Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I first of all commend my colleague from Alabama, and I associate myself with his remarks because he is dead on target. I also rise today to discuss the Climate Security Act that is before the Senate. First, I thank all of our colleagues who have been responsible for bringing this bill to the floor because we need to debate this issue. It is a critical issue that is important to all Americans, not only this generation but future generations. I have two grandchildren, and I want to make sure we leave our grandchildren an America better than we inherited it. So it is a critically important debate. The Climate Security Act will require the transformation of the U.S. economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to lower the average world temperature in 2050 and beyond. I note, however, that in a study done by the University of Georgia, released last year, it was determined that over the past 100 years the actual temperature in America had been reduced by 1 degree, not raised any at all but actually reduced. It is estimated the Climate Security Act will generate increased revenues of $6.7 trillion using allowances and auctions. A large portion is given directly to various Federal and State programs outside of the normal budget and appropriations process. However, this amount of revenue must come from somewhere, and unfortunately, under this bill, it is going to come from you, me, and from American individuals and families who will pay higher costs for the energy we use to live. Economic models have overwhelmingly shown this bill will affect consumers directly through higher gasoline and electricity prices, resulting in lower household incomes and millions of jobs being lost in America. Moreover, the national economy will be harmed as gross domestic product is expected to drop considerably over the next 40 years, should this bill be enacted. We also know this bill will constrain the supply and significantly raise the cost of transportation fuel. Like many of my colleagues, I spent the Memorial Day recess traveling around my home State. The average price of a gallon of diesel was $4.77 per gallon, and regular gasoline averaged $3.98 per gallon. These are the highest prices ever recorded in my home State of Georgia, and this is my constituents' No. 1 issue. So it troubles me, as we are seeing almost $4 per gallon gasoline in my home State, that some in this body want to enact legislation that would further increase the price of a gallon of gas. I hear from hundreds of Georgians every day who are struggling to fill their tanks to get to work or to take their kids to school or to run their necessary errands. I will be honest, I don't know how the average American, the average Georgian in particular, is coping with this issue--with the rapid increase in the price of a gallon of gas. EPA models show that the gasoline prices will rise by a minimum of 53 cents per gallon if this bill were implemented. Why would we do that to the American people, who are already hurting at the pump? Regrettably, the legislation before this body would do nothing to increase our domestic supply of oil and help alleviate the lack of supply of gas that is driving the prices up. Instead, this bill will only keep prices rising. The Energy Information Agency study predicts that gasoline prices will increase anywhere from 41 cents per gallon to $1 per gallon by 2030 due to this legislation. Some estimates have gasoline prices rising by as much as 145 percent in my home State of Georgia. This is unacceptable to the people of my State and unacceptable to the people of this country. Nobody disputes the fact that the United States is dependent on foreign sources of oil. We currently import 60 percent of our oil-- actually a little greater than 60 percent--and nobody disputes that this problem has been in the making for decades. Over the past 30 years, the United States has reduced our domestic exploration options and left our refining capacity stagnant. The rising cost of fuel requires a multi-pronged strategy to respond. That is why we must take commonsense action and increase our domestic supply of oil by exploring where we know there are resources available and encouraging the development of alternative fuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, to decrease our reliance on foreign oil. We must find both short-term and long-term solutions to provide energy security for our Nation and give relief to Americans. This bill will attack citizens at the pump and increase their electricity costs, thus exacerbating job losses to overseas markets. Higher energy costs to businesses and the necessity to invest in expensive low carbon technologies will force companies to raise the prices of their products, opening the market up to low-cost international competition, or move businesses to China or Mexico, where environmental regulations are lacking. Millions more jobs will be lost in America as a result. One study estimates that between 1.1 and 1.8 million jobs will be lost by 2020 as U.S. companies close or move overseas. Another study shows that up to 4 million jobs will be lost by 2030 inside the United States if this legislation becomes law. It has been estimated that in Georgia alone we may lose as many as 155,400 jobs, should this legislation be enacted. Manufacturing jobs will be one of the hardest hit sectors as the Energy Information Administration projects that manufacturing output will decline by up to 9.5 percent in 2030. This country has already lost 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs since 2000. This legislation will only help push those jobs outside of our borders. The cost to American families will be too much for many to bear. An EPA study estimates that the cost per household in Georgia will be as much as $608 in 2020, and nearly $4,400 per year in 2050. The median household income in Georgia is $64,000. CRA International states that the average increased cost to families is $1,740 per family in 2020. Workers keeping their jobs would be subject to much lower wages, due to increased competition and increased costs. Even with lower incomes, families would be expected to pay more to heat their homes and fill up their cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that electricity prices will increase an additional 44 percent by 2030. In Georgia, the estimated cost will be 135 percent higher if this legislation is enacted. This will be devastating to families across the country. According to Housing and Urban Development, poor families spend almost five times as much of their monthly budget in meeting their energy needs--19 percent--as wealthier Americans, who spend approximately 4 percent. Increases in energy prices due to carbon limits would hit the poor five times harder, which certainly will be unsustainable. This bill, by some estimates, will hit the average Georgia household in an amount equal to $7,231. The effects this legislation will have on consumers is outrageous: higher gasoline prices, higher electricity prices, lower household incomes, and job losses. In closing, let me touch on some specific aspects of the bill. While the bill includes a market-based cap-and-trade system----

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I request to be added as an original cosponsor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as my chairman said, I think everything that could be said about this bill has been said. We were on the floor off and on for a couple of weeks, and we, at the end of the day, after a lot of controversial votes and whatnot, achieved a milestone in the Senate for farm bills; that is, we had 81 Members of the Senate who voted in favor of this bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a very good bill for any number of reasons. In the commodity title, we are spending significantly less money on our so-called subsidy program. I refer to it as an investment by the Government in agriculture, because that is exactly what it is. We are not guaranteeing farmers any kind of income. In fact, under the way this bill is written, the prices being what they are at the farm gate today, very little, if any, in the way of payments is going to be going from Washington to farmers. That is the way it ought to be. That is the way farmers want it. They would rather get the stream of income from the marketplace. Certainly that is the way we, as policymakers, want to see it happen. That is what will happen. We have made significant changes in the payment limit provision. We have AGIs in this bill now that have never been thought of before. Nobody ever thought we would achieve the number we did from an AGI standpoint. But it is real reform. It is going to work. We are also eliminating the three-entity rule. Again, if you had told anybody in this distinguished Senate 3 years ago that we would be eliminating the three-entity rule in the farm bill, you would have gotten blank stares. Nobody ever thought that would happen, but we were willing to make those kinds of reforms. In the conservation title, we have expanded a number of programs, but we have done something significant in the conservation title. For the first time ever we are applying payment limits to the conservation title. So the so-called millionaires that have been beneficiaries of the conservation title in years past are no longer going to be able to participate in that program, and they should not. I am pretty excited about the energy title. In my part of the world, we do not grow corn with the abundance that the Midwest part of the country does. Therefore, we are a little bit handicapped when it comes to the construction and manufacturing facilities to produce ethanol. Because out of the 201 ethanol-producing facilities that are in place or will be in place over the next 18 months, all but 2 of them are resourced with corn. The two that are not resourced with corn happen to be resourced with cellulosic products. One of them is in my State. I am very proud of the fact that we are going to have a facility in Soperton, GA, that is under construction right now by Range Fuels that is going to produce ethanol from pine trees, because I will match our ability to grow a pine tree with anybody else in the country. It is a resource that is not going to increase the cost of food, which is an unintended consequence of the use of corn for the production of ethanol. The title I am just as excited about is the nutrition title. We are seeing an expansion of the nutrition title again like none of us ever imagined we would see in this farm bill. Most people across America think because of what they read in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and the Atlanta Constitution that farm bills are strictly payments to farmers when, in fact, about 11 percent of the outlays in this bill go to the commodity title which goes to farmers. About 73 percent of the outlays in this bill go to the nutrition title to provide for the food stamp program, to provide for the school lunch program, to provide for payments to our food banks. All of those programs are designed to feed people who are hungry and needy in this country. We are the most abundant country in the world from an agricultural standpoint. We have the ability to feed people inside of America as well as outside of America, and we have an obligation to do that. In the nutrition title, that is exactly what we are going to be doing. This is a bill that has been talked about an awful lot. And, again, it is not a perfect bill. There are some provisions in it that I wish were not in it. But it is a massive piece of legislation, as is every farm bill, and we have to reach compromise to be able to get a bill of that massive size passed by the House and by the Senate. We did accommodate the White House. We negotiated very diligently with the White House. We moved a long way in the direction of the White House. They did not get everything they wanted, and we did not get everything we wanted. At the end of the day, we passed it with a big vote. And the White House, unfortunately, decided we did not move far enough for them. Obviously that caused the President's veto to the bill. At the end of the day here today, we are going to have at least 14 of the 15 titles hopefully passed into law. I do not know what happened to the one title. They tell us that a clerk on the House side failed to include 33 pages of title III in the bill that was transmitted from the House to the White House. Those things happen. Now it is up to us to figure out the best way to efficiently and in an expeditious manner fix the problem and move ahead to allow farmers and ranchers to have some certainty as they move into the planting season of 2008. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, now that we have had this vote on the veto of the conference report, none of us had wanted to have to override a veto. As we move ahead now, because of the technicality and the little glitch that we have had, we are not sure where we are going to be when we come back, but there is going to be, possibly, the chance that we are going to have to take up the full bill again as the House did and passed it with a big vote. Over the next several days, I hope maybe these waters will smooth out, and we can move ahead with the concurrence of the White House so farmers and ranchers will have some dependability on what type of programs we are going to have out there for them. Let me say again to my chairman, Senator Harkin, it has been a pleasure to work with him and Senator Conrad, who has been such a great ally in this process. It was great leadership to get us to where we are now. Thank you on behalf of all farmers across America. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have been so valuable in our process. We named all the staff the other day, but we wouldn't be where we are without them. Mr. President, I thank you and everybody have a safe holiday.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

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.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that we have an additional 4 minutes equally divided between Senator Harkin and myself.

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 budget point of order and to vote in favor of the underlying bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.

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.

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.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. At this time I wish to yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

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. 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. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I know we are going to have a voice vote. I ask unanimous consent I be recorded as a ``no.''

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin. This truly has, under his leadership, been a very bipartisan effort. As we will see on the floor tonight and tomorrow, there will be some folks on both sides of the aisle who will have a lot of good things to say about this bill. Not everybody is in agreement with it, but we never have total agreement on farm bills. They are always controversial. They always contain provisions that some Members of the Senate don't like, but by and large this bill is a true bipartisan bill. I wish to commend Senator Harkin for his leadership, and not just on the substance of the bill. During the conference process we went through, the Senate stayed in lockstep. All Members, all conferees on the Senate side, Republican and Democratic, remained loyal to the commitment we made to each other as we went through that conference, and I think it was for that reason that we were successful in producing a product that somewhat mirrors the product that came out of this Senate back in December. So I thank Senator Harkin for his leadership and for his commitment to American agriculture. I rise tonight in support of the farm bill conference report before us. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides certainty to America's farmers and ranchers and restates the strong commitment of Congress to the hungry and less fortunate. This farm bill contains the most significant reform of our farm programs in recent memory, if not history, and increases investments in the areas of nutrition, specialty crops, conservation, and renewable energy. It is no wonder that nutrition groups, food bank organizations, conservation and wildlife groups, commodity organizations, cattlemen and ranchers, renewable energy advocates, and specialty crop producers have all united in strong support of this farm bill. This bill is simply the single most important piece of legislation for rural America and the small American towns and communities whose economic engines depend on agriculture. To reject this bill is to leave billions of economic development investments on the table and accept the faulty notion that currently high commodity prices will exist forever. Every farmer knows there is no certainty in the honorable practice of farming. This farm bill is our commitment to provide them with much-needed economic assistance when times are bad and allow them to prosper without our assistance when times are good. Our farm safety net is targeted, fiscally responsible, and will ensure the prosperity of our farmers and ranchers during the tough economic times that are certainly to come. Yes, this bill helps maintain a safety net for the farmers and ranchers who produce the food on our dinner tables and the fiber for the shirts on our back. I simply do not understand the critics who raise their arms in protest because we attempt to help farmers in this farm bill. Given the amount of investments in the many critical areas to all Americans in this bill, it is actually inaccurate to simply call this a farm bill. I wish to point out to the critics that less than one-fifth of the bill's spending goes toward the production of agricultural programs. Furthermore, all the commodity programs in the commodity title combined account for a mere .29 percent of the entire outlays of the Federal Government spending. That is almost one-quarter of 1 percent. Many are attempting to paint a picture of a bloated bill that provides huge subsidies to large farmers, but the facts present a different picture of how the money is actually allocated. Commodity program spending in this bill represents less than 14 percent of the total spending, while conservation, nutrition, and renewable energy spending account for more than 75 percent of the bill. There is a common misperception in many editorial boardrooms, and unfortunately at the White House, that the 2008 farm bill does not include adequate reform of our current farm programs. This misperception has led to a series of negative news articles accusing our farm safety net of hindering African cotton trade, raising food prices domestically and globally, providing payments to millionaire farmers who abuse the system, and eroding our ability to provide food aid to the neediest Americans and citizens of other countries. This series of negative and inaccurate propaganda has culminated in a veto threat from the President. I stand before this body tonight to clearly state that this bill contains sweeping reforms of which all Americans can be proud. Drastic reforms are included in this bill to make sure nonfarmers do not benefit from the farm safety net. We rightfully believe the farm safety net should be used to help those who take on an enormous risk every year to produce the crops and livestock that sustain the food supply of our country. While we disagree with many of the attacks against our farm safety net, we have nonetheless heard the calls for reform and have responded in several meaningful ways. The traditional cotton program has been reformed so that it is more market oriented per our WTO--World Trade Organization--- commitments. The GSM program has been reformed to honor our obligations under the cotton case that was decided last year. The adjusted gross income test for nonfarmers has been reduced by 80 percent, ensuring that farm program benefits are targeted to those who need them most. In addition, this bill eliminates the three-entity rule, adopts direct attribution for farm program payments, and eliminates base acres on land developed for residential use. These accomplishments represent the most significant reform of the farm safety net in the history of farm bills in this country. Conservation programs are vital to the farm bill and to this Nation's farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners. Working land--the cropland, grazing land, and forest land that is used to produce our food, feed, and fiber--accounts for nearly 1.3 billion acres or two- thirds of the Nation's land area. Since the enactment of the 2002 farm bill, conservation measures have been applied on more than 70 million acres of cropland and 125 million acres of grazing lands. In addition, more than 1 million acres of wetlands have been created, restored or enhanced. This farm bill continues its great tradition of protecting working lands by providing producers $4 billion in new resources for conservation programs. In addition to providing new funding, the farm bill also makes numerous improvements to the programs to ensure they meet the needs of producers. One notable improvement is that the environmental quality incentives program will now be available to private forest landowners. It also looks to the future by helping producers and landowners play a role and get credit for mitigating climate change. In the 2002 farm bill, an energy title was included for the first time, and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act furthers our commitment to meeting America's energy needs with alternative forms of energy. All Americans must cope with today's extraordinarily high gas prices, and with this farm bill, we take the necessary steps to alleviate the pressure not only on petroleum-based gasoline but on corn-based ethanol. One day, Americans will be able to fill their gas tanks with ethanol made from woodchips or peanut hulls, and when that day comes, you can look back to this farm bill as the foundation for making that a reality. Speaking of energy, I have heard calls from several of my colleagues to ensure that contracts traded on electronic exchanges, such as natural gas contracts traded on the ICE Futures, are subject to more regulatory oversight by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission. In responding to those concerns, this conference report includes a long- overdue reauthorization of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, complete with a newly developed regulatory structure for contracts traded on exempt commercial markets that are determined to perform a significant price discovery function. This has been a top priority for Senators Feinstein, Levin, and Snowe, and I am pleased we were able to include it in this farm bill. This farm bill also includes a new title devoted to horticulture organic production. With specialty crops representing approximately 50 percent of U.S. crop cash receipts, the inclusion of this title appropriately recognizes that fruit and vegetable growers deserve a place in major farm legislation. This industry is vitally important to consumers, and the inclusion of these provisions will ensure that producers of fruits and vegetables receive the support necessary to enhance the healthy foods we have come to demand, as well as improve the viability of this important sector of American agriculture. However, rural America is not the only beneficiary of this farm bill. The entire country will reap the rewards of increased investments in nutrition, renewable energy, and conservation. This legislation reaches out to low-income Americans to ensure nutritional needs are met by providing schoolchildren with increased access to fresh fruits and vegetables and enhancing our investments to the Food Stamp Program as well as to food banks all across America. The numbers speak for themselves: 73 percent--let me say that again--73 percent of the spending in this bill goes toward our domestic nutrition programs. Given rising food prices and the skyrocketing price of oil, it is critical that we lend a hand to those citizens in both rural and urban America who are struggling to feed their families and fill their gas tanks. Local food banks around the country are facing increased demands for food from people in need. This farm bill invests an additional $1.25 billion over the next 10 years to increase commodity purchases for food banks--an increase of nearly double the current level of funding. To help improve the dietary intake of all citizens, this farm bill invests significant resources to expand the school-based fresh fruit and vegetable snack program to all States and increases support for the senior farmers' market nutrition program to help seniors purchase agricultural products at farmers' markets, roadside stands, and other community-supported agricultural programs. Most significant, though, is the increased investment in the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp Program--the cornerstone of our country's domestic food assistance effort--currently serves 28 million Americans each month. This program has evolved over the decades to become one of the most efficient tools to combat hunger and reduce poverty. The Food Stamp Program now has one of the best track records among all Federal programs. The payment accuracy rate, which measures the correct level of benefit issuance to participating households, is at an all-time high. Trafficking, which long plagued the program, has been substantially reduced. Also, the certification process has a proven success rate with over 98 percent of food stamp participants properly eligible for benefits. American taxpayers can be assured that the resources dedicated to this program are effectively used for their intended purposes. While administration of the Food Stamp Program has turned a corner, a stigma still exists that prevents some eligible people from seeking the help they need. Even though the implementation of Electronic Benefit Transfer, or EBT, has restored dignity to those who depend on food assistance while at the grocery store, the term ``food stamps'' conjures up negative images for many. Food stamps haven't been issued in years, and the Federal Government destroyed the remaining inventory of stamps in 2003. For these reasons, the Food Stamp Program is being renamed as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The new name better reflects the mission of our country's premier domestic assistance program. Instead of referring to food stamps in the future, the term ``food SNAP'' should be used as we transition to the new name. This farm bill invests $8 billion in food SNAP over the next 10 years. By increasing the standard deduction and minimum monthly benefit, food SNAP will provide improved benefit levels to help low- income families put nutritious food on the table. To make food SNAP more accessible to low-income Americans, this farm bill indexes the asset limitation for inflation, exempts IRS-approved retirement and education savings accounts from the asset test, and permits a full deduction for childcare expenses. Simplified reporting requirements are extended to low-income seniors to ease their ability to obtain benefits. The improvements made in this farm bill will ensure that food SNAP continues to improve the health and nutritional well-being of millions of people in need. Rural development is also a vital part of this 2008 farm bill. Rural America is not composed of farmers and ranchers only, but other hard- working men and women reside in these areas with their families. It is essential our rural citizens have the same opportunity to participate in the global economy as our friends in urban areas. This title helps deploy fundamental services, such as improving broadband Internet capability, funding for water and waste projects, and support for the value-added efforts. We promote economic development by reestablishing regional planning authorities and encouraging communities to collaborate in their efforts to attract quality jobs and promote local investment. I say to my colleagues, this bill before you today is a significant and worthwhile investment, not only for American agriculture but for millions of needy Americans. I am disheartened that the President doesn't find these investments worthy of his signature, but I must represent my constituents who do understand the need for a strong safety net for our farmers and ranchers. Rural America is certainly enjoying a period of economic prosperity. But history tells us this prosperity will not last forever and that it is our moral obligation to be there to lend a helping hand when the downturn comes. We have the opportunity today to display our unwavering commitment to the Nation's farmers and ranchers who supply us with the safest, most affordable and most nutritious food supply in the world. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this investment in America's future by voting for the bill. In closing, before I turn to my good friend and colleague from New Hampshire, I again thank Chairman Harkin for his leadership. I also see Senator Conrad on the Senate floor. We have had a terrific working relationship through this process. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley have played such an integral role in making sure this farm bill has the resources with which to stay within the budget numbers we were given. This has truly been a bipartisan effort in the Senate and is the reason, or an exhibition of the reason, I came to the Senate, which is to work together with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass positive legislation and improve the quality of life for men and women all across America. I, too, will talk more about staff tomorrow. I would be remiss, though, if I didn't recognize Mark Halverson, who has been such a great asset in working on this bill and working with my staff. He traveled around the country with us 2 years ago, and we tried to feed him a good Nebraska steak a couple of times and made sure he was healthy while he was on the road with us. We had a great time in listening to the farmers and ranchers. Martha Scott Poindexter, on my side, has been the minority director and has done such a terrific job, No. 1, of not just shepherding this bill from our perspective and working with the majority side, but also in putting together, without question, in my opinion, the best staff we have ever had on our side of the aisle from an Agriculture Committee perspective. Mr. President, I look forward to further discussion of this bill tomorrow, as we move ahead. I know a number of our colleagues will be coming on the Senate floor tonight to talk about this bill. I encourage folks on our side of the aisle, if you want to come tonight and speak, it is a good time to do it because you can have all the time you want. Tomorrow it will get cramped. I encourage colleagues from the minority side to come out tonight and make their word heard.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Ward Black, Patty Lawrence, and Alan Mackey from my staff be given floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the farm bill conference report.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Let me say by way of reporting where we are on this bill to all of our colleagues that we have 13 titles on the farm bill. We have now closed six of those titles. I think by the end of the day there is the opportunity for us to close at least a couple more of those titles, maybe even more. Despite the fact that the House is going out today and we are still going to be here, the principals involved in this from the conference standpoint as well as staff are going to continue to work through this all through the weekend, as all of our staff have done for all of these 6 months. Staff has been unbelievable, trying to wade through this. But here is our practical problem. We have never had this problem with the farm bill. This is the third one I have been involved in as a Member of Congress--I have also been participating in several others-- and I have never seen this situation before; that is, we had to go to the Finance Committee and Ways and Means Committee to ask them for some spending savings and some revenue measures to allow us to write a farm bill that is truly a meaningful safety net for our farmers and ranchers. But just as important, because 66 percent of the funding in this farm bill is going to our nutrition programs--our food stamps, our school lunches, our food banks, all of which are so integrally important and all of which are within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee-- we have had to look to Ways and Means to finance like we never had to before. Second, the Senate had a tax package that is $7 billion on our bill that did not appear in the House bill. We had a lot of disagreement, a lot of argument about that. But as of last night, I think we made some real progress. As I have already told my friend from Idaho, I think his coming to the floor last week and trying to tighten the screw and saying he would object to another extension has had an impact on that, and I am not unappreciative of the efforts of Senator Craig. But here we are today on the very verge, I think, based upon a meeting Senator Harkin and I were in this morning. As soon as we leave here, we go back into another meeting. We are going to stay there until we get some of these key issues resolved. We are now getting to the point where, I think, within a short term--I hope it is Monday, I hope it is no later than that--it may be, but I hope we can come back in and stand on this floor and say that we have reached an accord and that we are going to be writing that bill over the course of the next 10 days, 2 weeks, whatever it may be that it takes to physically get the job done from the committee paper standpoint. But we are very close. And I think there is an opportunity to get this done. It is not going to be done, completed, in the next week, but I have no problem with a 1-week extension because I do think it will keep the pressure on. It will require us to ultimately get something done. Another factor in here is the White House. The White House has to be involved because the President has to sign whatever product we send to him. Another problem is, if it were up to Senator Harkin and me, we would have had this bill done long ago. We had the shortest session in the Senate Agriculture Committee when we reported this bill out of the committee under your leadership. We got it done in a day and a half. We went into conference, and we appointed our conferees fairly quickly. It took the House almost 6 months to appoint their conferees. We have 11 conferees, the House has 49 conferees, all of whom have to be available to be in 1 room at the same time and all of whom had the opportunity to discuss their particular part of this bill. It has been a nightmare from that standpoint, but we are getting closer. I appreciate the Senator from Idaho being reasonable with us as far as us getting a 1-week extension, and I would implore that we move forward with it, send it to the House, and hopefully get this concluded. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S. 1315, but to speak in favor of Senator Burr's alternative bill, S. 2640, the Veterans' Benefit Act of 2008. As we continue to prosecute the global war on terrorism and take care of our veterans who are returning from that effort, as well as take care of veterans from all our past conflicts, our Nation has an obligation to these veterans and their families who make the greatest sacrifices to defend our Nation and freedom across the world. This obligation extends to providing our brave young men and women with the optimal rehabilitation care, compensation packages, and long-term benefits for their service. This is a very familiar issue to me, and I was pleased to offer several amendments with my Senate Armed Services Committee colleagues during last year's markup of the wounded warrior bill, which will go a long way to improving the treatment and benefits these wounded warriors will receive, both now and in the future. Both of the bills at issue today go a long way to further improving the care of our veterans and wounded warriors, and it is very clear that both Senator Burr and Senator Akaka worked very hard to craft bills that will benefit our veterans and their families. S. 1315 makes many significant changes in the area of insurance, housing, labor, and education benefits for our veterans. However, the bill pays for these increased entitlements by reversing a 2006 court decision, which would effectively take $2,000 annually from poor, elderly, disabled wartime U.S. veterans. Also included in the bill's spending is $221 million to create a new pension benefit for Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines, all of whom are not U.S. citizens and none of whom have any disabilities relating to World War II service. There are two significant problems with the new spending on Filipino veterans. First, it takes money from poor veterans in the United States, to in effect create a middle class of non-United States veterans residing in the Philippines. Second, it comes at the expense of benefit improvements that are needed for our returning combat veterans of the war on terror. Under current law, a VA pension benefit paid to an individual U.S. veteran cannot exceed $11,181 a year, which is roughly 17 percent of the United States average household income. S. 1315 would create a new, special pension benefit for Filipino veterans in the Philippines that will put them at over 87 percent of average household income in the Philippines! As Senator Burr stated on the floor earlier today, the contributions of Filipino veterans during World War II is a matter of public record and is without dispute. We do owe them a huge debt. They fought on the side of the allies and made a significant contribution to the war effort. However, it is not fair to fund a pension for these veterans at the expense of poor U.S. veterans, which this bill unfortunately does. I hope the supporters of S. 1315 will hear me when I say that a vote against this bill is not a vote against the contribution that the Filipino veterans made to the effort in World War II. Rather, it is a vote against taking an existing benefit away from a U.S. veteran. Senator Burr's alternative, S. 2640, will provide veterans with improved life insurance policies, enhance the veterans mortgage life insurance program, improve disabled veterans housing benefits by 10 percent, as well as index future housing benefits to inflation. S. 2640 also provides for automatic annual increases in burial benefits for our veterans families as well as improved educational opportunities to our National Guardsmen and Reservists who serve for a total of 2 years in an active-duty status. In relation to Filipino veterans, S. 2640 provides a pension plan to Filipino veterans who have resided in the United States and have not received any benefits from the Filipino Government. In addition, it provides for full disability compensation for Filipinos residing anywhere in the world. Our Nation's commitment and number 1 priority must rest with taking care of our current veterans, particularly those who have disabilities resulting from their service, which 2640 provides. I encourage my colleagues to support S. 2640, which provides the right compensation and the right policies for the right servicemembers. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Burr.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are postcloture and I have up to 1 hour, is that correct?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. First, I ask unanimous consent that Jerry Acosta, a military legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of today's session.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate a seminal moment in our Nation's history. On this day in 1947, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier to Major League Baseball after years of segregation. Jack Roosevelt Robinson was born in 1919 to a family of sharecroppers in Cairo, GA. Cairo, the home of the syrup makers, is a small town in south Georgia located about 35 miles from my hometown of Moultrie. As you can imagine, Jackie was very talented and did extremely well at sports. At UCLA, Jackie became the first athlete to win varsity letters in four sports--football, basketball, baseball, and track. He was even named All-American in football. Jackie enlisted in the U.S. Army in World War II, and following his discharge in 1944, he played the season in the Negro Baseball League and a couple of years in minor league ball. In 1947, following Jackie's outstanding performance in the minor leagues, Brooklyn Dodgers vice president Branch Rickey decided it was time to integrate Major League Baseball, which had not had an African- American player since 1889. When Jackie first donned a Brooklyn Dodgers uniform, he led the way to the integration of professional athletics in America. In his first year, he hit 12 home runs and helped the Dodgers win the National League pennant. That year, Robinson led the National League in stolen bases and was also selected Rookie of the Year. Robinson succeeded in putting racial conflict and prejudice aside to show the world what a talented individual he was. His success in the major leagues opened the door for other African-American players. Jackie Robinson himself became a vocal champion for African-American athletes, civil rights and other social and political causes. After baseball, Robinson became active in business and continued working as an activist for social change. He was the first African-American inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame and, in 1997, his number was retired by Major League Baseball. I can recall, as a small boy, being a Brooklyn Dodgers fan. The main reason was because my older brother was a New York Yankees fan and the perennial World Series game was between the Dodgers and the Yankees, so it was a natural rivalry that my brother and I have. I have very vivid memories of watching Jackie Robinson play ball on TV and having great admiration and respect for him as an athlete. It was Jackie Robinson who paved the way for so many great athletes today. Little did he know, back then in 1947, that he would be followed by the likes of Larry Doby, Willie Mays, and my good friend, Hank Aaron. But what a great inspiration he has been for all of America. Today, I honor the man who stood boldly against those who resisted racial equality, and I acknowledge the profound influence of one man's life on the American culture. Jackie Robinson's life and legacy will be remembered as one of great importance in American history. I will yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for James Randall Hall to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia. Randy Hall is supremely well qualified to fill this position. I am pleased the Senate will finally have an opportunity to vote on Randy's confirmation today. If confirmed, Randy will fill the vacancy created on August 2, 2006, when Judge Avant Edenfield took senior status. The Southern District of Georgia is designated as a judicial emergency, as just referred to by Senator Specter, by the nonpartisan Judicial Conference of the United States. This means the court dockets of the Southern District of Georgia are too busy and that litigants are waiting too long for results. To that end, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, as well as the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, Mr. Specter, for their efforts and that of their staffs for shepherding Randy's nomination through the Judiciary Committee. Randy Hall is a native of Augusta, GA. He graduated from Augusta College in 1979 and from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1982. His private practice has focused on commercial real estate, banking, corporate matters, and commercial litigation. During his years as a private attorney, he built an impressive legal resume. He served as general counsel of Bankers First Corporation for over a decade, managing the entire legal function of the billion dollar corporation, including securities matters, State and Federal regulatory matters, litigation, real estate acquisition and development, employment issues, and general corporate projects. Mr. Hall also has a history of public service. In 1997, he was appointed to the Augusta-Richmond Planning Commission, a 12-member board authorized to regulate the subdivision of land, plan for the orderly growth and development of Augusta-Richmond County, and zone all land into various use classifications. He served on the commission until 2002, acting as its chairman from 2000 to 2002. In 2003, Mr. Hall was elected to the Georgia State Senate as a senator from the 22nd District in 2003 and served there in 2003 and 2004. Since 2004, Mr. Hall has been a partner with Warlick, Tritt, Stebbins & Hall in Augusta, GA. Those who know Randy describe him as a man of integrity and someone with good moral character. His colleagues also say he is totally committed to the rule of law, and that he is fair and honest in all of his dealings and undertakings. I believe the Southern District of Georgia will be well served to have Randy Hall on the bench. I urge all of my colleagues to support his confirmation. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Up to 3 minutes, and I also ask that Senator Cornyn be given up to 3 minutes.