Senator from New Mexico.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will start by
congratulating Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss for their good work
on this legislation, and also Senator Baucus. I know Senator Conrad
also had a very important role in completing this legislation. This is
a good bill for New Mexico, a good bill for the Nation. I plan to vote
for the conference report.
Mr. President, I am pleased with the numerous provisions in this bill
that help promote specialty crops like chile and pecans, conserve
natural resources, invest in food and nutrition for children, increase
production of advanced biofuels, promote broadband service in rural
areas and provide fresh fruits and vegetables for schools. The bill
includes the consensus language I support on country-of-origin labeling
of meat and vegetables.
I also appreciate the conferees including a provision authorizing a
new Southwest Border Regional Commission. I originally introduced the
Southwest Border Authority bill, which created this Commission, in
2002. I have been working since then with Senators Boxer, Feinstein,
and Hutchison toward its passage. I would also like to commend the work
of Congressman Silvestre Reyes, who championed the bill in the House.
The new commission will give the Southwest border region the ability to
coordinate economic activity and innovation. There can be no question
that the Southwest border is an area of tremendous promise and economic
activity. Unfortunately, this region has long suffered from a lack of
coordinated effort among and between the border counties. The Southwest
Border Regional Commission will, for the first time, provide the tools
and personnel necessary to harness the opportunity in the area and
create a dynamic economy that will benefit the entire Nation.
Nevertheless, there are provisions in this bill that cause me
concern. The dairy industry is New Mexico's single most important
agricultural commodity. My State is currently the Nation's ninth
largest dairy State and sixth in total cheese production. Dairy
producers in my State see little in the bill to help them deal with
today's high production costs and believe this bill will hurt them. It
is unfortunate that the bill extends and expands a subsidy program
called the milk income loss contract at a cost of $1.6 billion over 5
years. I led the opposition to the MILC subsidy in the 2002 farm bill
and voted against the extension of it in 2006. I do believe the program
unfairly favors producers in only a few States and is not a good use of
taxpayers' money.
I am also disappointed that the conferees did not include my
bipartisan provision that promoted water conservation for producers in
the Ogallala aquifer. The Ogallala aquifer is a critical source of
groundwater for agricultural and municipal uses. My voluntary program
would have helped slow the rapid depletion of this vital resource. In
place of my provision, the bill has a new Agriculture Water Enhancement
Program. I intend to work with USDA to ensure that priority is given to
States and agricultural producers in the Ogallala region to coordinate
Federal assistance with State programs and to encourage cooperation
among States in implementing conservation programs and efficient use of
water.
Let me conclude my statement by spending a minute or two talking
about the provision in this bill to expand trade preferences for Haiti,
and the situation in Haiti more broadly.
Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. According to
United Nations Development Programme data, approximately 76 percent of
Haiti's population subsists on under $2 per day and 55 percent on under
$1 per day. As much as three-fifths of the population is unemployed or
underemployed. One in five Haitian children is malnourished.
Since late 2006, President Preval, in conjunction with the United
Nations

[[Page S4219]]

Mission for the Stabilization of Haiti, or MINUSTAH, has made real
progress in reclaiming the streets from the toughest gangs in Cite
Soleil and other Port-au-Prince slums. Last month's food riots--and the
dismissal of Prime Minister Alexis, and the Haitian parliament's
rejection of Ericq Pierre, the Inter-American Development Bank official
nominated to replace him--now threaten to reverse these hard-won gains.
On balance, though, for the first time in many years, Haiti has a
real opportunity to build a future. And we owe it to the Haitian people
to help them in this task--partly for reasons of preserving stability
in the Caribbean, and partly to provide an alternative to emigrating to
the U.S., but mostly because it is the right thing to do.
As part of this ongoing commitment, we must take two immediate
actions to consolidate stability by fostering economic growth in Haiti.
I am pleased that one of these steps is taken by this farm bill.
The HOPE-II Act contained in this conference report has significant
potential to create jobs in Haiti's apparel sector by expanding its
duty-free access to the U.S. market. It also gives Haiti a degree of
access to ``third country'' fabric, whose low cost makes the business
case for opening an apparel factory in Haiti much more attractive. And
it helps Haiti to adopt best practices on working conditions by
authorizing a program under which the International Labor Organization
assesses the apparel industry's compliance with core labor standards
and Haitian labor law. I would like to commend my colleague, Chairman
Rangel, for his efforts to get this provision included, and my
colleagues Senators Corker and Harkin and Nelson from Florida, for all
of their hard work and attention to the urgent needs of Haiti.
The second immediate action we must take is to address the food
crisis in Haiti. I am pleased that the upcoming emergency supplemental
appropriations bill will call for significantly increased levels of
food aid. I urge my colleagues and the Bush administration to place a
priority on Haiti when allocating that aid. Specifically, Haiti needs,
at bare minimum, $75 million in food aid. I also believe we must
continue working with the administration to ensure that our food aid is
dispersed as efficiently as possible by allowing at least 25 percent of
it to be used for purchases of food in developing countries.
We must not let this pivotal moment slip out of our hands. In an era
when too many countries around the world distrust the U.S., let us work
together to build goodwill among the people of Haiti.
Again, I thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Chambliss for all their
good work on this bill. I will support the conference report, and I
hope it will soon be passed into law.
Again, I congratulate my colleagues for the good work on this bill,
and I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Georgia has 28
minutes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. At this time I yield 5 minutes to another very
valuable member of the committee, a Senator who has had an awful lot of
input into this bill, both policywise and otherwise, Senator Thune of
South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Georgia and the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, for their extraordinary leadership on this bill and for the
imposing staff work that was involved in bringing this to conclusion.
At long last we are going to have a farm bill.
This farm bill is important for a lot of reasons. I don't have time
to get into all the details of why I think this bill is important, but
it does preserve a strong safety net. It does provide a permanent
disaster title, which is something many of us have sought to achieve
for some time, and fought long and hard for. It has conservation
provisions that increase funding for certain conservation programs.
On balance, this is a farm bill that is reflective of all the needs,
the desires, the priorities of the Members--not only of the Agriculture
Committee but also of this Congress. I think it will move agriculture
forward in a positive direction. I congratulate the leaders on the
committee and those who have been involved all through this process for
their hard work in bringing us to where we are today.
I want to make one point, though, because I think if there is
anything in this bill as important as any of it, it is the energy title
in this farm bill. The reason for that is we have an energy crisis in
this country. You cannot go anywhere in my State of South Dakota, I
daresay anywhere in this country, without hearing people talk about the
high cost of gasoline. There is one thing we have done that is positive
in terms of reducing the cost of oil, reducing the cost of gasoline in
this country, and that is biofuels, bioenergy.
There is a lot of debate. I want to set one thing straight for the
record because there has been a lot of criticism lately of corn-based
ethanol and we talk about this whole food versus fuel debate going on
in the country today. So people know what the facts are, here are the
facts. In 2002, the United States grew 9 billion bushels of corn. Of
that, we turned 1.1 billion bushels into 3 billion gallons of ethanol.
In 2007, farmers grew 13.1 billion bushels of corn and turned 3
billion bushels of it into 8 billion gallons of ethanol, leaving 10.1
billion bushels for food, more than the 7.9 billion bushels in 2002.
If you do the math, despite a nearly threefold increase--growth--in
the corn ethanol industry, the net corn food and feed product of the
United States increased 34 percent since 2002.
Even though we dramatically increased the amount of ethanol we are
producing in this country, we still, because of the great hard work of
our farmers in this country and the productivity and increases in
technology, produced dramatically more corn, so much so that we have 34
percent more corn in 2007 than we did in 2002, notwithstanding the
threefold increase in renewable fuels.
I say all that to set the record straight because there is a real
debate going on in this country about whether ethanol is to be blamed
for higher food prices. Frankly, oil has way more to do with the cost
of food and everything else we purchase in this country than does
ethanol. But that is not enough. We can do a lot more. The reason the
energy title in this bill is so important is because it moves us in a
new direction. The next generation of biofuels is what we call
cellulosic ethanol, made from biomass, made from wood chips, made from
corncobs, made from switchgrasses and other types of grasses that are
grown in abundance on the prairies of South Dakota and other places
across this country.
We have an enormous opportunity here to not shrink the amount of
biofuels we have in this country, but to grow the amount of biofuels
because it is the one thing that is keeping gas prices under control.
According to an analysis that was done by Merrill Lynch that was
reported upon in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks back, if it
were not for ethanol, gas prices and oil prices in this country would
be 15 percent higher than they are today. That is about 50 cents a
gallon for gasoline. We do not need less volume of biofuels, we need
more volume of biofuels. That is why the energy title in this farm bill
is so important, because it provides important incentives for the next
generation of biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, to encourage farmers to
grow energy-dedicated crops that can be converted into cellulosic
ethanol. As we transition from corn-based ethanol to cellulosic
ethanol, we have an incredible opportunity for this country to become
less dependent upon foreign sources of energy, to grow our domestic
supply of energy in this country in a way that is environmentally
clean, in a way that helps support the economy of the United States of
America and does not ship billions and billions of dollars every single
year outside the United States to purchase imported oil.
This is an important farm bill for a lot of reasons, but the energy
title is critical and I hope my colleagues here in the Senate, if for
no other reason, will support it because of its energy provisions.
I see my time has expired, so I yield the remainder of my time and
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington State,
Senator Murray.

[[Page S4220]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, farming is a critical part of the economy
in my home state of Washington. Many people don't know it, but
Washington is the Nation's 11th-largest farm State. And we are the
third-largest producer of fruits and vegetables--which are also known
around here as specialty crops. So the farm bill we are considering
today will help keep my state healthy and strong. It will help them
find markets for their crops here and abroad--and it will help fund
research to ensure they have healthy and safe crops in the future. This
isn't a perfect bill. But it is a very good bill for Washington state
farmers. And that is why I rise today.
The biggest victory for Washington state in this bill is the more
than $3 billion to help farmers who grow apples, cherries, grapes,
potatoes, asparagus, and many other fruits and vegetables. This is the
first time Congress has passed a farm bill that includes comprehensive
provisions addressing the needs of specialty crop farmers. This
legislation will really help our farmers by carrying out programs that
I have been pushing for over the last several years. And I want to
thank my colleagues, Senators Harkin, Conrad, Chambliss, Baucus, and
Grassley for their hard work on this bill.
The farm bill conference report includes $224 million in block
grants, which will allow local fruit and vegetable growers to increase
the competitiveness of their crops and $15 million in badly needed aid
for asparagus farmers. Asparagus farmers in my home State--and
elsewhere--are struggling to compete with a flood of cheap asparagus
being imported from Peru. I worked very hard through conference
negotiations to make sure that this market loss program stayed in the
bill, and I am very grateful to our conference chairs for keeping it
in.
This bill helps farmers find new markets abroad for their crops,
which will allow them to better compete in the global marketplace. For
example, it increases funding for the Technical Assistance for
Specialty Crops program, which helps our farmers overcome barriers that
threaten our exports. And, farmers in my home State are really eager
for this program. Last fall, I held a listening session in Yakima, WA,
where I heard from cherry farmers who are trying to develop a new
market in Japan. And this bill would help them build on those efforts.
I am especially pleased that this bill includes $20 million for the
National Clean Plant Network. Farmers who grow apples, peaches, and
grapes depend on this program to ensure we have a source of clean plant
stock to help prevent the spread of viruses. A single infected plant or
grape vine can wipe out an entire established orchard or vineyard. So
this is very important. Washington State University has been leading
the effort to ensure our farmers have virus- and disease-free plant
stock. And I am proud that they will be an important part of this
national network.
Now, a lot of people don't realize that the farm bill isn't just
about farmers. Well over half of this bill authorizes funding for
school lunches, food stamps, and other nutrition programs. And since
obesity is one of the biggest nutrition challenges we face in this
country, this bill specifically targets funding to ensure that families
receiving food stamps, and kids getting school lunches will have more
access to fresh fruits and vegetables. My home State of Washington
would get $9 million in nutrition program funding next year alone.
And finally, this bill will be a lifeline for food banks and other
emergency food providers, which have struggled with rising food prices
and the downturn in the economy.
As I said from the beginning, this bill isn't perfect. I wish that we
were able to include important improvements to the safety net that is
so critical to our wheat farmers. I have been working for several years
with wheat farmers in Washington State to improve the countercyclical
payment program to really make it work for them. Unfortunately, we
couldn't make significant changes in this bill. But I am happy that it
continues to provide a safety net for our wheat growers.
Now, I have just walked through numerous examples of how this farm
bill is good for my State--and for the Nation. And that is why I am so
disappointed to hear President Bush say that he plans to veto it. At
the end of the day, none of us got everything we wanted in this bill--
including the administration. But the conference report does do a lot
of good. It helps farmers, who are struggling as gas prices soar and
foreign competition threatens their livelihoods. And it helps millions
of low-income families, who are struggling just to put food on the
table.
Mr. President, we have got to get beyond politics on this. Making
sure that our farmers and our kids both benefit from investments in the
programs in this bill is absolutely critical. We are not just talking
about numbers. These programs can make or break people's livelihoods.
And I urge my colleagues to support them by approving this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I receive
4 minutes of the time of the majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the House of
Representatives passed the farm bill conference report by a vote of 318
to 106. The Senate will vote in a few minutes and we expect to have an
overwhelming majority in favor of this farm bill. I thank Senator
Harkin for his great leadership, and Senator Chambliss--it was a
bipartisan effort--as well as Senator Conrad and Senator Baucus, all
the members of the committee, and I want to take special note of my
good friend Representative Collin Peterson from the State of Minnesota
who showed such leadership in the House.
America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as
an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect
struggling family farmers from the financial shocks of volatile weather
and equally volatile commodity prices.
Almost 75 years later the reasons for maintaining that strong safety
net are still there. The weather is still volatile, as we have seen
this year. Crops are still subject to blight and disease. Farming is
still a very risk-intensive business. We have seen prices going up and
down--recently down in Asia--as we have seen investment and speculation
in the farm market. I think it is very important that we have a safety
net as we look at our food security so we don't get in the same place
as we are with our lack of energy security.
I want to mention a few important things to my State in this bill--
the sugar program, the dairy program, and the conservation program. I
know we have people here in attendance from Pheasants Forever. The
conservation groups worked very hard on this--the nutrition assistance.
But I especially wanted to mention the part of the bill that I worked
on, the cellulosic piece, which looked to the next generation of
biofuels--looking at prairie grass, switchgrass, other forms of
biomass. As we look to, say, the country of Brazil, which is energy
efficient--energy independent, based on sugarcane--we can do it in this
country.
I believe we have to go beyond our crop-based ethanol and look at
these other forms of ethanol and this bill creates the incentives so we
can use energy crops such as switchgrass and prairie grass and do it in
a way that is consistent with conservation, which is why I am so proud
we have the support of the conservation groups that are with us today.
I was a strong proponent for reform in this bill. It didn't have
everything I asked for, as Senator Murray was discussing; no bill is
perfect. But we had significant problems in the last few years with a
small number of people--real estate developers from Florida, art
collector from San Francisco, 100 people from the Beverly Hills 90210
area code--collecting money. This bill eliminates the three-entity
rule. Also, the conferees have included substantial income limits for
those who participate in the commodity program--$500,000 in nonfarm
income, and they are banned from getting subsidies; and then third,
$750,000 for farm-related income.
Frankly, you can go a long way in Minnesota without bumping into a
farmer who made $750,000 after expenses. The reform in this bill may
not be perfect but it is a lot better than where we were before.

[[Page S4221]]

The 2002 farm bill spurred rural development by allowing farmers in
Minnesota and across the country to take risks to expand production.
Because of productivity gains and innovation, including advances in
renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill
actually came in $17 billion under budget.
As the Senate considers the conference report, it is important not to
underestimate the value of a strong bill for states such as Minnesota
where agriculture is so vital to our economy and way of life.
That is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I
support the new farm bill. It includes an increased focus on
cellulosic-based ethanol, continued support for a strong commodity
safety net and a permanent program of disaster assistance.
And, of particular importance is that we have balanced our budget in
this farm bill, with every dollar of new spending fully off-set.
Traveling around the state during the campaign I was visiting all 87
counties this year, so I have had a good opportunity to talk to farmers
around our State. They have told me that the 2002 farm bill has worked
well for them, and they wanted to see that continued.
I am very pleased that this bill continues the same basic structure
of the three-part safety net--direct payments, countercyclical payments
and marketing loans--and I am especially pleased that we have succeeded
in rebalancing the commodity programs to be more equitable to northern
crops like wheat, oats, barley, soybeans and--canola, beginning in
2010.
Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent
program of disaster assistance for farmers. I would like to thank
Senators Conrad and Baucus for their efforts to see this program
through. Farmers are tired of coming back to Congress year after year
with a tin cup in their hands.
Minnesota has been hit with drought, flooding and everything in
between over the several years, and they have had to wait years on end
for Congress to pass adhoc disaster relief bills.
The permanent program of disaster relief in this farm bill will give
farmers security moving forward, and quick relief when they need it.
This bill holds some good news for Minnesota's dairy farmers--we were
able to restore the MILC payment rate that had been cut to 34 percent,
back to 45 percent. We also added a feed cost adjuster to the MILC
program, which means that when the price of feed goes up, the payment
rate will also go up. This is really going to help dairy farmers cope
with the high cost of feed and energy.
The new farm bill is also going to work well for Minnesota's
sugarbeet growers. It raises the sugar loan rate by \3/4\ of a cent--it
may sound small to you and me, but it's a big deal to the farmers in
the Red River Valley.
We have language in the bill that will give U.S. sugar producers the
right to supply 85 percent of the domestic market each year before USDA
can allow additional sugar imports. And it creates a new sucrose-to-
ethanol program to give us a new source of energy, and provide an
outlet for potential increases in imports as a result of this
administration's trade policies.
One of my major goals for this farm bill was to include a strong
cellulosic ethanol program. Farms can and should play a bigger part in
the future of this country's energy security.
Instead of investing in oilfields of the Mideast, we should be
investing in the farmers and workers of the Midwest.
Our corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel have taken off in
Minnesota, and we are ready to expand to the next generation of
biofuels: energy from native, perennial crops like switchgrass and
prairie grass that require less fertilizer, yield more energy, and
protect soil, water and wildlife.
I was proud to draft first-of-its-kind legislation to provide farmers
with an incentive to grow cellulosic energy crops, and I would like to
thank Chairman Harkin and Chairman Peterson for working with me to
include many of my provisions in the farm bill.
Energy crops like switchgrass and prairie grass hold great promise
for farmers because they can be grown on marginal land that can't
produce a high yield of corn or soybeans, and they restore the land
while they're growing. Their deep root systems sequester carbon and put
organic material back in the soil.
Native grasses can also save fuel and fertilizer because they don't
require lots of passes with farm equipment or heavy fertilizer
applications.
The fact that these crops put carbon back in the soil and take less
fossil fuel to produce offers us the promise of producing a carbon-
neutral motor fuel for this country, which would be a huge advance in
the fight against global warming.
In short, the Biomass Energy Reserve Program is going to allow us to
expand upon corn ethanol and soy diesel to a new generation of farm-
based energy, and greater freedom from imported oil.
I am also pleased that the committee has prioritized beginning
farmers and ranchers in the credit title. There are real opportunities
today to start out in farming, especially in growing areas like organic
farming and energy production. But beginning farmers also face big
obstacles, including limited access to credit and technical assistance,
and the high price of land.
The beginning farmer and rancher programs in this farm bill provide
mentoring and outreach for new farmers, and training in business
planning and credit-building--the skills they need to succeed and stay
on the land.
So there are a lot of good things for Minnesota and the country in
this farm bill. There is, however, one critical area where I fought for
more reform, and that was in stopping urban millionaires from pocketing
farm subsidies intended for hard-working farmers.
This kind of reform is in the best interests of Minnesota farmers.
Here are the facts.
Sixty farmers collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm
bill, but none of them have been Minnesotans, even though Minnesota is
the fifth-largest agricultural State. The average income of Minnesota
farms, after expenses, is $54,000. But under the current system, a
part-time farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from
outside sources and still qualify for Federal benefits.
It made no sense to hand out payments to multimillionaires when this
money should have been targeted to family farmers.
And what we saw so clearly in the media coverage of this farm bill
was that big payments to big-city investors were undermining public
support for the entire bill, even though commodity payments account for
just 16 percent of funding in this bill.
But this bill is going to do better for our farmers by closing
loopholes and tightening income eligibility standards.
First, the new farm bill eliminates the ``three-entity rule.'' This
will cut down on abuse by applying payment limits strictly to
individuals--and married couples--and ending the practice of dividing
farms into multiple corporations to multiply payments.
Second, I am pleased to report that the conferees have included
substantial income limits for those who participate in the commodity
programs, which is an area where I fought hard for reform. What the
bill says is, if you earn more than $500,000 in nonfarm income--so if
you have a high-paying job off the farm, or income from investments, or
any other source of income off the farm in excess of $500,000--you
cannot participate in the commodity programs.
This makes good sense to me. This will take care of
multimillionaires, like David Letterman and Paul Allen of Microsoft, or
Maurice Wilder, the real-estate developer in Florida, getting farm
payments intended for family farmers.
The bill also says that if you have more than $750,000 in farm-
related income, you lose your direct payments. I think this also makes
sense. I would venture to say that any farm bringing in that much money
after expenses is of a size and scope that they no longer need the
support of taxpayers.
So the reform in this bill is not perfect, but it is a lot better
then where we were before. And I thank the conferees for taking these
important steps in the bill.
In conclusion, there are a lot of important changes in this bill, and
there is a lot that is good for rural America, and the safety net is
vital for farmers. We have made important advances in

[[Page S4222]]

conservation, and made much-needed improvements to our nutrition
programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill lays the groundwork for
farmers to play an even greater role in our country's energy security
and will advance us to the next generation of biofuels. For all of
these reasons, I will be proud to vote for this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. At this time I wish to yield up to 10 minutes to the
Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I do not like to be the one to rain on a
parade, but I am rising today to speak against the farm bill. I wish to
do it in the context of thanking the chairman and the ranking member
for their work. I think if we assume it is our job to manage the
farming industry in this country, they had very little choice but to do
what they have done and try to go through all aspects of farming and
include it in this bill. That took over 2 hours to print out. It came
out less than 2 days ago. We are getting ready to vote on it. Not one
Member of the Senate has read probably even part of it--certainly not
the whole bill. Yet I think everyone, or at least a large number of
Senators, want to leave here today saying they voted for the farm bill.
I realize nothing I can say that is wrong with the bill--whether it
violates budgets or even our own Senate rules, as far as what we are
supposed to do in conference--is going to make that much difference. I
wish to express some concerns--maybe, before I talk specifically about
the farm bill, some broader concerns.
I heard one of my colleagues yesterday say it in a pretty good way:
The Congress is comfortably sitting on a raft floating down a slow,
deep river. But some of us hear the waterfall around the corner, and it
is the waterfall I wish to talk a little bit about today.
We all need to remember our oath of office. I don't want to be
preaching to my more veteran colleagues, but our oath of office is
simply to protect and defend the Constitution. The whole point of that
is the Constitution limits the scope of what we are supposed to do at
the Federal level. It keeps us from getting involved in all aspects of
American business and social life. It limits us so that we can, in
effect, keep America free. But as we all know, we have continued to
expand the scope of the Federal Government, essentially making a
mockery of our oath of office now to the point where we are trying to
manage the education system in America and we are trying to manage the
health care system in America.
This week, we are trying to tell local and State governments how they
are to deal with their public safety officers. We are trying to manage
the farming industry in this country, which is very complex. I cannot
pretend to understand it or to tell any other Member of the Senate how
we are to manage it. But the fact is, we no longer limit the scope of
what we do at the Federal level. There is no concern in this country or
around the world that this body would not take up, and we seldom even
talk about any restrictions the Constitution might have on what we do.
We also do not limit how much we can spend. We have no requirement
that we balance our budget year to year. So we don't have to select
priorities and cut programs when we add programs. So we continue to
grow our budget, approaching now $10 trillion in debt as a Nation and
adding to that every year. Here we are at a time of war and economic
downturn, and there is nothing that is too much for us to spend. The
President has proposed $50 billion of AIDS support to Africa. That is
wonderful, but there is enough human need around the world to bankrupt
this country 100 times.
This farm bill expands spending. It does not modernize the program in
any way that does more to make the free and private market work. It
takes us deeper and deeper into managing an aspect of the private
economy, as we have done with health care and education, and every year
we get deeper into trying to manage the private sector. Our role as a
government should be to make the private sector work better, to make
freedom work for everyone and not to use problems as an excuse to
replace freedom and the private market with more Government. That is
essentially what we are doing.
I am not just jumping on the farm bill and those who have worked on
it. We know we continue to subsidize some millionaires, and we
eliminate some key payment limits. I can go through the list my staff
has given me of what is wrong with the bill. As I said before, I
realize there are provisions that solve problems throughout, that there
are constituencies for little aspects of this bill throughout. We
pulled it together, and we are going to present it now to our country.
What is wrong with the bill, frankly, has very little relevance today.
I appeal to my colleagues, I know we are not going to stop this bill,
but we do need to hear the waterfall around the corner. We do need to
accept there are some restrictions, some limits on what we are supposed
to do as a Federal Government, some need to balance our budget or to
begin to cut our debt and look at, if we are going to expand spending
in one area, where can we cut it and pay for it in another area. We are
stretched out as a country. We are on an unsustainable fiscal course.
We at least need to bring that into our debate. That is what I would
like to bring to everyone's attention today.
Again, I appreciate the chairman, the ranking member, and all those
staff members who worked so hard on this bill. But, frankly, as a
group, as a Senate, our direction to the committee and those working on
it should be to reform a system and try to figure out how we can pull
the Federal Government out of some aspects of American business. We did
not do it with this bill. We have not read it. It is crazy for us as a
Senate to pass a bill that we have not had for 2 days and have not read
that spends the hundreds of billions of dollars that this bill does.
But I do want to say I appreciate the work, but I recommend to any of
my colleagues who are thinking about the future of America to please
vote against this bill.
I yield back the remainder of my time to the ranking member from
Georgia.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield up to 4 minutes to another great
member of our Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Casey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank Chairman Harkin for
his great work and Ranking Member Chambliss for their leadership on
this bill, a very difficult piece of legislation.
Chairman Harkin was so patient with me when I kept coming to talk
about dairy farmers over and over again, as he listened and worked so
hard to help so many of our farmers in his home State of Iowa and
across the country. We are grateful for his help.
Also, I wish to mention Senator Chambliss's work and Senator Conrad,
Senator Baucus, and so many others.
On my staff, I mentioned Caryn Long, who did great work, Kasey
Gillette, who has done great work from the beginning of this process,
and Alex Davis from my staff as well. All have done great work.
Let me do some quick highlights of the bill from the perspective of
Pennsylvania but also I think from the perspective of our country
overall.
With regard to dairy, dairy farmers who lead lives of struggle every
day and have had to work under and survive under the most adverse
circumstances one could imagine, this bill is historic in the context
of what it will do to help our dairy farmers, 98 percent of whom in
Pennsylvania are family farms. For the first time, we are considering
the cost of production. I know the Presiding Officer has heard that
phrase a lot in our deliberations. But for the first time, we are
considering cost of production when we put forth programs and policies
for dairy farmers.
This farm bill strengthens the safety net provided by the Milk Income
Loss Contract, the so-called MILC Program, by adding a feed adjuster. I
won't go into the details of that, but it is going to help enormously
on the cost of production.
This is an idea I worked with many Members of the Senate on, of both
parties. Senator Specter from my home

[[Page S4223]]

State of Pennsylvania has been very concerned about our dairy farmers
as well over many years. Senator Leahy worked hard on this issue in
conference. I appreciate his work.
I am also very pleased that some of the amendments I worked on in
committee are retained, such as the mandatory daily price reporting for
dairy products, the feed and fuel cost being part of the so-called make
allowances which are very important to balance between what happens to
our farmers and what happens to processors.
Specialty crops were mentioned before. In our State, fruits,
vegetables, and other speciality crops have never had the kind of focus
this bill provides.
International food aid is part of this bill. I don't have time to go
into that, but everyone knows that prices have enveloped the world.
Almost one-fifth of the nations of the world are having problems that
relate to food and security.
States such as Pennsylvania have been underserved by the Federal Crop
Insurance Program for many years. This bill includes reforms that help
producers in these States to increase the number of acres they have
enrolled in the Crop Insurance Program.
The reform overall in this bill is very significant. There is $300
million in cuts to direct payments, reforms in the marketing loan
program, it closes loopholes, reduces program abuses, on and on. These
are changes that are made in this bill.
In terms of conservation, the Chesapeake Bay will be provided dollars
to restore this tremendous natural resource.
The Conservation Farmland Protection Program is helped enormously.
I conclude with the nutrition program. This farm bill makes
substantial investments in domestic food assistance programs and
improves the Food Stamp Program for our families. Mr. President, 1 in
10 Pennsylvanians is currently receiving food stamps, and we have
tremendous help for those families in this bill.
This is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference
report, and if the President vetoes it, we will override his veto.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from
Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this
consensus, bipartisan farm bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues,
Democratic and Republican, to show strong bipartisan support.
I support this bill fundamentally for three reasons: First, as the
last farm bill, it establishes predictability for our farmers, a stable
environment so they can plan and prosper in the future. Second, it does
that in a fiscally responsible way--no tax increases, payment limit
reform, and other reforms--to move us down the path of fiscal
responsibility. Third, it does some very crucial and important work for
Louisiana farmers in particular in a number of different areas.
In the area of sugar, we have a three-quarter of a cent loan rate
increase, the first such loan rate increase since 1985. It is long
overdue.
In the rice industry, the industry requested changes to the uniform
loan rate for different types of rice to make that more uniform and
helpful to the industry, and we have done that.
In the area of timber, there are tax provisions that reduce maximum
taxes on gains from certain timber from 20 percent, the capital gains
rate, to a maximum of 15 percent. That is enormously important.
In the area of milk, as my colleague from Pennsylvania mentioned,
there are important improvements and provisions, changes to the MILC
Program that will help domestic dairy farmers.
There are plenty of good, solid, responsible reasons to be for this
bill. Fundamentally, it will create that predictability, that stability
our farmers need to plan into the future and to prosper into the
future, which is good not just for them but for all Americans,
including Americans as consumers, which, of course, is all of us.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. I encourage
President Bush to reconsider his veto threat and not veto the bill. But
certainly, if it is necessary, I will stand and vote to support
overriding that Presidential veto. I encourage my colleagues to also be
firm in that regard.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield back the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to another valuable
member of our committee, Senator Brown from Ohio, whose signature on
this bill is the option that farmers have on the ACRE Program. I thank
him for all of his efforts in making sure we had that in the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his
terrific work as chairman of this committee, especially the work he
does on conservation, nutrition, and for family farmers.
We have for many months been debating the farm bill, legislation that
wears many hats, all of them important. It is an agriculture bill, it
is a food bill, it is an energy bill, it is a conservation bill, it is
a world development bill, and it is an economic development bill.
Melding these priorities, each one critical to our Nation's future, is
a profound accomplishment. I particularly applaud Chairman Harkin for
his work.
Last spring, I held a series of roundtables throughout Ohio and heard
directly from farmers about what this year's farm bill should look
like. They told me a safety net that lends stability to market segments
buffeted by unpredictable costs and volatile prices is essential.
Farmers need a safety net that makes sense, but it is important to
understand that farmers are not looking for a handout. Rather, farmers
are looking for assistance when prices drop or natural disasters
strike.
This bill incorporates a safety net proposal I put forward with
Senator Durbin, the Average Crop Revenue Program, which will help
family farmers in Ohio and consumers and taxpayers across the country
by strengthening and diversifying the farm safety net. For the first
time ever, farmers will be able to enroll in a program that insures
against revenue instability, which, for many farmers, makes more sense
than the traditional price-focused safety net.
Conservation programs were another frequent topic at the roundtables
I held. One point is clear: Farmers do not want Washington rhetoric
about conservation and alternative energy; they want commonsense
programs and meaningful incentives, which this bill begins to provide.
As I traveled around Ohio, I met with Mark Schwiebert, a corn farmer
in northwest Ohio, who will take advantage of the Average Crop Revenue
Election Program. By targeting overall revenue rather than simply
price, farmers can receive better protections against two things:
natural disasters--therefore, low yield--and price volatility.
I met the same week with Ralph Dull, a hog farmer from Montgomery
County who uses wind turbines to run his farm. Promoting sustainable
farm-based renewable energy, such as the wind energy that Ralph's
turbines produce, is another key element of the farm bill.
Encouraging these ventures will help expand and diversify U.S. energy
sources, while invigorating rural economies.
During a roundtable in Chillicothe, I met with fruit and vegetable
farmers who asked for more support as they provide fresh and healthy
produce to Columbus and that region of the State.
The farm bill creates a new program, the Healthy Food Enterprise
Development Center, that will connect local farmers to communities that
need access to healthy, affordable food.
During a roundtable in Wayne County, I talked with dairy farmers such
as Bryan Wolfe who told me about the difficulty he has had meeting
rising feed costs. The bill provides relief for these dairy farmers by
linking the dairy safety net to the cost of feed.
This bill does something else. It fights hunger. When the purchasing
power of food stamps erodes, so does our Nation's progress against
hunger. This bill increases food stamp benefits and indexes the
benefits to inflation. Nearly 400,000 people in Ohio will receive
additional benefits from this bill.

[[Page S4224]]

In Hocking County, OH, more than 2,000 residents went to the local food
bank in a single day. That is over 7 percent of the local population.
While we need to do more, this bill is a major step, especially in
nutrition. We need to keep our eye on McGovern-Dole to make sure these
dollars are available for nutrition all over the world.
But this bill moves us forward. Ohio's families need this farm bill,
and Ohio's rural communities deserve this farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I have one more speaker. I think
Senator Harkin probably is prepared to wrap up. While Senator Cochran
is on his way over here, let me make some comments relative to wrapping
this up. We are finally here. This has been a long process. The
Presiding Officer is a member of our committee and knows what we have
been through to get to this point. It has been a lot of hard work, a
lot of strong leadership on the part of the chairman, who has done a
terrific job, as I said earlier.
My friend Kent Conrad and I have spent countless hours together
working through this extremely complex piece of legislation. I cannot
say enough good things about his leadership, his intellect, as well as
his understanding of what good agricultural policy is all about.
I want to thank also all of the members of the conference committee
on our side, Senators Cochran, Lugar, Roberts, and Grassley. What
terrific work they did. It was a long conference, having been begun
back in December, and from December until now, we have met on a regular
basis, and decisions that have been made were sometimes extremely
difficult and very emotional. But what great leadership all of these
Senators have shown.
To the other members of the committee on my side, Senators Coleman,
Crapo, Thune, and Graham, again, we would not be where we are without
their input. I thank each of them.
I also want to say a special thanks to Majority Leader Reid and
Minority Leader McConnell. They have provided terrific leadership on
both sides of the aisle. They have been extremely cooperative in
allowing us to do the technical things we need to do, and at the same
time to push Senator Harkin and myself when we needed pushing. And we,
again, would not be where we are were it not for their strong
leadership, their cooperation. I thank each of them individually.
Following is a list of folks over at CBO I want to thank: Jim
Langley, Greg Hitz, Dave Ull and the entire ag team at CBO, as well as
Kathleen FitzGerald, Dan Hoople, Megan Carroll, Kathy Gramp, Tyler
Kruzich, Kim Cawley, Teri Gullo, Sheila Dacey, Mark Booth, Zach
Epstein, Andrew Langan, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, Burke Doherty, Amy Petz,
Susan Willie, Sunita D'Monte, Matthew Pickford, and Mark Grabowitz.
As we go through the process of putting a bill like this together, we
have to constantly call up CBO and ask them for immediate scores on
portions of the bill, and I have to say, CBO has worked overtime to
make sure they accommodated every single request we had, and they did
it on rush-hour time. They have done a great job over there. I thank
each of them.
Another thing we take for granted around here that we never should is
the staff of this Senate. I want to say a particular thanks to Dave
Schiapa and the folks on his staff, as well as to Lula Davis and the
folks on her staff. This has been a partnership that so many people
have talked about on both sides of the aisle from an Ag Committee
standpoint, but it has also been a partnership between the staff.
I do not want to leave out our folks who show up every day early and
stay late: our clerks, our Parliamentarians, who have been
unbelievable. They are always here and provide us the professional
leadership we need on the technical issues. To each of them, we say
thank you.
At this time, I want to turn to Senator Cochran before I ultimately
conclude. As I turn to Senator Cochran and give him 5 minutes, let me
say as a former chairman of this committee, he is an icon in the ag
community all across this great country. Senator Cochran has been a
dear personal friend of mine for many years before I came to the
Senate. As a friend and as somebody whom I looked up to when it comes
to agricultural policy, it is my pleasure to turn to him now and to
yield 5 minutes to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Georgia, the ranking Republican member of this committee, for his kind
words and for his hard work and diligent efforts to bring us to a
successful conclusion of this conference report.
The chairman of the Committee, Mr. Harkin, has also been relentless
and thoughtful in the way he has managed the responsibilities of the
chairman of this committee through this very difficult task.
This was not an easy task. I applaud both of them for their
leadership, their fairness, and their support for farmers' and
ranchers' interests, and truly for the interests of all Americans.
I also compliment the staff members of the committee for their
tireless work on this bill: Mark Halverson, the majority staff director
of the committee and all of his staff who worked to resolve the many
issues important to our region of the country; Martha Scott Poindexter,
a former staff member of mine who is now serving as the staff director
for Senator Chambliss, deserves high praise for the successful efforts
to help resolve the issues important to agriculture producers and the
consumers in our State of Mississippi.
I also want to thank Vernie Hubert, Alan Mackey, Hayden Milberg,
Cameron Bruett, Betsy Croker, Jane Anna Harris, Anne Hazlett, Matt
Coley, Kate Coler, Patty Lawrence, Christy Seyfert, Dawn Stump, and
Carlisle Clarke for their contributions to this effort.
This has been a team effort. I have been very fortunate to have had
the pleasure and privilege of working with all of those I mentioned in
the drafting and negotiation of this very important legislation.
Mr. President, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 strikes
a careful balance between the many important programs within the farm
bill. I am pleased that the bill continues the farm income safety net
program developed in the 2002 farm bill. Farmers in Mississippi believe
these programs have worked well to ensure an adequate support during
times of depressed prices. Currently, our farmers are fortunate to be
benefiting from strong commodities prices. However, we have learned
from past experiences, that these prices can fall as quickly as they
have risen and having a safety net in place is necessary for farmers to
make the significant investments needed to operate.
Conservation is an important part of a farm bill. The continuation of
programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Wetlands
Reserve Program, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program which
have broad participation throughout Mississippi. Farmers understand how
critical the environment is to the continuation of agriculture and the
health of the community of which they live. The increased funding for
these incentive based conservation programs will allow producers to
adapt these programs with greater success to their land and provide
real benefits for their good efforts.
The additional funding for nutrition programs will address many of
the needs facing many of America's poor, children, and elderly. The
nutrition programs authorized in this committee touch the lives of one
out of every five people in this country, including over 37 million
children. Also, I am pleased the conference recognizes the success of
the fruit and vegetable pilot program and have expanded the program to
all States.
There are many titles of the farm bill that are often overlooked but
are important to agriculture and our rural economies. The research
title of the farm bill is crucial to keeping U.S. agriculture a leader
in food and fiber production. The streamlining of grant programs in the
research title will allow for efficiency and oversight of the
appropriated funds. The rural development title provides assistance to
rural communities through housing assistance, rural broadband access,
water and wastewater programs, and small

[[Page S4225]]

business development. I am pleased that the conference has maintained
and improved upon these important programs.
The issue of payments limits is always a point of contention in every
farm bill. The reductions in payment levels in this bill are a
significant reform from the current payment limit rules. The payment
limit levels in this bill will result in a significant hardship for
many producers in Mississippi. Some of the best, most diversified
producers in Mississippi will be ineligible for income safety net
programs. It is important that the supporters of stronger payment
limits understand that this will not reduce farm bill spending. The
land will be farmed by another producer and be eligible for program
benefits. The adjusted gross income limitation has the effect of moving
one farmer off the land and putting another farmer in their place. The
Government doesn't ask other businesses to go out of business if they
grow and expand, why should farmers be treated differently?
Again, I want to thank Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss for their
good work on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the
conference report.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 6 minutes 20
seconds remaining, and the Senator from Iowa has 5 minutes 40 seconds
remaining.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me again thank Senator Cochran for
his generous comments and for his leadership on the committee. He has
been such a valuable member of the conference committee but, more than
that, he has been a dear friend.
I want to continue to acknowledge the hard work of a number of folks
on the other side of the aisle. We had Senator Baucus, chairman of the
Finance Committee, who worked so closely with Senator Grassley and
every member of the conference committee on our side of the Capitol to
try to find the funding for this bill. It is completely offset as
scored by CBO.
In addition, he worked out a very fair and equitable tax package for
agricultural issues, and I emphasize that, to be included in this farm
bill. And it is that particular amount of spending that has been
totally offset as scored by CBO. So Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley
deserve an awful lot of credit.
To my good friend, Senator Blanche Lincoln, what a real ally she has
been to all of us on the committee. Senator Stabenow has been a
tireless worker from a conference committee standpoint.
This truly has been a bipartisan effort. But the real work hard that
has been done on this bill--the policy decisions are made by the
membership--was done by the staff.
I say to Mark Halverson and Susan Keith, and all of the members of
the minority committee, how much we appreciate them for their hard
work, their commitment to agriculture. Beginning in December, after
these folks had worked so hard to get the bill done and to get the bill
to the Senate floor, their real work began. Every single day since this
bill was passed, including weekends, these folks have been working
tirelessly to try to accommodate the policy decisions the Members have
been making. It has been an unbelievable process. Without their hard
work we simply would not be here.
Senator Cochran thanked all of the members of my staff, and I will
not go back through those again. They know how much I love them and how
much I appreciate them. But to Martha Scott Poindexter, Vernie Hubert,
and Hayden Milberg I owe a special thanks, because they have had to put
up with me and me telling them what they needed to do and when they
needed to do it. And that is not an easy task from their side. So I
have tremendous appreciation for all of the staff who worked so hard to
make this happen today.
There are some other staff members I particularly want to acknowledge
because they have been, again, tremendous and they have been right
there side by side with all of the Ag Committee staff from day one.
That is Amanda Taylor, Elizabeth Paris on Senator Grassley's staff; on
Senator Baucus's staff, John Selib, Brandon Willis, Rebecca Baxter,
Kathy Kock; on Senator Lincoln's staff, Ted Serafini; and on Senator
Conrad's staff, Tom Mahr and Jim Miller. Tom and Jim particularly have
been involved with my staff since literally about a year ago in
attempting to craft the farm bill that ultimately came to the floor of
the Senate. They have been tremendous in providing us numbers,
providing us information to help Senator Conrad and myself make policy
decisions. To those two gentlemen, I want to say a special thanks.
This bill is going to finally come to a vote on the conference
report. This is not a perfect bill, as has been said by several
different folks here. There have been some folks who stood up and
pointed out some objections they have to the bill.
This is my third bill, two as a Member of the House and now one as a
Member of the Senate. All farm bills are extremely controversial. All
farm bills are portrayed by the media as being a giant welfare program
for farmers.
Nothing is further from the truth, particularly in this farm bill. In
this farm bill, about 11 percent of the outlays are projected to go to
farm programs, 11 percent, and 74 percent of the outlays are going to
go for nutrition programs to feed hungry people in this country. We
have an obligation, as the richest and most abundant, from a food
standpoint country in the world, to take care of those folks who are in
need, and we are doing so in this bill.
In addition, we are providing conservation measures that are going to
save the land, save rural America from being developed in many areas
where it ought not to be developed. We are also going to make sure that
we provide future generations with alternative energy sources, and that
we do it in the right way.
I want to close by making a comment on the point of order Senator
Gregg made. He knows how much respect I have for him. He did a terrific
job when he was chairman of the Budget Committee and now as the ranking
member.
Again, he is doing a good job. He knows I have tremendous respect for
his position on any issue relative to the budget. But here is what I
wish to explain to my colleagues. His point is that we are going to
spend more money above the budget than we actually say we are going to
spend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that we have an additional 4
minutes equally divided between Senator Harkin and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right, I ask for an additional 2 minutes as
well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. If anybody in this body can tell me today what the
price of corn, cotton or soybeans is going to be 5 or 10 years from
now, then we would not have to worry about projecting exactly what the
expenditure, from a budget standpoint, in this farm bill is going to
be. The fact is, we can't even project what the price of corn and
soybeans and other commodities is going to be tomorrow, much less what
we can predict it will be 5 years from now. In fact, the 2002 farm
bill, which is currently in place, had the same budget point of order
made against it in 2002, when it was passed. The fact is, in that farm
bill, not only did we not spend what was projected to be spent, but we
spent between $15 and $18 billion less than what was projected to be
spent. The reason is that commodity prices have been high; therefore,
payments coming out of Washington have been either nonexistent or very
low. That is where the $15 to $18 billion in savings has come from. In
this bill, as long as commodity prices remain high, again, farmers are
going to have what they want, which is their stream of income coming
from the marketplace versus Washington. Washington is going to have
what we want, which is a reduction and limitations on payments going to
farmers. The budget point of order, obviously, is correct in saying we
don't know exactly how much money is going to be spent under
countercyclical programs. That is the nature of farm bills. But the
fact is, we spent less under 2002. We are going to spend less under
this farm bill, in all probability. But we cannot say that for certain.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the

[[Page S4226]]

budget point of order and to vote in favor of the underlying bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 8 minutes. The time
of the Senator from Georgia has expired. Senator Gregg has 2 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I will let Senator Gregg go first, so I may finish debate
on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand that as chairman of the
committee, Senator Harkin should have the right to complete his
statement. I am happy to proceed at this time.
I would simply make the point, in response to the discussion about
this bill and the budget, there is no way anybody with a straight face
can represent that this bill is fiscally responsible in the context of
the budget. When this bill left the Senate, it was at $285 billion. It
is now at $300 billion. This bill has $18 billion worth of gimmicks in
it. The tax years are changed for corporations to pick up money. There
is an attempt to adjust programs so some basically disappear after a
certain number of years on the theory that then they would not score,
knowing full well that those programs are going to be continued. We
also have a situation where this bill violated the pay-go rules of the
House and would violate the pay-go rules of the Senate, to the extent
they are ever enforced around here, if we had passed the Senate budget.
The irony is that this bill comes to the floor before the budget,
which was voted on and voted in favor of by the Democratic membership.
That Democratic budget is violated in this bill. I have to tell my
colleagues, if a Democratic budget, which spends a heck of a lot of
money, is violated, then, obviously, the bill itself is spending a lot
of money. In addition, it uses gimmicks such as custom user's fees. It
uses gimmicks such as this adjustment of pay-go. It ends up, even using
all those gimmicks, $18 billion worth of gimmicks, still with a budget
point of order against it which is legitimate.
The budget is violated. This bill spends money outside the budget.
That budget point of order should not be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Iowa has 8 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me bring to a close this debate on the
farm bill. First, let me recap. This is not called the farm bill. It is
called the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act for good reason--because
67 percent of all the new money in this bill goes to nutrition to help
low-income Americans, to help our kids in school get a better diet of
fresh fruits and vegetables. We also lifted the childcare cap that has
been there since 1993. Right now it is $175 a month. The average cost
of childcare is $631 dollars a month. We have lifted the cap on
childcare deductibility for those low income Americans who need food
assistance. Let me read this quote from Second Harvest, Vicki Escarra,
president of America's Second Harvest:

On behalf of our nation's food banks, I urge Senators to
vote in favor of this hunger-fighting farm bill for the
millions of low-income Americans on the brink of catastrophe,
facing some of the most difficult economic times they have
had to endure in years. I urge Senators to support this
vitally important and necessary legislation.

On specialty crops, we have done more on specialty crops than any
farm bill before. We put a new title in this bill, almost $3 billion
going to fruits and vegetables, horticulture, all the things that,
again, lend themselves to a healthier diet and a healthier America.
There is also a quote from the organization supporting specialty crops
that says in part: This farm bill represents a sea change in U.S.
agriculture policy and a historic investment in the future of the fruit
and vegetable producers across this country. We have taken a bold step
to expand the fresh fruit and vegetable snack program to all 50 States,
which makes certain this farm bill doesn't just help farmers but helps
schoolchildren have greater access to fruits and vegetables. ``This
is truly a win-win for both agriculture and the public.'' On livestock,
we improved the protections for livestock producers when they make
contracts. I wish to publicly thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator
Grassley, for making sure we had those provisions in this bill. The
country of origin labeling now will go into effect this fall so we will
know where our meat products come from and, finally, we will have the
interstate shipment of State-inspected meat after all these years. On
conservation, we have done more for conservation in this bill than any
farm bill ever passed, almost 41 percent of all the money that is paid
to agricultural producers will be paid through conservation programs to
protect our soil, wildlife habitats, and clean water.

Lastly, I showed this picture yesterday. I show it again. This is the
countryside that we want where farmers can plant and grow crops, but
they do it in an environmentally sound way, with clean water and clean
streams, with buffer strips, wildlife habitat all across the country.
That is what is so good about this bill because we have improved the
conservation programs.
This is a bipartisan bill. In fact, I got a note this morning that
our former Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns, has now said he
would vote for the bill. He would support it.
In all my years here--this is my seventh farm bill in 30-some years--
I have never seen so many groups come together to support a farm bill,
over 500 groups. Farm groups, conservation groups, hunters and
fishermen, energy groups for renewable energy, antihunger groups,
religious groups--I have never seen such a broad coalition of over 500
groups in support of this bill. Now we have the former Secretary of
Agriculture saying he would support it. All these groups support the
farm bill. The President says he wants to veto it. Evidently, he is
right and everybody else is wrong. I beg to differ. This is a great
bipartisan bill.
We keep hearing from people: Why can't you people work together, quit
bickering, get things done? We did that here. We worked together in a
year and a half to produce this great product.
I wish to especially thank my ranking member, Senator Chambliss, for
all his great work. Senator Chambliss reminds me a little bit of old
Senator Sam Ervin, who used to say ``I am just a poor, little old
country lawyer from the rural South.'' Senator Chambliss may say
something like that, but I can tell you he is one smart, intelligent,
good negotiator. He brought this farm bill forward when he was
chairman. I couldn't have asked for a better partner and working
relationship in getting this bill through. I can honestly say, without
any fear of contradiction, had it not been for Senator Chambliss and
all his hard work, we would not have gotten the 79 votes we got for
this bill in December. The fact that I think we will have an
overwhelming vote today is a tribute to Senator Chambliss's leadership
and hard work on behalf of all agriculture. One thing I will say about
Senator Chambliss, he is a proud conservative. The only thing he is
liberal about is giving out those Georgia peanuts. I want him to know,
I appreciate those peanuts.
Let me thank all the members of our committee. In particular, I thank
the members of our conference committee. I mentioned Senator Grassley,
who worked so hard on the Finance Committee portion of the bill;
Senator Baucus, who as chairman of the Finance Committee got the money
for us. I wish to especially thank Senator Conrad, our budget chairman,
for his expertise, knowledge, diligence. Senator Conrad was there for
every meeting. He hung in there on this farm bill from the beginning to
the end. We could not have gotten where we are without the help, the
support, the knowledge, the expertise of Senator Conrad. I wish to say,
again, that the farmers and ranchers of North Dakota have no better
fighter for them, no stronger advocate than they have in Senator
Conrad. I can tell you nothing escapes his attention. When it comes to
fighting for the farmers and ranchers of North Dakota, Kent Conrad is
always in the lead.
I wish to publicly thank him and his staff for all the help on this
bill.
Senator Leahy, the former chairman, who also fights for Vermont
farmers, especially dairy producers. He had a great seat at this table.
He made sure

[[Page S4227]]

we took care of dairy farmers and nutrition. There is no stronger
fighter for our dairy farmers and nutrition than Senator Leahy. Senator
Lincoln, who chairs our Subcommittee on Production, Income Protection,
and Price Support, a strong advocate for Arkansas rice and grain and
oilseed farmers. Senator Lincoln is a strong fighter for rural
residents, people who live in small towns and communities. Senator
Stabenow, another conferee I am now going to refer to as the Senator of
specialty crops, because it was Senator Stabenow's strong advocacy that
led to the first-ever inclusion of a specific title for specialty crops
in this bill and nearly doubled the support for it.
Lastly, let me reach across to the other Chamber and thank
Congressman Peterson from Minnesota. We have been working together on
this over a year, Saturdays and Sundays, and weekdays and nights, on
the phone. I also want to thank Congressman Bob Goodlatte. What a great
companion he has been to fight for conservation and rural development,
working hard to bring forth this bill.
Again, they say the art of good legislation is cooperation and
compromise. We had good cooperation between parties, between the House
and the Senate, and we have a farm bill we can all be proud of.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from over 500
organizations supporting the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

May 13, 2008.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares
for final consideration of the 2008 Farm Bill, the
organizations listed below strongly urge you to vote in favor
of the Conference Report.
Communities across the nation, from urban to rural have
been waiting too long for this legislation. The Conference
Report makes significant farm policy reforms, protects the
safety net for all of America's food producers, addresses
important infrastructure needs for specialty crops, increases
funding to feed our nation's poor, and enhances support for
important conservation initiatives.
This is by no means a perfect piece of legislation, and
none of our organizations achieved everything we had
individually requested. However, it is a carefully balanced
compromise of policy priorities that has broad support among
organizations representing the nation's agriculture,
conservation, and nutrition interests.
Our organizations applaud the strong bipartisan leadership
demonstrated in Congress to authorize and approve a strong
new five-year Farm Bill. Sound policy and long-term certainty
are absolutely essential to everyone served by the Farm Bill,
and the final Conference Report provides both.
Again, we urge you to support communities across America--
rural, urban and suburban, by voting in favor of the 2008
Farm Bill Conference Report.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I raise a point of order under rule
XLIV, paragraph 8(a), section 12034 of the farm bill conference report
violates this rule in that it is a new directed spending provision.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to waive paragraph 8 of rule XLIV
with respect to all provisions of the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Gregg Point of Order

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the motion
to waive section 203 of S. Con. Res. 21 against the conference report.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 74, nays 21, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

YEAS--74

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

NAYS--21

Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Collins
DeMint
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Kyl
Lugar
Murkowski
Sessions
Sununu
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--5

Clinton
Klobuchar
McCain
Obama
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are
19. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subsequent
two votes on this agricultural matter be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

McCaskill Point of Order

The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive paragraph 8 of
rule XLIV against the conference report.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton)
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 34, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

YEAS--62

Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Grassley
Harkin
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--34

Allard
Barrasso
Bayh
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Carper
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Roberts
Sessions
Specter
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich

NOT VOTING--4

Clinton
McCain
Obama
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are
34. Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Ms. CANTWELL. Would the Senator yield to me for purposes of a
colloquy?
Mr. HARKIN. I would be pleased to yield

[[Page S4228]]

Ms. CANTWELL. Section 8105 of this bill authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to ``provide free of charge to Indian tribes any trees,
portions of trees or forest products from National Forest Service land
for traditional and cultural purposes as long as those products are not
used for commercial purposes.'' Several Indian tribes in Washington
State are successors in interest to tribes and bands who were signatory
to treaties with the United States which expressly reserved the right
to gather forest products from lands which currently include National
Forest System lands. These treaties are regarded as the supreme law of
the land and cannot be modified by Congress unless Congress clearly
intends to do so. Am I correct that section 8105 is not in any way
intended to modify or supersede the treaty rights of these tribes?
Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. Section 8107 of the bill contains
a ``savings'' provision that explicitly states that nothing in this
legislation ``alters, abridges, diminishes, repeals, or affects any
agreement between the Forest Service and an Indian tribe''. Section
8105 of this bill does not in any way affect valid treaty rights of
tribes to gather forest products from National Forest System lands.
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator.
<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, despite my great admiration for
America's hardworking farmers and my support for additional food aid
for our Nation's most vulnerable, I must oppose the conference
agreement to H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act, also known as
the farm bill. I recognize that in the days ahead, attempts will be
made to use my opposition to this bill for another's political gain,
but I have always worked to do my best for America and that is why I
must oppose this conference report. And, the American people deserve to
know the truth about this farm bill: It is a bloated piece of
legislation that will do more harm than good for most farmers and
consumers.
In today's economy, when hardworking American families buy groceries
they feel the sting of misguided Federal agriculture policies. Instead
of fine tuning our farm programs to improve their efficiency, we have
allowed them to swell into mammoth government bureaucracies that
generally exist to serve special interests at the behest of
congressional benefactors. Sixty-nine years after the Great Depression
and the advent of the farm bill, well into the 21st century, commodity
prices have reached record highs. I believe American agriculture has
progressed to the point where we no longer need government grown farms.
Don't misunderstand. I am not opposed to providing a reasonable level
of assistance and risk management to farmers when they need America's
help. Farmers never abandon America, and America mustn't abandon them.
When a farmer suffers from a natural disaster such as droughts or
floods, they rightly deserve assistance. But they need a hand up, not a
hand out.
The American taxpayer has been told before that farm bills and their
thirst for subsidies were a necessary evil to provide our country and
the world--with affordable, abundant food. Today, as food prices reach
historic highs, they're being told the same thing. We must challenge
that notion as grocery bills soar, food banks go bare, and food
rationing occurs on a global scale. We must question policies that
divert over 25 percent of corn out of the food supply and into
subsidized ethanol production. Do Americans really want a support
system that costs consumers $2 billion annually in higher sugar prices?
Will we truly reduce our dependency on foreign oil by extending tariffs
that make it too expensive to invest in sugar ethanol production? Can
we honestly demand fair and free trade at Doha while domestic cotton
growers dump subsidized cotton on the world market?
The farm bill conference report is expected to cost taxpayers around
$289 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill
will exceed the government's budget by $10 billion. But the
administration points out that with clever accounting made famous by
congressional budget dodgers, the real cost of the bill will exceed the
government's budget by about $18 billion. And even though Democrats and
Republicans in both Chambers have promised to rein in pork barrel
spending, this bill betrays that promise. Buried within its hundreds of
pages are special favors like: $170 million bailout for the west coast
salmon industry included at the insistence of the Speaker of the House;
$93 million in special tax treatment for race horses; $260 million in
tax cuts for the timber industry; $15 million for asparagus growers.
During debate on the Senate farm bill last year, my colleague Senator
Gregg offered an amendment, which failed, to strike this provision.
This is a crop that has never before received farm subsidies; $175
million would be transferred to Bureau of Reclamation for activities at
three Nevada lakes; $500,000 to the Walker River Paiute Tribe for legal
and professional services in support of settling tribal water claims.
Other tribes have dealt with water rights without a half million dollar
earmark; $5 million for joint planning and development activities for
water, wastewater, and sewer facilities by the city of Fernley, Nevada,
and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe.
The bill authorizes a myriad of grant programs including grants for
research into pig genetics, grants for the preservation of historic
barns, and $300 million for the Sun Grant Program, which provides
grants to 6 universities and science centers that conduct bioenergy
research.
Twenty million dollars goes to the collection and storage of seeds
for research purposes; $75 million for a crop research facility in El
Reno, OK; $35 million to promote the production of ``hard white
wheat.''
A $4 billion disaster assistance package on top of an existing crop
insurance program that's subsidized by the Federal Government. And
these are only a few examples of the questionable provisions expected
to hit the President's desk.
As you may know, farm subsidies were originally designed to ensure
farmers get a fair return on their labors, but the majority of
subsidies go to large commercial farms that average $200,000 in annual
income and $2 million in net worth. Indeed, these payments aren't going
to the average hardworking American farmer working in the Heartland.
This farm bill actually increases subsidy rates for some crops and a
majority of those payments are funneled only to a few staple crops.
During debate on the Senate farm bill last fall, I proudly cosponsored
an amendment which would have capped subsidies for farmers whose income
exceeds $250,000. That amendment, which was rejected, was written by
Senators Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Chuck Grassley of Iowa--two
distinguished colleagues who understand rural America better than most.
Instead of fixing a system that provides farm payments to millionaire
land owners, sometimes when they don't grow anything at all, Congress
ignored the cries for reform from small farmers themselves. In fact,
this farm bill contains a phony payment limit designed to allow farmers
to earn up to $750,000 and $500,000 off the farm before hitting any
subsidy ceiling. Astounding.
This Congressional feeding frenzy is tragic because other areas of
the bill have merit, like the increased funding and focus on food
assistance and nutrition programs. In particular, the bill would index
food stamps to reflect the current cost of living and fill shortfalls
in the Emergency Food Assistance Program. Unfortunately, the bad
outweighs the good in this bill.
More than hand-outs, more than ballooning disaster payments, the
families and small businesses throughout the Heartland are demanding
affordable quality health care, better education for their children,
lower taxes, and relief from government regulation. Rural America has
seen farm bill after farm bill passed without policies that adequately
promote economic development or address population loss. We must
improve rural life, provide high-tech connectivity essential for jobs
and education, open trade markets, maintain our competitiveness, and
reduce overregulation for farmers and ranchers.
For now, we need to put an end to flawed government policies that
distort the markets, artificially raise prices for consumers, and pit
producers against consumers. We have once again failed farmers in that
regard, which is why I oppose this bill.<bullet>

[[Page S4229]]

Mr ENZI. Mr. President, I wish today to speak about the farm bill
conference report. Without a doubt, our Nation's rural communities are
in need of a new national agricultural policy. Since the last farm bill
was passed in 2002, there have been substantial changes in agriculture
and this bill is needed to keep American farmers and ranchers on track
during a time of growing demand on our food system. In recent weeks, I
have come to the floor to ask my colleagues to do something about
health care, do something about high energy prices, and today I am
asking that we do something for our agricultural producers.
When this farm bill passed the Senate in December, it passed with
substantial support. Today we are considering a farm bill that reflects
that support and takes steps to improve American agriculture. That
being said, for many agricultural producers this farm bill is coming
months late and dollars over budget. The opportunity to consider a farm
bill is rarer than an October harvest moon and lawmakers must take
special care to ensure that the seeds we sow today will reap a
bountiful harvest tomorrow. I wish to make the point that addressing
the needs of both producers and consumers goes beyond the language of
this farm bill. Successful farm policy begins with lower energy costs,
affordable health care, and competitive domestic and foreign markets.
As the Senate considers this farm bill, the question that should be
on all our minds is at what cost does this farm policy come to our
producers, our consumers, and our country. This conference report comes
to the floor at a time when U.S. farm income is expected to reach an
all-time high of $92.3 billion. It is true that our Nation's producers
are facing higher costs to fill their tanks, fertilize their fields,
feed their livestock and pay for their health care. However, this farm
bill does not go far enough to cut the subsidies handed out to the
wealthiest of farmers. I supported and applauded the efforts of my
colleagues when the Senate considered amendments to the farm bill in
December to limit these payments. Family farms are the backbone of
American agriculture and the farm safety net should only be extended to
only those who are in the most need, not to those making nearly
$750,000 a year. This farm bill balloons to nearly $300 billion because
the conference report makes only modest cuts to the largest payments.
There is nothing wrong with helping our farmers guarantee a safe and
secure food supply, but that assistance does not deserve to go to
farmers who fashion diamond studded coveralls and golden pitchforks.
It is not just a financial travesty that these payoffs to
agribusiness are in the bill, it is a policy travesty because this farm
bill does have some very good policy contained within its pages. Many
of these provisions I have worked to pass for a long time, but like
gophers in the garden, these payments to millionaires have ruined a
good product.
I support provisions that were included in the farm bill that help
livestock producers and come at no expense to the U.S. Treasury. For
the first time, the farm bill contains a livestock title to promote
competition and fairness in our agricultural markets. In the past, I
labeled the farm bill as, ``Do No Harm, Do No Good'' for ranchers
across this country. I said this because the farm bill never addressed
the needs of hard-working independent livestock producers like those
found in Wyoming. Well this farm bill includes something I have been
working on since I came to the Senate 11 years ago and that is language
to implement mandatory country of origin labeling, often referred to as
COOL. COOL provides consumers with important information about the
source of food and allows our livestock producers, who hands down
produce the highest quality meats in the world, to remain competitive
in a growing global market. No more excuses, no more foot dragging, the
time is hot for COOL.
The livestock title also contains provisions that will improve the
Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act by making market information easily
accessible online and will improve the enforcement of the Packers and
Stockyards Act by requiring the USDA to report annually on its
investigations into violations. All important provisions for livestock
producers who simply wish to have a fair and competitive market for
their animals. I was disappointed to see that the conference committee
left out an important provision that was passed by the Senate last
year, just as it did in 2002. The ban on packer ownership was an
important step in ensuring that independent livestock producers have
access to markets in light of growing consolidation among meat packers.
Finally, I would like to address language in the livestock title that
promotes the ability for local ranchers to market their product across
State lines when processed at State-inspected plants. The interstate
meat inspection language is critical for the small mom-and-pop
processing plants who meet Federal standards but cannot afford to pay
for a full-time Federal inspector. These facilities, that already meet
rigorous state inspection standards, will now be able to sell
specialized products across State lines and ultimately help producers
find value-added marketing opportunities for their livestock.
For Wyoming and a number of other Western States, another provision
in this bill that costs little but yields significant results, is this
Nation's investment in animal health programs. I was pleased to see
language that makes brucellosis a high-priority research initiative in
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and clarifications for the Animal
Health and Disease Research Program that provides vital applied animal
research to producers on the ground.
For conservation, this bill makes significant improvements to the
incentives and financial assistance offered to land owners who use the
Environmental Quality Incentives and Conservation Reserve programs. I
am especially pleased to see that the CRP program offers additional
assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers since we all know that one
of the greatest challenges to the future of agriculture is attracting
young people into the industry.
There are some positive changes made in the farm bill, but the
conference report clearly lacks alternatives and only makes small steps
to improve the condition of agricultural producers across our country.
One alternative that I would like to present to my colleagues is to
continue promoting new markets for American agricultural products
through trade overseas and develop better markets domestically by
promoting fair and competitive markets for our livestock producers. In
addition to these steps, there are scores of things this Congress can
do today to ease the burden on rural America that cannot be solved in
farm legislation. The Senate should take action to address the cost of
rising energy costs and more importantly reduce the cost of health care
for Americans. For the past several months, I have come to the Senate
floor to speak about my 10 steps to transform health care in America
and policies to lower energy prices by increasing supply and developing
domestic sources of production. All of these things being said, this
country desperately needs a new agricultural policy, and I hope that we
will not stop merely with this farm bill. Sound farm policy goes beyond
commodity payments and nutrition programs. It begins with providing the
men and women sitting in the saddle with affordable energy, affordable
health care, and fair and competitive markets to sell their products.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the farm bill
conference report.
The bill takes many positive steps to level the playing field in
American agriculture by recognizing the importance of specialty crops
to the nation's economy and the need to provide more funding for
programs that promote renewable energy, protect our environmental
resources, and keep our children healthy.
This is by no means a perfect bill, but it is a great improvement
over our current, outdated farm policy that for too long has hurt
California's farmers and growers.
California is the Nation's largest agricultural state, with more than
350 different crops worth $32 billion per year. Yet our State has been
largely overlooked when it comes to the billions in federal support for
agriculture.
For the first time, the farm bill is recognizing the importance of
specialty crops to our Nation's economy.
Included in the Senate bill is mandatory funding for specialty crops
block

[[Page S4230]]

grants, organic farmers, farmers market programs, trade assistance and
foreign market access programs, the community foods program, and
important specialty crops and organics research.
The bill also provides over $1 billion in funding for the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Snack Program, expanding participation in the program to
all 50 States. This program provides a critically important strategy in
the fight to prevent and reduce childhood obesity by providing as many
as 3 million low-income elementary school children in 5,000 schools
nationwide the ability to receive a fresh fruit or vegetable snack
every day at school.
Numerous studies have indicated that eating fruits and vegetables can
prevent cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and hypertension, in
addition to obesity. Yet less than one out of every six children eats
the USDA recommended amount of fresh fruit, and only 1 out of 5
children eats the recommended amount of vegetables. The funding
included in the farm bill will ensure that schools in California and in
every State in the Nation can implement this important child nutrition
program.
Also included in the nutrition title are much needed modernizations
and updates to the food stamp assistance program. The bill not only
renames this program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
or SNAP, but it also provides critical improvements that will greatly
help families in need. As a result of deep cuts to the Food Stamp
Program in the mid-1990s, the purchasing power of families' food
assistance benefits has eroded greatly over time. The farm bill invests
significant resources; $5.4 billion over the next 10 years, to end that
erosion and partially restore benefit levels that have been lost. The
bill increases the minimum SNAP benefit to $14, up from the current
$10, and indexes that level to future inflation. The bill also
increases assistance to families with high childcare expenses by
allowing a full deduction for childcare expenses in calculating family
income and benefit levels.
And with our Nation's food banks experiencing unprecedented shortages
during this period of high demand for supplemental food assistance, the
bill nearly doubles the amount authorized for the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, providing $1.25 billion over 10 years and providing
$50 million in emergency money for food banks currently enduring severe
shortages.
The farm bill also provides an important opportunity to increase
protection of our Nation's natural resources and its open space.
Farmers can enroll in a number of conservation programs that allow them
to provide habitat protection for native species, protect wetlands and
grasslands, and undertake initiatives to make their farms more
environmentally friendly--but the last farm bill did not do enough to
provide farmers with the resources they need to fully participate in
conservation activities.
In 2004, California had a $143 million backlog in payments and
enrollments in conservation programs due to lack of funding and low
acreage caps. An average of 4,000 farmers and landowners in California
are rejected each year when they apply to USDA conservation programs.
Sixty-eight percent of California's farmers seeking Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, funding turned away. Nationwide, $18
billion worth of conservation applications have gone unfunded during
the life of the 2002 farm bill.
As a result of inadequate funding for conservation programs,
California is rapidly losing thousands of acres of farmland and open
space. Ninety-five percent of the wetlands in the Central Valley have
been lost, and 171,000 acres of farmland were lost in California from
2002 to 2004.
The conference report takes important steps to provide farmers with
more access to conservation programs, and while I am disappointed that
more funding was not included, the $4 billion in new spending will
allow many more farmers and landowners in California to participate in
important resource protection programs like the Wetlands Reserve
Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, and EQIP.
I am also grateful that the conferees pushed back against efforts to
restrict full-time farmers from participating in conservation programs.
The purpose of conservation programs is to encourage farmers and
landowners to provide a public benefit by protecting their land from
development, and in the future we must ensure that income eligibility
caps are not applied to conservation programs, as these would be very
detrimental to resource protection efforts in California.
The farm bill also authorizes a number of programs that will benefit
California's rural communities, such as low-interest loans to rural
electric cooperatives for renewable energy production and grants and
loan guarantees to develop broadband access in rural areas.
I am also pleased that the bill contains significant investments for
farm-based energy, including the development of cellulosic ethanol. I
am concerned about the impact of corn ethanol on food and feed prices,
especially in light of the fact that alternative, renewable fuels can
be created from a number of other agricultural sources, many of which
are produced in California. This farm bill takes great steps to
encourage the development of cellulosic fuels that can be produced in
California by providing loan guarantees to encourage farmers to grow
biomass crops and incentives to drive the advancement of commercial
scale biorefineries for advanced biofuels.

The conference report also includes important reforms to commodity
programs, including the elimination of the three-entity rule, a direct
attribution requirement, and income means tests to prevent very wealthy
farmers from receiving certain commodity payments. I would have liked
to see some additional reforms, but the conference report represents a
positive first step in the effort to improve and update our commodity
programs.
I would also like to thank Chairman Harkin and the conferees for
including a number of provisions I authored into the farm bill.
Air quality improvements in agricultural areas: In rural areas around
the country, smog and soot are threatening public health, fouling
communities, and reducing crop productivity from pollution generated on
farms. I joined forces with Congressman Cardoza to include language
authorizing a new program in the existing Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, EQIP, that will allocate $150 million in funds over
the next 5 years toward air quality mitigation efforts in agricultural
communities with poor air quality. USDA has invested money in
California since 1998 that has produced measurable and permanent
pollution reductions in a region that has some of the worst air quality
in the Nation. With this new program in place, these efforts can be
expanded in California and replicated throughout the Nation.
Pollinator Protection Act: This provision authorizes up to $100
million over 5 years for high priority research dedicated to
maintaining and protecting our honey bee and native pollinator
populations. There has been a loss of about 25 percent of the Nation's
honey bee population, and it is estimated that crops nationwide that
depend on a healthy honey bee and native pollinator population are
valued near $18 billion.
Protecting sugar beet farmers and hundreds of jobs in Fresno County:
I helped negotiate a change in the national sugar allocation program
that will provide a sugar beet grower cooperative in the Central Valley
with the necessary allocation to continue growing sugar beets and keep
the Mendota sugar refinery open. The grower cooperative is working to
purchase the sugar refinery from an out-of-state owner, and if
successful, they will keep the refinery operating and save 400 full-
time and seasonal jobs in Fresno County, where the March unemployment
rate was 11.1 percent.
Pest Detection and Surveillance Act: This provision authorizes $407
million to give USDA the authority to enter into cooperative funding
agreements with States to enhance their pest and disease detection and
surveillance programs and increase inspections at domestic points of
entry, implement pest trapping systems, and create pest eradication and
prevention programs, among many other pest detection and surveillance
initiatives. This program will help protect California's agricultural
economy from harmful pests and diseases and keep our farmers
competitive.

[[Page S4231]]

Preservation of 40-year-old meat inspection laws: The House-passed
bill included language that would allow meat and poultry plants to
forgo Federal inspections in favor of more lax and uneven State-run
inspections--potentially putting the health of millions of Americans at
risk. I worked with Senator Harkin, consumer groups, and labor unions
to protect the integrity of the Federal meat inspection process. In the
wake of the largest recall of beef in our Nation's history, Congress
should be working to strengthen food safety standards, not rolling back
the Federal Government's crucial role in protecting our people.
Agricultural watershed enhancement: The Sacramento River watershed
and other national regional watersheds have been identified by
conservation groups as watersheds most in need of water quality and
water quantity enhancement. I worked to ensure that the Sacramento
River watershed is treated as a priority-funding area.
Protection against use of harmful pesticides: I led an effort to
prevent the inclusion of language that would have jeopardized the
ability of conservation managers to encourage the use of the safest,
least toxic, and most environmentally friendly pesticides in carrying
out activities under key farm bill programs. The House-passed bill
included this harmful provision at the urging of pesticide
manufacturers, and it would have tied the hands of local managers to
encourage viable alternatives to pesticides that can be harmful to our
air, water, wildlife, pollinators, and human health.
Edible schoolyards: The bill strengthens the Access to Local Foods
and School Gardens Program by supporting the development of school
curriculum that teaches the principles of ecology, origins of food, and
promotes healthy food choices. This language supports the replication
of the successful Edible Schoolyard Program in Berkeley, CA. The bill
also includes $50 million over 5 years in mandatory funding for the
Community Foods Program, which funds programs like edible schoolyards.
I also worked with Chairman Harkin and the conferees to include an
avocado marketing order agreement, a national study on biofuels
infrastructure, language prioritizing edible schoolyards programs in
schools under the Community Foods Program, and a $15 million asparagus
market loss program to help growers in California.
This bill had significant and widespread support from stakeholders in
California and throughout the Nation. I want to recognize and thank the
groups from my State that expressed their support for the bill. These
groups include Western Growers Association, California Farmers Union,
California Farm Bureau Federation, California Grape and Tree Fruit
League, California Cattlemen's Association, California Rice Commission,
California Citrus Mutual, California Association of County Agriculture
Commissioners, California Association of Winegrape Growers, The Wine
Institute, California Rangeland Conservation Coalition of California,
California Apple Commission, Nisei Farmers League, California Kiwi
Commission, Merced-Mariposa Cattlemen's Association, Northeast
California Farm Credit, Blue Diamond Growers, Buy California Marketing
Agreement, California Dried Plum Board, California Fig Institute,
California Fresh Fig Growers Association, California Strawberry
Commission, California Table Grape Association, California Walnut
Commission, California-Arizona Watermelon Association, Grower-Shipper
Association of Central California, Sunkist Growers, California
Association and Nursery and Garden Centers, California Association of
Wheat Growers, California Association of Food Banks, Alameda County
Community Food Bank, California Food Policy Advocates, California
Hunger Action Coalition, California School Employees Association,
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Stockton, Coalition of California
Welfare Rights Organizations, Congregation Emanu-El, Desert Cities
Hunger Action, Emergency Food Bank Stockton/San Joaquin, Food Bank
Coalition of San Luis Obispo Co., Food Bank of Monterey County, Food
Bank of Contra Costa and Solano, Food Bank of San Luis Obispo County,
FOOD Share, Inc., Fresno Metro Ministry, Fresno Community Good Bank,
Grace Resource Center, HRC Food Bank, Calaveras County, Imperial Valley
Food Bank, Insight Center for Community Economic Development,
Interfaith Council of Amador, Oceano Community Center, Peggy Cole
Ministries Int'l, Redwood Empire Food Bank, San Luis Obispo County
YMCA, San Luis Obispo Food Bank Coalition, San Luis Obispo Supported
Living, Inc., Transitional Food and Shelter, Inc., Transitions Mental
Health Association, Village Community Resource Center, Los Angeles
Regional Food Bank, Stockton Food Bank, Oakland Insight Center for
Community Economic Development, Greater Stockton Emergency Food Bank,
Second Harvest of Santa Clara County, Second Harvest of Santa Cruz
County, Second Harvest of San Benito County, Second Harvest of San
Mateo County, Food Bank for Humboldt County, Community Action
Partnership of Orange County, San Francisco Food Bank, San Diego Hunger
Coalition, Alameda County Community Food Bank, and Eureka Food for
People.
This farm bill is important for California's farmers, families, its
environmental resources, our consumers, and for the State's economy,
and I am pleased support it.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the farm bill
conference report, which would provide unprecedented amounts of funding
for nutrition programs and food stamps. These programs are vital,
especially in this time of high food prices and our struggling economy.
The farm bill invests nearly $396 billion over 10 years into the Food
Stamp Program, which is nearly $10 billion more than current law. In
addition, for the first time this farm bill recognizes that the minimum
benefits provided through food stamps should be indexed for inflation,
so they increase as the cost of living increases. We have a
responsibility to help those who are most in need, and this farm bill
recognizes that.
This farm bill also makes substantial investments in Conservation
Program. With the high price of land in New Jersey and the competitive
markets facing New Jersey's farmers, there is a great incentive to
over-farm and not enough money to implement the best environmental
practices. Providing $2.4 billion for programs like the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program, EQIP, will help farmers bring their products
directly to market while preserving their land for the future and
without taking a toll on the environment. This is a dramatic
improvement from the Senate-passed bill, which did not include any
funding for this program. New Jersey's farmers frequently utilize EQIP
to improve the environmental condition of their farms, and the increase
of funding in this conference report is critical.
This farm bill also recognizes for the first time the importance of
fruits and vegetables to our health and to our agricultural economy.
New Jersey is the second largest producer of blueberries and the third
largest grower of cranberries. These crops are not only nutritious, but
they are vital to New Jersey's economy. This farm bill makes major
investments for fruit and vegetable growers, as well as purchasers. It
provides nearly $500 million to the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program,
which provides assistance to these farmers--an increase of
approximately $200 million over the Senate-passed farm bill. It would
also provide over $1 billion for the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program,
which provides healthy, nutritious fruits and vegetables to our
schools, so that our children can avoid the health risks of a poor
diet.
Finally, this farm bill takes incremental steps towards providing the
kind of real reform that our Nation's agricultural policy needs. It
imposes payment limitations to restrict farmers above certain income
levels from being eligible for commodity payments, and it reduces
spending for direct payments by over $300 million. These reforms are a
significant improvement from the Senate-passed bill, and I thank the
bill's managers for responding to the increasing chorus of calls for
farm bill reform.
I still believe that we need more substantial reform of our
agricultural policy and that the FRESH Act that I offered on the Senate
floor with Senator Dick Lugar would provide that much needed reform. I
will continue to work with Senator Lugar and all of my colleagues in
the Senate to replace the

[[Page S4232]]

current system of subsidies for just a handful of crops and implement a
system that benefits all crops. And I will continue to advocate and
fight for a policy that provides more incentives for the production of
healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables. While the farm bill that
has emerged from conference is by no means perfect, it is better than
the farm bill the Senate originally passed, and I intend to support it.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I intend to support this conference report
and encourage my colleagues to do likewise.
Achieving consensus on farm bills is a notoriously difficult task.
For all their hard work on this measure, I want to express my
appreciation to Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss, and the
talented staff who put in long hours to get us to this point.
The end result of these hard-fought negotiations is a better safety
net for dairy producers in Wisconsin and across the Nation. This bill
restores and strengthens the original MILC Program, which was a hard-
won effort designed to end regional dairy battles and provide a safety
net for small and midsized producers. Since its implementation 6 years
ago, MILC has proven to be a critical backstop for thousands of family
farmers when milk prices plummet. The ``feed cost adjuster'' included
in this bill acknowledges that rising feed costs have become a real
challenge for dairy farmers. My colleague and friend Senator Leahy and
his staff played a pivotal roll in guiding these provisions and I
commend their work.
This measure also moves forward in allowing interstate commerce in
State-inspected meat products. This has been a significant priority for
me. Wisconsin has more State-inspected plants run by Main Street
entrepreneurs than any other State in the Nation. They make great
products. At a time of further proposed market concentration among
major slaughterhouses, we ought to find a way for these smaller
entrepreneurs to safely expand their markets and compete across State
borders. Doing so will be good for livestock producers, consumers, and
Main Street businesses.
The nutrition title of this bill is also noteworthy. It incorporates
urgently needed updates to the Food Stamp Program, to be known
hereafter as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Over the
years, low-income households have suffered erosion of benefits due to
inflation. The current minimum food stamp benefit has not been raised
in over 30 years. This bill raises the minimum benefit and indexes it
to inflation. It removes disincentives for retirement and education
savings and takes childcare costs into consideration when calculating
eligibility. It strengthens support for food banks and will help get
more fresh fruits and vegetables into our schools.
The conference report includes a compromise on easement valuations
under the Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP. Administrative changes to the
WRP have diminished its usefulness in Wisconsin and other parts of the
Nation, and these changes are intended to correct that problem. This is
an area, like several others, where I intend to closely monitor the
USDA's implementation of the law
I am very pleased that the 2007 farm bill conference report includes
the authorization of funds for the Housing Assistance Council. HAC is a
nonprofit organization that is dedicated to the development of
affordable rural housing. The Housing Assistance Council offers loans
and technical support to local nonprofit entities across the country to
develop safe and affordable housing in rural communities. With nearly
one-fifth of the Nation's population living in rural communities and
7.5 million of that population living in poverty, decent affordable
housing is in short supply. HAC provides the necessary tools to create
and develop housing opportunities in areas of our country that are
often overlooked.
This bill, like any bill, has shortcomings in some people's eyes.
Many of us wish more could be done to reform payment limits and target
benefits. But at the end of the day this bill is superior to extension
of current law and makes some meaningful improvements in critical
areas.
As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I
have the honor and responsibility of working on a farm bill each year
in the form of an annual appropriations bill for the USDA. There are a
number of provisions and programs in this measure which are directly
tied to discretionary, appropriated funding. Of course, the
subcommittee's ability to act on those objectives in the appropriations
process is directly tied to the resources made available to the
subcommittee. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the
executive branch as we try to balance all of these critical health,
safety, conservation, nutrition, research, and rural development
objectives.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as this Senate takes up the farm bill
conference report, I want to share with my colleagues several important
ways that this bill will benefit the farmers and the people of
Kentucky.
Agriculture generates $4 billion in cash receipts in Kentucky every
year. We rank fourth in the Nation in the number of farms per State,
and 54 percent of Kentucky's acreage is farmland. We are the largest
beef-cattle producing State east of the Mississippi, and we produce a
diverse array of crops. So the contents of this report are very
important to Kentucky.
I received a letter this week from the Kentucky Farm Bureau
reiterating this bill's importance to Kentucky and America. They wrote,
``While the bill is not perfect, it is a carefully crafted bill . . .
that continues to provide a solid foundation for American agriculture
to continue production of food and fiber not only for Americans, but
the world.''
Because agricultural production varies greatly across my State,
Kentucky benefits from a wide array of conservation efforts, including
the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the Farm and Ranch
Lands Protection Program, and others.
As a supporter of conservation efforts with a long record of working
to protect Kentucky's natural resources, it is important to me that
this conference report continues to support these initiatives.
Approximately 50 percent of Kentucky's land is forested, so it was
important that this legislation open many USDA conservation programs to
forest landowners. That will yield improved air quality, cleaner
drinking water, and less soil erosion, among other environmental
benefits to our State.
Kentucky also has an interest in the production of renewable fuels;
this conference report includes important incentives to spur the growth
of this industry as well.
On another note, I am glad the conference committee has seen fit to
include my provision addressing the need for better nutrition for our
schoolchildren. I cast the deciding vote to save the School Lunch
Program in 1995, and educating our kids about the food they eat remains
a priority.
This provision calls on USDA to survey what schools are serving to
our children. This information will help USDA provide guidance to
schools to serve healthier meals and it is sorely needed, as USDA's
most recent data on this question is over a decade old.
In the last 30 years, the childhood obesity rate has more than
tripled. Today, over 4.5 million American children are facing a
lifetime of all the increased health risks that obesity causes. This
nutrition provision can be the first step towards reversing that
unfortunate trend.
Let me also note that this conference report retains a number of
provisions I authored to support Kentucky's largest agricultural
product, the horse industry. While the world's eyes focus on Kentucky
one day each year for the running of the Kentucky Derby, I point out to
my colleagues that the horse industry employs 50,000 Kentuckians and
contributes $3.5 billion to our economy year-round. I want to ensure
this important part of our farm economy is treated fairly.
On one final topic, I would be remiss if I didn't mention my
disappointment that this bill will unfairly punish Kentucky's small
farmers by making all farmers with less than 10 base acres ineligible
for farm payments. That disproportionately hurts Kentucky because we
have such a high proportion

[[Page S4233]]

of small farms. I am concerned this punitive portion of the bill will
have broader consequences than the authors realize and will punish some
of those farmers who might be most in need of assistance.
However, the good appears to outweigh the troubling aspects of this
conference report, and a lot of Kentuckians will benefit from the many
important programs that are promoted and preserved in this bill. I will
support it and by doing so, support the hard-working farmers in
Kentucky who are feeding our Nation and the world while providing a
living for so many citizens in America.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report to H.R. 2419, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007.
I am pleased to vote in favor of passage of the conference report, as
this legislation includes a number of programs of paramount importance
to the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the creation of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program to replenish the bay.
Virginia, Maryland, and others in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed have
worked diligently to implement programs to reduce nutrient run-off and
other sources of pollution that enter the Bay, all in an effort to
achieve a cleaner Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
will provide the Federal assistance necessary to support regional and
State efforts to reach this important goal.
In addition, this bill will enhance conservation across the United
States. Its provisions, such as technical assistance and conservation
easements, will help protect more land for preservation and
environmental initiatives.
Also, I note that provisions of this conference report provide
greater research support and assistance for growers of specialty crops
and significant changes to the nutrition title to promote better health
for schoolchildren and increase support for our Nation's food banks.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
<bullet> Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate
to join me in supporting final passage of the farm bill conference
report.
I would like to thank the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for his
leadership in crafting this 5 year, $289 billion bill, which, for the
first time, directs more than two-thirds of the spending towards
nutrition and food assistance. It provides a strong safety net for
farmers, and gives them the certainty needed in a sector that provides
an important human resource--food--amidst the unpredictable dynamics of
weather and markets. The bill provides stronger financial support for
conservation programs and needed improvements for livestock producers
when dealing with the packing industry.
It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. Of particular note
is $10 billion in new spending for food assistance programs for low-
income individuals, which is particularly timely in this period of high
food prices. Potential recipients are no longer disqualified because of
child care or if they have money saved in tax-deferred education or
health care accounts. For the first time, food assistance is indexed
for inflation, and for the first time in 30 years, the minimum monthly
benefit is increased from $10 to $14. This is good news and will help
reach more of the 35 million Americans who struggle each day to feed
their children and families.
The bill provides $4 billion in new conservation spending, with
greater focus on working lands. It provides a more fiscally responsive
approach to disaster assistance funding by establishing a permanent
program.
The bill also recognizes our national priority to begin shifting to
greater production of cellulosic ethanol as part of our biofuels mix.
The bill includes an important tax incentive for cellulosic ethanol
production--first proposed by my colleague from Indiana, Dick Lugar,
and myself. There are also several incentives that will help to
establish croplands dedicated to cellulosic feedstock production, and
concurrent research and development towards these objectives.
I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a program
authored by my esteemed senior colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin,
which creates a new optional revenue-based program for farmers, called
the average crop revenue election, a forward-thinking initiative that
will help Midwestern corn growers.
No, this bill does not include the level of reform to farm programs
that I think was warranted. I believe that the payment and income
limitations could have gone much further. The bill does, however,
provide long overdue improvements to existing law. It stops the
remarkable practice of sending payments to deceased farmers. It ends
the so-called three entity rule, which was the abuse of manipulating
current law by collecting triple payments. It requires direct
attribution of farm payments to a person, rather than a company or an
entity. And it refocuses the original intent of farm payments to serve
as a safety net to those who need it most by ending payments to
individuals who make more than $750,000 in farm income or $500,000 in
nonfarm income.
And this bill provides important relief to America's black farmers.
For far too long, our country's hardworking African-American farmers
were discriminated against by the Federal Government and county
committees, which denied them credit and benefit programs because of
their race. This injustice ran deep and had devastating effects.
Because so many of these farmers were denied credit and benefits, the
number of African American farmers from 1920 until the early 1990s
declined by almost 98 percent. During this time, too many African-
American farmers saw their land foreclosed upon or were forced out of
farming altogether.
In 1999, the Department of Agriculture settled a class action lawsuit
with African-American farmers in the case of Pigford v. Glickman, which
allowed many of these farmers to file claims against the USDA for
failing to respond to racial discrimination. A Federal court approved
this settlement as ``a good first step towards assuring that this kind
of discrimination that has been visited on African American farmers
since Reconstruction will not continue into the next century.'' This
Pigford settlement brought relief to more than 20,000 Black farmers.
Yet the USDA underestimated the number of potential claimants and
gave inadequate notice to farmers about the Pigford settlement.
Therefore, many farmers were unable to file their claims before the
filing deadline. About 75,000 additional African-American farmers who
filed their claims of discrimination after the filing deadline were
denied any opportunity to have their claims heard and evaluated on the
merits.
That is why I introduced legislation in the Senate to provide tens of
thousands of eligible late Pigford claimants a right to go to court and
have their cases heard. Thanks to bipartisan support by the Senate
Agriculture Committee, this legislation is included in the conference
report before us today.
Again, I thank Senator Harkin for his efforts on this important
legislation, and I call on my colleagues to support it.<bullet>
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
conference report to accompany the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act
of 2008. It is a good bill for Florida and I commend Chairman Harkin,
Senator Chambliss, Chairman Baucus, Senator Grassley, and the members
of both committees for all of their tireless work to pass this bill.
First and foremost, this bill provides a substantial increase in food
assistance to our Nation's low-income families. Nearly three-fourths of
the total spending of the farm bill goes in fact to nutrition programs
such as food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Not only do we increase purchasing power of these benefits but
we also change how a family's need may be calculated; it will take into
account childcare costs and education and retirement savings.
For the first time in history the farm bill also takes into account
an agricultural sector that is of the utmost importance in Florida--
specialty crops. Florida is the leading producer of citrus, tomatoes,
cucumbers, snap beans, bell peppers, squash and watermelon, and is the
second leading producer of strawberries, sweet corn, and greenhouse and
nursery products. This legislation recognizes the importance of

[[Page S4234]]

crops such as these as an integral part of our Nation's food supply,
and provides nearly $3 billion in research, block grants to states,
pest and disease control, farmers' market promotion, and the Fresh
Fruit and Vegetable Program.
Of similar importance are the strides made in this bill for
conservation and energy programs. Florida's natural resources stand to
benefit tremendously from increased funding for conservation, which
will allow the State to optimize participation in land preservation,
environmentally friendly land management practices, and easement
programs. Correspondingly, the bill notably encourages advancements in
cellulosic energy, which will allow us to explore the production of
ethanol from agricultural products that we don't otherwise eat--
products in which Florida is rich.
There are many significant improvements for Florida in this
conference report. It is not a perfect bill, but it increases funding
and support for integral programs while also making reforms to a
sometimes abused system. It is a good bill for Florida, and I encourage
the President to support it.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 2008
farm bill. I thank the chairman, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Senator Saxby
Chambliss of Georgia for their leadership on this bill.
This is, on balance, a good bill, but it could be better. In
particular, I am concerned that we were not more aggressive in making
sure that the commodity program payments are targeted and justified. At
a time when millions of middle-class Americans are struggling to keep
up with higher gas prices, grocery bills, and health care costs, the
Federal Government should not be in the business of sending checks to
millionaire land owners.
Currently, most full-time farmers are eligible for farm subsidies
regardless of income. Many of my colleagues and I began this process
hoping that Congress would change this situation in the farm bill.
Unfortunately, the conference agreement rejected all farmer income
tests for the countercyclical and marketing loan subsidy programs and
includes only a weak net income cap for direct payments: $750,000 for
single farmers and $1.5 million for married farmers after all business
deductions.
The conference report also waives payment limits for the Marketing
Loan Program. The current cap is $75,000. Millionaire land owners are
now eligible for unlimited LDP payments without any income test.
In addition, the bill puts in place provisions that shield our
domestic sugar program from all international competition. Sugar
growers secured an increase in price supports and a guarantee of 85
percent of the domestic sugar market at these guaranteed prices. This
isn't reform and it isn't justified.
I am disappointed with other aspects of the bill as well.
There is less than $100 million in the bill for rural development.
Rural communities are aching for water and wastewater infrastructure,
high speed telecommunications, and financing for business development.
This bill underfunds that key priority. In conference, a program
designed to improve broadband deployment by providing cost-share
assistance to statewide nonprofits was removed. This was a missed
opportunity to improve access to broadband in rural areas at a time
when the United States is falling farther and farther behind in this
key area.
The bill provides marginal funding for agricultural research. The
bill provides less than $100 million for the McGovern-Dole School
Feeding Program, which uses U.S. commodities to feed some of the
world's poorest children in schools.
However, the bill makes significant investments in nutrition,
conservation, and renewable energy programs. It creates a forward-
thinking revenue-based safety net. The members of the Senate
Agriculture Committee can be proud of these components of the package.
The most significant impact of this package may be in the nutrition
title.
In Illinois, over 158,000 households experienced hunger in 2005. If
we include households that have had to struggle to put food on the
table or have had to skip meals to make sure the food would last
through the week, it adds up to 500,000 households in Illinois living
with food insecurity. These are working families who just are not able
to make ends meet.
This farm bill provides $10 billion more over 10 years for domestic
nutrition programs that help lower income families put food on the
table, including $7.8 billion for the Food Stamp Program, $1.25 billion
for the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, and $1 billion for
the fresh fruits and vegetables snack program.
In Illinois, over the next 10 years, this bill will provide $373
million in additional funding to help families that haven't been able
to outrun hunger.
In the Food Stamp Program, the bill will raise the standard deduction
and the minimum benefit and index them for inflation. Nationwide, that
helps 11 million low income people, including families with children,
seniors, and people with disabilities. The adjustment to the standard
deduction will increase benefits for 415,000 Illinois residents, and
the minimum benefit increase will boost benefits for 27,000 Illinois
recipients.
This farm bill also eliminates the cap on the dependent care
deduction and no longer counts retirement accounts and education
accounts toward the asset limit.
The conference report helps food banks and soup kitchens meet the
growing demand for assistance by increasing funding for commodity
purchases for TEFAP--The Emergency Food Assistance Program--by $110
million each year. The bill increases the availability of fruits and
vegetables in low-income schools.
And, I am glad to report that this package includes a modified
version of the Hunger Free Communities Act, a grant program I have long
supported that will help fight hunger in communities. This antihunger
grant program is the first program that will encourage communities to
work together to identify and address hunger locally.
What we see here is strong bipartisan support to end hunger. Even
with a war abroad and budget deficits at home, this Senate made the
decision that progress against hunger is possible.
This farm bill makes another important investment, to protect open
lands and restore habitat for future generations to enjoy. The USDA
administers the largest conservation easement programs and this bill
continues and expands those programs.
In Illinois, there are a total of 78,000 contracts statewide and more
than 1 million acres in the CRP program, including more than 55,000
acres of wetlands. The Wetlands Reserve Program is aiding in what will
become the second largest restoration of wetlands in the United States,
in Emiquon in Fulton County, IL.
These open spaces provide important wildlife habitat and recreation
benefits and prevent erosion of sensitive ground. The conservation
title makes significant investments in the Wetlands Reserve Program,
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Security
Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.
Unfortunately, a key provision that I originally authored in the 2002
farm bill to prevent over-planting on sensitive land, called Sodsaver,
was significantly weakened in conference. These weak protections,
combined what can only be called the most generous Commodity Title in
history relative to market conditions, provides perverse incentives to
overproduce, which will result in the breaking up of sensitive ground.
The investments made in conservation are tempered by the fact that we
are missing an opportunity to protect wildlife and native habitats in
some of the few areas that have never been farmed in this country.
Another important feature of the bill is that we were able to secure
a modified version of a revenue-based safety net that Senator Brown and
I originally proposed last summer. The version in the conference report
allows farmers to elect to enter into this program starting in 2009 and
provides a revenue guarantee to producers in the program depending on
market conditions and previous earnings.
It is a good step forward for Illinois producers and for the future
structure of our commodity programs. At this time of high prices, the
program provides producers a risk-management tool they can really use.

[[Page S4235]]

The energy title funds renewable energy technology, particularly
focused on next-generation biofuels. These should diversify our energy
portfolio and help us lower U.S. dependence on petroleum. America's
heartland is poised to become this nation's power plant if we make the
right investments in wind, solar, and bioenergy.
The bill provides $230 million for grants and loan guarantees to
build and develop next-generation biofuels plants. It provides $250
million in loans and grants for smaller-scale renewable energy projects
in rural parts of the country and about $200 million in cellulosic
feedstock and harvesting research.
I do think we missed an opportunity to make further reforms, to
invest in rural America, and to help address the international food
crisis with a strong commitment to McGovern-Dole. But we also made
important commitments to nutrition and conservation, and I thank
Chairman Harkin and the committee for their work.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity
today to support the farm bill conference report. This bill, while far
from perfect, is an important step in the right direction in a number
of areas. This incremental improvement in farm programs and significant
improvement in nutrition is preferable to the President's proposal to
extend the status quo for several more years. I would like to commend
Chairmen Harkin and Peterson, Ranking Members Chambliss and Goodlatte,
and the rest of the conferees and their staffs on their hard work over
the past few months on this bill.
While I share the concerns I have heard from some Wisconsinites, as
well as some of my colleagues, about the lack of reform to the
commodity programs, I believe the good in this bill outweighs the bad.
This bill makes significant improvements to programs that help farmers
in Wisconsin every day, such as the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC,
Organic Certification Cost Share, and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Programs. It is important to point out that for the first time the farm
bill contains a separate title dedicated to nonprogram or specialty
crops to assist a broader group of farmers with their pressing research
and disease concerns, among other provisions.
The nutrition title of this bill makes significant steps forward in
the fight against hunger in America. My colleagues and the American
people are well aware of the erosion in food stamp benefits over the
past decade. In this time of increasing food and fuel costs, which are
crippling many low- and middle-income Americans, it is a moral
imperative to act to increase these benefits. In addition, the $50
million in immediate funding for the Temporary Emergency Food
Assistance Program will make a real difference for food banks in
Wisconsin. I commend the conferees for recognizing the critical need
for improvement in these programs and addressing it, despite the tight
budget constraints we face.
I am extremely pleased that the bill makes improvements to the Milk
Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program. Along with several of my
colleagues, including Senator Kohl, I have called for the MILC
Program's reimbursement rate to be raised to its original 45 percent. I
also strongly support the feed cost adjustor that was including in
conference to help ensure the MILC safety net can keep up with the
rapidly rising costs of production. The MILC Program is an important
safety net for Wisconsin's dairy farmers and one that operates in a
responsible way--only kicking in and providing payments to farmers when
times are tough. Further, the MILC Program caps the amount of payments
one farmer can receive, ensuring that it helps small and medium farmers
survive tough times without subsidizing expansion of larger farms. The
improvements to this program are vital to farmers in Wisconsin.
I am also pleased that long-overdue oversight of energy markets is
included in the final farm bill. It is past time to prevent market
manipulation by energy traders. Energy market speculation is part of
the reason we are facing high gas prices and the farm bill takes an
important step to close the ``Enron loophole'' that has allowed oil and
gas traders to make electronic energy trades without Federal oversight.
We cannot allow energy traders to secretively bid up the price of oil
and saddle Americans with the price at the gas pump. I am a cosponsor
of Senator Feinstein's Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act that has been
incorporated into the farm bill. In a February 2008 letter, a
bipartisan group of my colleagues and I urged the conference to retain
the Senate-passed provision in the final farm bill. Our letter stated:
``With energy prices at or near record high levels, farmers and
foresters are struggling to fill their tractors, heat their homes,
fertilize their crops, and transport their goods to market. It is
critical that the Congress take advantage of this opportunity on the
Farm bill to increase transparency and reduce the threats of
manipulation and excessive speculation that have plagued our energy
commodity markets over the past several years.'' I am pleased we
succeeded.
The conference report included a number of provisions I included in
legislation that I introduced last year, the Rural Opportunities Act,
to help sustain and strengthen rural economies for the future, and
create more opportunities in rural communities. I am pleased that the
conference committee included a number of provisions similar to my
legislation to support local bioeconomies and food markets, encourage
local renewable fuels and biobased products, expand broadband Internet
service in rural areas, and help develop the next generation of
farmers, ranchers and land managers.
In addition, the bill includes significant improvements to programs
supporting organic agriculture. Wisconsin has a number of organic
farmers and consumers who will benefit from the extra funding for the
Organic Certification Cost Share and Organic Transition Assistance
Programs, among others. This farm bill is the first to recognize the
specific challenges faced by organic farmers, particularly as more and
more consumers seek out their products.
On a related note, I am pleased that the bill contains a provision
similar to one I first proposed in 2006 allowing schools and other
entities participating in Federal food programs to use local preference
when purchasing products, which they are not currently allowed to do.
This will allow schools to select in-season food grown locally, and
will complement a number of programs, like the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Snack Program, by providing a link between farmers and
consumers, particularly children. This is better for farmers and
consumers, Mr. President, and a commonsense reform that is long
overdue.
For some time I have worked to keep dairy imports from free-loading
off of the dairy promotion money paid for by our hard-working dairy
farmers. I am glad that the conference report makes every U.S. State
and territory eligible and allows this assessment to be charged on
imports as was intended in the 2002 farm bill. I am somewhat
disappointed that the payment rate for imports is less than that paid
by domestic producers, but half a loaf is better than none. I will
continue to seek to level the playing field.
In addition to the Agriculture Committee's portion of the bill, the
Finance Committee also made a significant contribution to this
legislation. I was glad that a provision similar to my Farmer Tax
Fairness Act was included in the Finance portion of the conference
report. This legislation will update the optional ability for farmers
and other self-employed individuals to remain eligible for social
security and disability benefits that had been eroded by inflation. It
also indexes the program to inflation, so we are not in the same
situation again sometime in the future.
I was also pleased that several of my amendments that were included
in the Senate bill were included in some form in the conference report.
First, in a continuation of an effort I began with Senator Jeffords in
1998, I am pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment to improve the
authority of what we had called the Small Farm Advocate in a previous
amendment. I continued this effort with Senator Sanders, and while the
conference report made this office a division within the new Office of
Advocacy and Outreach, I expect that this will continue to help
America's small and beginning farmers.
Ensuring transparency and fair competition in the dairy industry has
been

[[Page S4236]]

a priority throughout my Senate career. Over the past year and a half,
a couple developments showed a need for further action in this area.
First, a GAO report on cash cheese trading that I requested with
several of my colleagues confirmed that the market remains prone to
manipulation even though there have been some improvements. Secondly, a
sustained nonfat dry milk price reporting error that lasted over a year
was found to have cost dairy farmers millions in reduced prices. I was
glad to have an amendment accepted in the Senate that would require
regular auditing of the dairy price reporting and require the USDA to
better coordinate oversight of the dairy industry both within the
department and with other federal agencies. The conference report
retained the auditing requirement and shifted the improved oversight to
a directive in the Joint Managers Statement. I hope that this added
diligence and transparency can help give dairy farmers added confidence
in the system.
As we look to expand our Nation's renewable energy and lessen our
dependence on oil, we need to provide opportunities for farmers and
rural communities. Several key elements of my Rural Opportunities Act
supporting local bioenergy were included in the farm bill. One
amendment I got accepted encourages the USDA's continued support for
and the expansion of regional bioeconomy consortiums, which can consist
of land grant universities and State agriculture agencies dedicated to
researching and promoting sustainable and locally supported bioenergy.
The final bill maintains report language supporting these consortia. I
was also pleased to work with Senator Coleman on another ``rural
opportunity'' provision, which is based on our legislation, S. 1813, to
provide local residents an opportunity to invest in biorefineries
located in their communities. The farm bill provision gives priority to
grants and loan guarantees for biorefineries with significant local
ownership. This bill also makes significant strides in providing
increased support for cellulosic ethanol and other innovative solutions
to the energy problems we face as a nation.
While Wisconsin is perhaps more widely known as a leader in milk and
cheese production, we also lead the Nation in the production of
cranberries and ginseng. I was glad to see a priority competitive
research area for cranberries continue through the Senate bill and
conference report. Similarly, I was glad that my legislation with
Senator Kohl and Representative Obey to require country of harvest
labeling for ginseng was accepted as an amendment in the Senate and
continued as country of origin labeling in the conference report. This
is an important step to help combat mislabeling of foreign ginseng as
U.S. or Wisconsin grown, which receives a premium price for its higher
quality.
Overall, I was pleased that this bill provides a significant increase
in conservation programs. I am particularly glad to see an emphasis on
working lands programs like the popular Environmental Quality Incentive
Program and an updated Conservation Stewardship Program, which benefit
farmers and the environment. The farm bill also included provisions
based on Senator Wyden's Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007, S. 1930,
which I cosponsored, to address rampant, unsustainable illegal logging
practices in developing nations. The bill also reauthorizes and the
Great Lakes Basin Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program and allows
the Secretary of Agriculture to use this program to carry out projects
to implement the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy. While I
was disappointed that the funding levels of certain programs like the
Wetlands Reserve Program were not what they should be and that the
``sodsaver'' provision was not a national protection, this bill is
largely a step forward for conservation.
Continuing in the category of mixed results, I was extremely pleased
to see the addition of a new livestock title in the bill to promote
competition and fair practices in agriculture but was disappointed that
many of the Senate's commonsense provisions were removed or watered
down in conference. I am pleased that producers will be able to have a
choice to accept or decline arbitration when they sign agricultural
contracts under the conference report, even though I was disappointed
that a stronger Senate provision that mirrors legislation I have with
Senator Grassley was not retained. On balance, this is a step in the
right direction and I hope the USDA works to ensure that this remains a
real choice for producers and there is no intimidation.
In addition to the handful of improved competition protections that
will benefit livestock producers, the underlying bill contains two
other provisions that are also especially beneficial. I was glad to
support Senator Kohl's longstanding efforts to find a way for meat from
small and often specialty State-inspected meat processors to be sold
across State lines so that consumers nationwide can enjoy these high
quality Wisconsin products. The conference report contains a compromise
that appears to strike a fair balance on this issue and this is a
significant benefit to Wisconsin's local livestock producers and
processors. I was also glad that the conference report will finally
allow a country-of-origin labeling requirement for meat and produce to
be enforced.
While I have discussed at length the positive aspects of the
legislation, let me be clear that the reforms in the commodity title
should go further. I authored an amendment with Senator Menendez to
make modest trims to direct payments and was disappointed the Senate
did not vote on it. In addition, I supported the Dorgan-Grassley
amendment to lower payment limits, the Klobuchar amendment to lower the
AGI cap, and the Brown amendment to trim subsidies for crop insurers. I
was disappointed that these efforts to make the commodity support
programs more balanced and better targeted toward family farms and not
concentrate payments in larger corporate-scale operations were
unsuccessful. With these defeats, both the Senate-passed bill and the
conference report missed an important opportunity for meaningful
targeted reform of the farm support programs.
There were some small steps in the right direction to be sure. Direct
payments were trimmed by a few percent, excessive insurance company
subsidies were trimmed and the cap on wealthy nonfarmers was lowered.
But there was an opportunity to do much more and I will continue that
fight.
One other provision I am concerned about is the cut to the McGovern-
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. In
light of food shortages across the globe, reducing the level of aid we
provide to poor countries is simply wrong. I hope that, through the
appropriations process, Congress will be able to continue providing
funding for this important program.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I rise today in support of the Food and Energy
Security Act. The provisions of the conference report represent a
tremendous step forward in ensuring the health of American consumers,
for example by providing low-income citizens with better access to
healthy food choices by increasing the amount of funding for nutrition
programs, increasing food stamp payments, bringing more fruits and
vegetables into schools, and providing assistance to low-income seniors
so that they can shop at farmers markets. This bill also recognizes the
important place that specialty crops have on the dinner table.
In addition to the benefits that Americans will see at their tables,
this bill also provides unique opportunities to better the environment
and look out for those who cannot speak for themselves. The bill
continues to support land conservation and expands protection for
wetlands, grazing land, wildlife habitats, and forests. The bill
increases our investment in biofuels research and production so that we
can move away from foreign oil, and instead use American-made
cellulosic and sugar-based ethanol and biodiesel. It also strengthens
protections for animals by quadrupling penalties for Animal Welfare Act
violations and prohibiting dog fighting.
For these and other reasons I will support this farm bill
legislation. However, I am troubled by the bill managers' use of the
narrow provisions in the bill addressing agriculture security to
expound in the Joint Explanatory Statement about the proper roles of
the Departments of Homeland Security and Agriculture, and the
performance of DHS, in this area. Allow me to address a few of my
concerns.

[[Page S4237]]

The managers assert, for example, that DHS has ``claimed Federal
jurisdiction as the lead agency'' for activities ``traditionally
managed by USDA.'' This statement is unnecessarily dismissive and
ignores numerous laws that establish the current Federal framework for
addressing threats to agriculture and food security, a framework in
which the Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal
official to lead and coordinate efforts among Federal departments and
agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector to
protect critical infrastructure and key resources in all sectors. Among
the laws that make up the framework are the Homeland Security Act of
2002, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,
Intel Reform Act, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
2006, Post-Katrina Act, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act,
PAHPA, and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2007, 9/11 Commission Act. Various Homeland Security Presidential
directives further undergird the current structure--including HSPD-5,
Management of Domestic Incidents, HSPD-7, Critical Infrastructure
Identification, Prioritization and Protection, HSPD-8, National
Preparedness, HSPD-9, Defense of U.S. Agriculture and Food, and HSPD-
10, Biodefense for the 21st Century.
Under these laws and directives, a number of agencies have
responsibilities specifically relevant to agriculture and food
security. These include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which
is responsible for infrastructure protection for the agriculture sector
and matters pertaining to meat, poultry, and egg products; the
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, is responsible for the
remainder of the food sector, as well as for public health and
healthcare; and the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for
drinking water and water treatment systems. HSPD-9 details the roles
and responsibilities of these and other Federal agencies regarding
specific aspects of agriculture and food security, including awareness
and warning, vulnerability assessments, mitigation strategies, and
research and development. Since enactment and issuance of the
aforementioned bills and directives, numerous activities to advance
agriculture and food security have been undertaken throughout the
Federal Government in reliance on, and within, this framework.
That said, I agree with the bill managers that USDA is the agency
best equipped to handle routine agricultural disease emergencies. USDA
continues to serve that function, and DHS relies on USDA to do so.
The managers also assert that agricultural inspections have degraded
since the inspectors were incorporated into DHS--as required by the
Homeland Security Act of 2002. This statement ignores the factual
record:

While there were initial problems, not entirely
unexpectedly, integrating various components into one
Department, the situation has improved dramatically, and the
agriculture inspection mission has a clear roadmap for how to
improve further. The number of agriculture inspectors has
increased, as has the number of canine teams, beyond those at
the time of the transition. The same high educational
standards for agriculture specialists apply, but now they get
more field training. The Customs and Border Protection, CPB,
primary inspectors, which in their legacy roles have always
been responsible for referring agriculture products to
secondary screening, now get substantially more training to
recognize products and pests that need further examination.
The Joint USDA-DHS task force has outlined 10 concrete
action plans for further improvement and is making
considerable progress in implementing them. Last month, the
joint agency task force met with agriculture stakeholders to
further refine their recommendations and to draft new
recommendations.
USDA remains integrally involved in the inspection process,
with continuing responsibilities for the training of CBP
agricultural specialists and CBP officers, training of canine
teams, setting rules and regulations for the agriculture
inspection process, and for identifying the pests that CBP
agricultural specialists intercept.

I do appreciate the managers' recognition that the agricultural
specialists within CBP who are responsible for inspecting agricultural
products at the border need to remain within DHS. The Homeland Security
Act of 2002 brought together in the CBP directorate of DHS customs
inspectors from the Treasury Department, immigration inspectors from
the Justice Department, and agricultural inspectors from the
Agriculture Department. The purpose was to create a single, integrated
force at our borders to keep out people and goods that pose a threat.
For the first time, all those who protect our borders report up a
single chain of command. To do otherwise than to keep the agricultural
inspectors within CBP would splinter the integrated border security
force we have been building for 5 years, and weaken both our homeland
and agricultural security.
The managers further suggest that DHS may not be placing sufficient
priority on agricultural security and agricultural inspections and they
appear to be concerned that DHS may not be paying sufficient attention
to the concerns of the agricultural community. In fact, the agriculture
mission has repeatedly received the highest level of attention. DHS
Secretary Chertoff addressed the agriculture inspection stakeholders'
meeting just last month. A directive reiterating the importance of the
agricultural mission has been disseminated to every CBP office. A new
position--the Deputy Executive Director, Agriculture Operational
Oversight at Customs and Border Protection--has just been created to
provide oversight of all agriculture inspectors no matter where they
serve to ensure that mission needs are being met.
Finally, the managers suggest that USDA should oversee DHS's
agricultural inspection program and issue comprehensive reports on it
to Congress. I cannot recall an example of one executive branch
department overseeing and reporting to Congress on another executive
branch department. The proposal is unprecedented, unnecessary, and
fundamentally misapprehends the roles of the respective independent
departments, and threatens what has become a productive partnership
between the agencies of the two departments.
Rather than pitting Departments against one another, we should be
encouraging the cooperation between DHS and USDA that, in fact, is now
occurring. USDA and DHS are working together to a greater extent than
ever has historically been the case in the relationship between
agriculture and border officials. While challenges remain, the current
level of partnership should serve as a model for interagency
cooperation.
With active participation by USDA and the Federal Drug
Administration, FDA, DHS is assessing agro-terrorist threats,
capitalizing on the substantial assets at its National Biodefense
Analysis and Countermeasure Center and its connections with the
intelligence community that have been applied to other biological and
WMD threats to the Nation. USDA is also participating in the DHS-
operated National Biosurveillance Integration Center, NBIC, authorized
by the 9/11 Commission Act, to bring together information from multiple
sources to detect and contain biological incidents as rapidly as
possible.
The agricultural biosecurity communications center authorized by the
bill, as the managers note, is expected to provide a central collection
point for USDA generated information and to provide important
information to DHS's National Operations Center, which acts as the
central source for homeland security situational awareness for the
Federal Government.
DHS and USDA also engage in research and development together to
promote agricultural security. DHS's role includes its sponsorship of
the National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease and its
Plum Island Animal Disease Center at which both DHS and USDA
researchers work collaboratively to address the catastrophic threat of
foot and mouth disease.
The Office of Homeland Security at USDA, also authorized by the bill,
should be helpful in coordinating the homeland security activities of
the various offices and agencies within USDA, thereby providing a
primary point of contact between USDA and DHS for agricultural security
issues.
While I find the manager's statement troubling and unfounded, I have
worked with the Agriculture Committee to ensure that the bill itself
will not endanger homeland and agriculture security.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report on the Food, Conservation, and

[[Page S4238]]

Energy Act of 2008, a tremendously important piece of legislation that
will set our Nation's agricultural policy for the next 5 years. It is
an immense piece of legislation; and obviously, in any bill of this
size, any Senator will find provisions with which he or she will
disagree. I am no different. Nevertheless, on the whole it is a strong
bill and a good compromise that my colleagues and their staffs have
spent months preparing, and I hope, for the sake of our farmers and the
country as a whole, that it will be approved by both Houses of Congress
and signed into law by the President.
The 2008 farm bill strengthens the safety net for farmers struggling
with abrupt shifts in the agricultural market. In many ways, these
farmers are the backbone of our economy, and we must ensure that they
are adequately protected. Included in this safety net is an expanded
Milk Income Loss Compensation, or MILC, Program, which is of critical
importance to dairy farmers in my home State of Connecticut and across
the country. The farm bill conference report would increase the MILC
Program's payment rate for dairy producers when the price of milk falls
below a statutorily set target price; it also allows for adjustments of
that price when the price of feed increases. In addition, this bill
creates important protections for specialty crop producers by providing
nearly $466 million over the next 10 years to the Specialty Crop Block
Grants Program. This new initiative is especially important for farmers
in the State of Connecticut, as nearly 47 percent of our agricultural
receipts come from nursery and greenhouse products.
I am particularly pleased that the conference committee adopted much
stricter income limits on commodity payments by significantly lowering
the adjusted gross income test. To qualify for benefits, individuals
would have to prove that they earn less than $500,000 per year from
nonfarming sources and only up to $750,000 per year in farm income.
These new income tests will help ensure that the farm bill's safety net
programs actually help the people that they were originally intended
for: those small, family farmers who make up the backbone of American
agriculture and who operate all too often on razor-thin margins.
I am also very pleased by the much needed attention this bill gives
to nutrition programs, particularly those that serve American families
struggling on the verge of hunger or food insecurity. All told, this
bill provides over $10 billion in new money for nutrition programs. It
beefs up the Food Stamp Program by stopping benefit erosion and
expanding eligibility, and it provides more than $1 billion in
assistance to local area food banks. In addition, to help children
develop healthier eating habits, this legislation extends to all 50
States a program that provides fresh fruits and vegetables to
underprivileged schools. I have seen the success of the Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables Program firsthand, in its Connecticut pilot test. I know
how vital fresh produce is to the health of all Americans; in the case
of underprivileged schoolchildren, those who need it the most have
gotten it the least and I am glad this bill goes a long way toward
correcting that disparity.
Finally, the farm bill conference report aims to preserve our fragile
environment by funding critical land conservation programs and
investing in renewable sources of energy. To help American farmers act
as responsible stewards of the land they work, this legislation
allocates nearly $8 billion in new funding to help farmers and
landowners be better and more responsible stewards of the environment.
This bill also includes provisions to encourage the production of
domestic biofuels, including funds to promote biomass crop production,
loan guarantees for commercial scale biorefineries, and dramatically
increased funding for biomass research and development. The farm bill's
energy title in particular is critical to ensuring that our country
finally breaks its longstanding over-reliance on costly and
environmentally harmful fossil fuels.
In sum, I am satisfied that the farm bill takes great steps to
protect our struggling farmers, our low-income families and children,
and our threatened environment. In my view, the farm bill embodies an
approach to agricultural policy characterized first and foremost by a
concern for the long-term well-being of all Americans. I therefore urge
my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we don't often have the opportunity to
celebrate on the Senate floor. There is oftentimes, we must
acknowledge, a lot of acrimony and finger-pointing.
Today, I want to take a minute to express my appreciation to all
those involved in this bill. We know there were Senators Harkin,
Chambliss, Baucus, and Grassley, but many other people were involved in
this process to get us where we are today.
This is a tremendously important piece of legislation. This was dead
on at least 15 different occasions, but it was revived. There was true
bipartisanship--a true situation where we had conferences, where people
met in open session and voted. It was what we all should come here to
look forward to doing--legislating such as we did here.
This is a very complicated and difficult piece of legislation. Was
there enough reform? I don't know how much is enough. Certain groups
look at these farm programs, and there is nothing you can do to satisfy
them. No matter what is done, it is not enough for them. Every time we
do a farm bill, the editorial boards from around the country roll out
the old editorials, they change a few lines and send out the same
editorial they did before.
This bill has reform in it. Could we have done more? Perhaps, but had
we done more, we would not have gotten a bill. What did we get as a
result of the compromises made? We got nutrition. What a wonderful
thing. We got food stamps. For us in Nevada this is important. Since
2000, the numbers of food stamps-qualified people have gone up more
than 100 percent. We didn't change the rules to let more people into
the program. They qualified under the old rules, and now, by more than
100 percent, that has been increased. This legislation takes care of
that.
Children going to schools all around America, as a result of this
legislation, will get fresh fruits and vegetables in their lunch
programs. That is remarkable. There are people in this Chamber who
didn't have the opportunity when they were kids in school to have fresh
fruits and vegetables. That is the way it is all over America,
especially with kids who grew up in these urban centers. Fresh fruits
and vegetables are something they don't get often. This is wonderful.
Food banks, I have heard Sherrod Brown and others talk about how the
food banks are going empty. We have a lot of hungry people in America,
and we have to acknowledge that. This farm bill acknowledges that. We
are going to increase food bank money by $100 million each year. That
is a lot of money. It is very important.
We have conservation. My friend, Tom Harkin, has caused me so much
grief on this conservation program. It was his idea to do some
conservation programs. The administrations--plural--a lot of times
didn't want to give him what he felt was the law. He held up a lot of
things going on in the Senate as a result of that. So the conservation
programs, because of the dedication of Tom Harkin, are remarkable. I
watched Senator Harkin, last night, show the pictures of what takes
place when there is good conservation. Now farmers and ranchers will be
rewarded as a result of that. That is extremely important.
Even the State of Nevada will be able to compete for money in the
conservation programs.
There are disaster programs. We in the West have been ravaged by
wildfires. As a result of being ravaged, the Bureau of Land Management
and other land managers close up rangeland, and there is nothing the
ranchers can do; they close them up. They will now qualify for disaster
relief, which is in this bill.
For the first time, this is going to be the case: compensation for
wildlife damage.
One of the favorite talking topics is energy. This bill actually does
something about it. There is a demand we stop using corn and other such
items that are edibles to make fuel. This legislation recognizes that
point.
I have talked about reform. This bill contains reforms. There are
reforms on caps on payments to farmers. Remember, farm programs count
for less than

[[Page S4239]]

13 percent of this bill's spending and are expected to climb by $60
billion over the next 10 years. That sounds pretty good.
This bill, as other important legislation, is one of compromise. That
is what legislation is all about.
I know we have a lot to do. I extend my congratulations for this
remarkable piece of legislation. This is how we should legislate. I am
so appreciative of the bipartisan nature of this legislation. I look
for a real big vote. I hope we have a strong vote indicating the
bipartisan nature of this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The question is on agreeing
to the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 15, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

YEAS--81

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
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--15

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

NOT VOTING--4

Clinton
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, we have had a very significant vote here
on this farm bill. I will have to check the record, but this has to be
one of the strongest votes for any farm bill in the history of farm
bill legislation in the Senate.
It has truly been a team effort. It took a long time--about a year
and a half; 2 years, actually. Senator Chambliss, when he was chairman
of the committee, started the whole process, so it has been a couple of
years in the making. It has been a great team effort. As I said, we
have all worked together. It has been a very long road with a lot of
tough negotiations. We did it in a manner in which the people of this
country want us to operate around here.
We worked hard and got the bill through committee. We brought it to
the floor. We had our amendments, we had good debates in December,
passed it at that time, then we went to conference. We had a good
number of conference meetings, frankly. But they were good conference
meetings. That is the way we ought to do legislation around here. The
proof of doing it in that manner--in an open, cooperative manner,
having all sides being able to have their viewpoints heard and input
made--is that we came up with good legislation as an end product.
I want to thank and congratulate all of the members of the
Agriculture Committee, on both sides, for all of their hard work in
bringing this bill to this vote today. I especially want to thank
Senator Chambliss for his leadership in starting this off and then
serving as the ranking member for the last year and a half and working
so closely with me and others to get this bill done. I especially want
to thank all the Senators who were conferees. There were some long
sessions that went on for hours and hours and days and days. But we
hung in there.
I will start with Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley from Iowa, the
chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, for their help in
coming up with the funds we needed to put this bill together.
Especially I thanked my colleague from Iowa earlier, but I want to
thank him also for his diligent work and effort to make sure we had a
good livestock, poultry, and competition title.
I see my good friend, Kent Conrad. I said earlier, we certainly
benefited from his expertise, his knowledge. It is wonderful having the
budget chairman on the Agriculture Committee helps keep us on track so
we know what we can and cannot do to stay within the bounds of the
budget rules.
So I cannot thank Senator Conrad and his staff enough for helping us
comply with the budget requirements. I say to the people of North
Dakota, the farmers, the ranchers, the people who live in your small
towns and communities, I can honestly say I know Kent Conrad well. And
there is nothing that escapes his attention when it comes to the
farmers and ranchers and rural people of North Dakota. They do not have
a better fighter for their interests. I might even expand that further.
Farmers and ranchers and rural people all over America have no greater
a fighter for their interests than Kent Conrad.
I see Senator Stabenow. I said earlier I am going to start calling
her the Senator of specialty crops. We would not have had a specialty
crop title in this bill if it had not been for Senator Stabenow. She is
unique, the only person, as far as I know, who has served on the
Agriculture Committees of her State legislature, the Agriculture
Committee of the House of Representatives, and the Agriculture
Committee of the Senate. And that expertise shows through, believe me,
in what she has accomplished in this farm bill.
I see my good friend, Senator Salazar, who did so much to make sure
we had a good energy title; that we start focusing much more on ethanol
from cellulose.
Senator Lincoln from Arkansas, a strong fighter for the rice farmers,
her cotton, grain, and oilseed farmers. I might also say that Senator
Lincoln is a very strong fighter for nutrition programs and rural
development. I thank her for all of her help on this committee.
I am going to read a list and recognize all of the staff members who
work for me on the committee. They deserve to have their names in this
Record because as hard as we worked, they worked three or four times as
hard. A lot of times we went home at night and they were still here. A
lot of times we were gone on the weekends, they were here.
And, of course, first and foremost, I would thank Mark Halverson.
Mark has been with me on this committee since 1988. And he has brought
a wealth of experience as a farmer in Iowa, and also as a lawyer. So he
brings together a lot of knowledge and expertise in guiding and
directing the staff. He has done a wonderful job. I cannot thank Mark
Halverson enough for his patience, his leadership, and in juggling all
of the balls and keeping tabs on everything. Mark Halverson has
performed above and beyond the call of duty.
Susan Keith, our general counsel in commodities; Stephanie Mercier,
our chief economist, trade and international food assistance and crop
insurance; Phil Buchan, who worked so hard on conservation, and
especially the conservation stewardship program and the EQIP Program;
Eldon Boes, who came to us from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. He has done so much work on the energy title.
Derek Miller--Derek came to us from the House side where he worked on
the 2002 farm bill. He is probably the most knowledgeable person I have
ever met on nutrition and how the nutrition programs work. And due in
no small part to Derek Miller, we have a great nutrition title.

[[Page S4240]]

Richard Bender, a long-time member of my staff who handles rural
development and the tax provisions; Todd Batta handled the forestry and
credit titles; and John Ferrell, who did all of our livestock work and
the programs for organic farmers.
Adela Ramos, who does a great job keeping track of all of the ag
research and food safety; Dave White from Montana who as a detailee
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service, was with us for a year
and a half, and worked so hard on conservation; Dan Christenson, who
did so much on specialty crops and helping with nutrition; Kerri
Johannsen, who worked on energy; Tina May on conservation; Amy
Lowenthal, who is our counsel providing legal advice on many issues.
Eric Juzenas, who came to us as a detailee from the CFTC for the
reauthorization of the Commodities Exchange Act; Katharine Ferguson,
who is a professional staff member who assists our staff director, Mark
Halveson. We call her our ``utility player''. Whenever we need someone,
Katharine is there. She can fill in for anybody and does it extremely
well.
Kate Cyrul, our communications director; Bob Sturm, our chief clerk
who retired last year. He was here for many of the hearings on this
bill and came back to fill in periodically; Jessie Williams, our chief
clerk who has done such a great job of succeeding Bob Sturm; Jacob
Chaney, our systems administrator; Jonathan Urban, who did so much on
the CFTC reauthorization, before he left the staff to head to law
school. We wish him the best in law school. Peter Kelley, our assistant
clerk and legislative correspondent, who sort of runs interference for
all of us; Cory Claussen, our legislative correspondent; Micah Wortham,
the Government Printing Office detailee who is here to make sure our
documents are printed properly; Ellen Huntoon, who covers rural
development and agricultural topics.
Now, again, I know that Senator Chambliss has thanked all of his
staff. I do not know every single person there, but I do know Martha
Scott Poindexter and Vernie Hubert. I particularly want to thank both
of them for their great efforts, for their leadership, and for all the
time and the efforts and the weekends, the nights. You ought to take a
vacation too.
Also, I want to thank the Office of Legislative Counsel, the
Congressional Budget Office, the Senate floor staff, the Department of
Agriculture staff. Now, I know the administration has not agreed with
us on everything in this bill. But I have to say, the technical
assistance provided by the Department was very helpful in putting
everything together.
Again, I thank and congratulate all of the staffs of the Senators on
our committee--especially Senators Baucus, Grassley, Conrad. I feel
very good about this bill and the overwhelming vote. I still remain
hopeful the President will sign this bill. Hope springs eternal that he
will sign it. If he does not, I guess we will have to face that down
the road. I hope we have the votes to override. Team effort,
cooperation, conciliation, bipartisanship, those are the keys to
successful legislation. I am gratified to have played this role in
getting this bill passed.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I voted against the Senate-passed version
of the farm bill because it lacked the fiscal discipline required of
Congress during a time of deficit spending and exponential growth of
the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the conference report is just as
unacceptable as the Senate-passed version of the farm bill. As a
result, I cannot support it.
Congress first approved the Federal farm assistance policies in the
early 1930s to help struggling farmers during times of economic
hardship due to low commodity prices. Over the last six decades,
however, the farm bill has swelled significantly, and now provides
extensive subsidies for farmers and agricultural landowners who may not
be in true financial need.
The conference report continues this trend, spending approximately
$730 billion over 10 years. And, as the administration correctly points
out, it increases spending by approximately $20 billion over the
current baseline, not $10 billion as claimed by the conferees. The
roughly $10 billion difference is achieved through a number of
gimmicks, including using timing shifts and funding cliffs.
To make matters worse, at a time when the United States' net farm
income is projected to be $92.3 billion this year--51 percent greater
than the 10-year average--the conference report would increase subsidy
rates, create additional subsidies for a number of crops, and continue
direct payments regardless of crop prices. Now is not the time to
maintain or increase subsidies; now is the time to reduce or eliminate
them.
The conference report would also continue to pay subsidies to
millionaire farmers and nonfarmers. It would allow married couples who
farm and have an adjusted gross income of $1.5 million to continue to
receive subsidies. It would also allow married couples with an adjusted
gross income of $1,000,000 who are not full-time farmers to receive
subsidies. Farm payments should go only to those who actually need
them, not to some of the wealthiest individuals in the country.
Congress could use the farm bill to make substantive reforms and cut
federal spending. Instead, it appears that Congress will pass a bloated
farm bill that is just another example of a broken and mismanaged
Congress. Consequently, I cannot support it and urge my colleagues to
also oppose the bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this year's farm bill includes many
important programs that will benefit Michigan and the Nation as a
whole. Few States have Michigan's diversity of agricultural crops, and
I am pleased that this farm bill contains a range of measures that will
benefit farmers throughout my State. Agriculture is Michigan's second
largest industry and this bill will help support this industry at a
time when Michigan's economy is struggling.
This bill will provide significant additional assistance to specialty
crop growers that has been severely lacking in past farm legislation.
Specialty crops are an important part of the agriculture industry and a
healthy part of our Nation's food supply. While Michigan is a leading
producer of traditional crops, such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, our
State is also a leader in the production of specialty crops, such as
apples, asparagus, beans, blueberries, and cherries. This farm bill
will provide much needed support for the specialty crop community
throughout Michigan and that means a more assured supply of U.S. grown
fruits and vegetables so important to Americans nutritional needs.
Nutrition programs, such as the Food Stamp Program, provide
assistance to children, low-income working families, seniors, and
persons with disabilities. This bill includes a significant increase in
funding for our Nation's critical food and nutrition programs on which
our Nation's least fortunate and most vulnerable rely. In my State of
Michigan, over 500,000 households will benefit from increased nutrition
assistance, and the bill will also help to alleviate some of the stress
local food banks all across Michigan are experiencing at this time.
The farm bill includes measures to improve conservation. These
programs, which are aimed at both working lands and lands taken out of
production, are intended to protect and improve soil quality, prevent
erosion, benefit water quality, and preserve and restore habitats. This
legislation expands the Conservation Stewardship Program, CSP,
increases funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
EQIP, and reauthorizes the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, and
Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP, to protect environmentally sensitive
lands.
I am pleased that this bill also includes incentives that will
encourage continued development of biofuels and increased production of
renewable fuels. I have long supported incentives for new technologies
that can move us away from our significant reliance on foreign oil, and
this bill makes critical investments in alternative energy that will
help move us toward that goal.
While this bill includes modest reforms to our current producer
protection programs, these reforms do not go far enough. It would have
been my hope that this bill would have included more innovative
measures, such as farm savings accounts, and additional reforms to our
agricultural subsidy programs. I am hopeful that we can work to enact
further reforms when Congress next considers farm legislation.

[[Page S4241]]

There is another important reason to support the farm bill. It
contains a key provision which would finally close the Enron loophole
that has contributed for so many years to the problem of rampant
speculation in our energy markets. It would close the Enron loophole by
requiring government oversight of electronic trading of energy
commodities by large traders to prevent price manipulation and
excessive speculation.
In 2000, at the behest of Enron and others, a provision was slipped
into law--section 2(h)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act--that exempted
from oversight and regulation the electronic trading of energy and
metal commodities by large traders. This loophole took the cop off the
beat in those electronic markets and allowed traders to operate with
less supervision and fewer controls than regulated commodity markets
like the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX.
Beginning in 2003, my Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI,
issued a series of reports exposing how these unregulated markets and
their unregulated trades had opened the door to energy price
manipulation and excessive speculation. A 2006 subcommittee report, for
example, presented evidence that excessive speculation was adding
substantially to energy prices, including as much as $20 out of a $70
barrel of crude oil. In 2007, the subcommittee issued a report and held
2 days of hearings showing how excessive speculation in futures
contracts by a single hedge fund named ``Amaranth'' on the unregulated
markets had increased consumer prices for natural gas. The report
showed how Amaranth deliberately avoided trading limits on NYMEX by
moving its trades to an unregulated electronic exchange.
Our reports repeatedly recommended legislation to close the Enron
loophole, and over several Congresses, I introduced or cosponsored
legislation to do just that. In 2007, for example, I introduced S.
2058, the Close the Enron Loophole Act which was endorsed by a wide
range of consumer, business, and agricultural groups. In response to
this legislation, our reports and hearings, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, CFTC, suggested its own legislative approach to
close the Enron loophole. I then worked with my colleagues, Senators
Feinstein, Snowe, and others to come up with legislation that was
acceptable to both sides of the aisle as well as the administration.
That legislation was offered as an amendment to the Senate farm bill,
and a closely related version of that amendment is now part of the
conference report before us today.
The farm bill provisions are designed to put the cop back on the beat
in all U.S. commodity markets to protect against price manipulation and
excessive speculation. Specifically, the bill provides that any
contract that is traded on an electronic trading facility and serves a
significant price discovery function is subject to CFTC oversight to
prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation, just as it is
subject to that oversight on regulated markets such as NYMEX.
For each such contract, an electronic trading facility is required to
comply with the same key standards--called ``core principles''--that
apply to regulated exchanges, like NYMEX, to prevent price manipulation
and excessive speculation. For example, electronic exchanges are
required to list only contracts which are not readily susceptible to
manipulation; monitor trading to prevent manipulation and price
distortion; establish rules to obtain information from traders and
provide it to the CFTC upon request; establish position limits or
accountability levels that trigger review of a trader's positions in
order to reduce the potential threat of manipulation; possess emergency
authority to require traders to reduce positions; publish daily trading
information; and enforce trader compliance with its rules.
Essentially, an electronic trading facility will now have to function
as a self-regulatory organization under CFTC oversight in the same
manner as a regulated futures exchange like NYMEX. The bill gives the
CFTC the same oversight and enforcement authority over the electronic
exchange with respect to these contracts as it has with respect to a
futures exchange. The days of unregulated electronic energy markets are
over.
Passage of this critically important legislation is the culmination
of many years of work by Senator Feinstein, myself, Senator Snowe, and
others, and I thank them for their sustained effort to close the Enron
loophole. I also would like to thank Senators Harkin and Chambliss for
working with us to include this legislation in the farm bill. In
addition, I would like to thank our many friends in the other body who
worked diligently to get this legislation done. The legislation to
close the Enron loophole is a bipartisan, bicameral success story and
the winners are the American people who will gain greater protection
against price manipulation and excessive speculation.
This farm bill is a bipartisan piece of legislation which includes
many programs that are beneficial to Michigan. While this bill is not
perfect, I believe the combination of improved assistance for specialty
crops, enhanced conservation spending, increased funding for nutrition
programs, investment in renewable energy programs, and the provisions
closing the Enron loophole which are included in this bill are worthy
of support. I am pleased we are finally able to send a farm bill to the
President's desk that will benefit our Nation's farmers and rural
communities, and I urge the President to sign this bill into law.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, with today's passage of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, we have taken a step in the right
direction for rural America after well over a year of work on this
bill. This legislation will result in new opportunities for U.S.
farmers, rural business owners, and those who require food assistance
during a time of rising food prices. I am pleased that the Senate has
finally voted in favor of its implementation.
None of this would have been possible without the leadership of our
chairman and ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee,
Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss. I want to thank both of their
staffs and in particular Mark Halverson, majority staff director, and
Martha Scott Poindexter, minority staff director, for their hard work
and dedication to bring this 5-month conference to a conclusion.
For the first time in the process of writing a farm bill, the tax
writing committees were asked to help fund a portion of the spending. I
have strong concerns about this, which I have expressed previously.
Still, we would not be here today without the hard work and leadership
of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus. And he is
supported by a strong staff. That starts with the Democratic staff
director on the Finance Committee, Russ Sullivan, and the deputy staff
director, Bill Dauster, as well as his legislative director, Jon Selib,
who were each critical to the process. I also want to thank Brandon
Willis on his personal staff, Pat Bousilmann on the Senate Finance
Committee, and Cathy Koch and Rebecca Baxter on his tax staff. And I
want to thank his chief international trade counsel, Demetrios
Marantis, as well as the other members of the Democratic trade staff,
Darci Vetter, Amber Cottle, Janis Lazda, Chelsea Thomas, and Hun Quach,
and three individuals serving on detail to Senator Baucus, Russ Ugone,
Ayesha Khanna, and Chuck Kovatch.
Of course, I am grateful for the outstanding effort of my staff as
well. First I want to thank Amanda Taylor, my agriculture counsel on my
personal staff for her many months and countless hours of dedication
and hard work on this bill. I also want to thank my chief tax counsel
and deputy staff director, Mark Prater, as well as Elizabeth Paris, my
energy and agricultural tax counsel. I am pleased that with their hard
work we were able to provide long overdue agricultural tax relief to
our nation's farmers. In addition, from my trade staff, Stephen
Schaefer, David Johanson, Claudia Poteet, and David Ross, each deserve
my thanks for their contributions. I also want to thank John Kalitka,
who is on detail to my staff from the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Today's vote is long overdue. The September 2007 deadline of the farm
bill has long come and gone. The farm bill hasn't happened as quickly
as I would have liked, and we've had multiple extensions. Still,
today's vote is critical to giving our agricultural policy a face lift.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture should begin to implement

[[Page S4242]]

these new laws as soon as possible, and I will work hard to oversee the
Department in its administration of this important legislation.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, nearly 3 years after the tragedy of
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, we have enacted meaningful reforms
in the way the Small Business Administration comes to the aid of
disaster victims.
The farm bill conference report includes bipartisan legislation which
I have been working on since the fall of 2005 with my ranking member,
Senator Snowe, and Senators Landrieu and Vitter. Both Louisiana
Senators are members of the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship. We held many hearings in our committee and received
testimony regarding the inadequate response of the Small Business
Administration to the destructive gulf coast hurricanes of 2005. S.
163, the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of
2007, the latest version of the Senate's small business disaster
legislation, was included as an amendment to the farm bill late last
year. During the last several months, we conferenced with our
colleagues in the House to reconcile the differences between our
legislation and companion legislation adopted by the House. I am
pleased that we were able to come to an agreement. I want to
acknowledge the hard work of all the staffs, and the support of Senator
Harkin and his Agriculture Committee staff as we conferenced on this
bill. I also want to thank SBA Administrator Preston for his support of
this legislation back in August when it first passed the Senate, and
during the conference negotiations. This package of provisions does not
include everything I would have wanted but it is a significant response
to the gulf coast hurricanes of 2005.
These large-scale disasters taught us lessons and showed us our
vulnerabilities in their wake. They also inspired novel ideas as to how
to respond which we have incorporated into these reforms.
This bill gives the SBA several tools to better and more quickly
assist disaster victims. One of the key issues after Hurricane Katrina
was getting money to people quickly so they could keep their businesses
afloat and start rebuilding their lives. This bill creates two bridge
loan programs for the private sector to administer small-dollar, short-
term disaster loans to businesses. It allows the SBA, in a catastrophic
disaster, to authorize private lenders to make 180-day loans of up to
$150,000 at not more then 1 percent over the prime rate to businesses
that are otherwise eligible for a disaster loan. In all disasters,
private lenders can make loans of up to $25,000 and receive an SBA
guaranty within 36 hours for up to 85 percent of the loan amount. Both
loans would be rolled into a standard SBA disaster loan once it has
been made. These bridge loans will get financial assistance to
businesses while they await processing or disbursement of their
conventional SBA loan or insurance payments.
This bill also creates a program to allow private lenders to make
disaster loans after a catastrophic disaster. This will leverage the
relationships people already have with their local lenders and ease the
burden on the SBA to make a huge volume of loans quickly. These loans
will carry the same terms and benefits as conventional SBA disaster
loans. All lenders would be eligible to make loans to small businesses,
but only lenders who are preferred lenders could make loans to
individuals. The bill also provides the SBA with authority to pay a fee
to private lenders to process loans during times when the SBA's
processing capabilities are overwhelmed in order to prevent application
backlogs and ensure timely approval and disbursement of loan proceeds.
Tools such as these will dramatically cut the time it takes to process
and disburse loans in the event of a future disaster.
After a catastrophic disaster, while the disaster area clearly feels
the brunt of the damage, businesses throughout the country can be
dramatically affected by the incident. This could be because one of
their suppliers or buyers is located in the disaster area, because they
receive energy from the disaster area, or a myriad of other reasons.
This bill authorizes the SBA to make economic injury disaster loans to
businesses located outside the geographic area of a catastrophic
disaster, if they suffer economic injury as a direct result of the
disaster.
This bill also updates and increases the maximum amount of an SBA
disaster loan from the current level of $1,500,000 to $2,000,000, and
raises the maximum amount of unsecured disaster loans from $10,000 to
$14,000. It was well past time to raise these caps given the increasing
costs of doing business and these provisions give the SBA the
flexibility to get people the help that they need. The bill also gives
the SBA Administrator the authority to make new disaster loans and
refinance existing loans from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita with a 4-year
deferment period giving people time to get back on their feet before
their payments come due.
Finally, the bill improves SBA's coordination with other agencies,
its communication with the public, and its preparation for a future
disaster. The bill adds several requirements to improve the SBA's
coordination with FEMA as they are the two main agencies responsible to
respond to a major disaster. The agency will also be required to
conduct biennial disaster simulation exercises and create a
comprehensive disaster response plan for various disaster scenarios.
The SBA will be required to improve its communication with the public
when disaster assistance is made available. The bill also creates a new
position for high-level disaster planning to oversee the disaster
planning and readiness of the agency.
I applaud my colleagues for helping pass this important piece of
legislation as part of the farm bill. I expect to see immediate
dividends as the SBA is better able to assist disaster victims in the
short term, and I know that the passage of these provisions will be
looked upon as an essential rebuilding tool if we ever have another
tragedy on the scale of 9/11 or Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today the Senate voted on the farm bill.
Leading up to that vote, we had two procedural votes which are required
when budget points of order are raised against a legislative provision.
My vote on this farm bill was a difficult one. Certainly, opposition
to this bill is justified. There are simply too many subsidies in this
bill, there are Davis-Bacon provisions that I strongly oppose, and I
believe that some provisions may violate our trade agreements.
To express my frustration with the negative aspects of the bill, I
chose to support the procedural obstacles leading up to the vote on the
bill itself. However, in response to very strong support for the farm
bill from the preponderance of agricultural interests in my State, and
to the fact that the farm bill has some provisions that are very
important to me, I chose to vote in favor of the legislation.
I would like to say a few words about a provision in the bill which I
sponsored and promoted for over a decade. The provision lifts the ban
on the interstate distribution of State-inspected meat. I began the
effort with Senator Daschle, and more recently worked with Senators
Kohl and Baucus, to include it in the farm bill.
Let me give a little background on this issue. With the passage of
the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture was required to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats,
and horses slaughtered for human consumption. The USDA was also made
responsible for setting national standards for meat and poultry
inspection. In 1957, the Poultry Products Inspection Act made poultry
subject to USDA inspection. Later, these two laws were amended to set
up a system of State inspection programs separate from the Federal
program. At that time, due to some uncertainty about new State
inspection programs, a prohibition on interstate distribution was
placed on State-inspected beef, poultry, pork, and lamb.
It is important to note that the prohibition does not apply to other
meats such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit, alligator, and others
that are typically inspected under the state programs. Neither does the
prohibition apply to other perishable products, including milk, other
dairy items, fruits, vegetables and fish. All of these products which
are inspected under State

[[Page S4243]]

programs are shipped freely across State lines and to our trading
partners.
If a State can inspect these products sufficiently for international
distribution, they can certainly continue to do so for our more
standard meat and poultry products. In the nearly 30 years that the
USDA has reviewed State programs, the Department has never unilaterally
found that a State inspection program should be discontinued due to an
inability to meet Federal food safety regulations.
In Utah, we have 32 meat plants under our State inspection program.
These establishments, like the nearly 2,000 similar plants nationwide,
are mostly small businesses. Generally speaking, they cater to the
needs of small, family-run farms and ranches. The outdated ban on
interstate shipment of State-inspected meats clearly disrupts the free
flow of trade, restricts access to the market, and creates an unfair
advantage for big businesses.
Let's not forget that meat inspected in 34 foreign countries can be
shipped anywhere in the U.S. because the USDA has certified that the
foreign inspection programs are equivalent to the Federal program, yet
our domestic products inspected by States cannot. This is a ridiculous
situation, and it is well past time to remedy it.
So I am very pleased that the farm bill will remove the outdated and
unjust ban that puts our small businesses at such a disadvantage.
Removing this prohibition will increase competition and innovation. It
will provide farmers and ranchers an increased opportunity to innovate
and compete to serve their consumers.
I am also very pleased that the farm bill includes a provision by
Senator Max Baucus, which I cosponsored, that will set up a disaster
program for the livestock industry. In Utah, we have agricultural
disasters almost every year. Farmers in my State never know what Mother
Nature may send their way, and my goal is to provide them greater
stability. I am grateful that this farm bill will provide our livestock
producers the security and certainty they have sought for so long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.

____________________