Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I say to the majority leader I appreciate his comments. Obviously, I don't have the answer to the question as to how long we should consider the amendments before we file cloture. That is a decision for the majority leader to make on his own, hopefully in consultation with the leadership on this side. But what I would say is we started this process last week. There were procedural issues that had to be resolved last week. We sat around for a couple of days without being able to bring up amendments. Here we are again. We have sat around today, again, without having the opportunity to bring them up. After having served 8 years in the House, I have an appreciation of the Senate as I have never had before. It is a deliberative body that our forefathers decided it should be, and I have seen no better example of that deliberation than I have on this particular bill. That being said, we won't know when it is the right time to file cloture until we begin the work, and if we begin the work on this tomorrow, I know from our side of the aisle--and I will make the commitment--we will move these amendments as quickly as possible. There is the great likelihood that a number of these amendments won't be called up, but we won't know until we get into the process. My farmers and ranchers want a farm bill. They like the one we have, but this bill, in my opinion, improves ag policy for the next 5 years. If we should not be able to get a farm bill, then an extension of the current farm bill is one of the options that is out there. I have said all along that I think we could improve that product and this farm bill does that. So I hope we can come here in the morning with the idea that we are going to take up these amendments and we will take the Grassley and Dorgan amendment as the first one. That is on payment limits. I am opposed to the amendment and I will have a lot to say about it during the debate, but we are ready to talk about it and we are ready to begin the process. I hope that with all of the counsel available to the majority leader, he will be prepared with us to begin the debate and vote on these amendments in the morning.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, my friend, my colleague, for his comments. I concur with exactly what he said, that we do need to have amendments filed so we know where we are. My understanding is, as of right now there are 67 amendments that have been filed. I don't know whether all of them are relevant. We have the list, but we will have to see which ones are and which ones are not. But I think the biggest obstacle we have is the majority leader made the decision to fill the tree. We have had some discussion, not debate by any means, on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment the other day. I understand there is some conversation about filing cloture on that amendment which is fine if that moves us ahead. But until the leadership on the Democratic side makes a decision as to whether we are going to limit amendments, what those amendments are going to be, then I think we are kind of limited as far as moving ahead. Let me say to Members on both sides of the aisle, particularly on our side of the aisle, that if you have an amendment, if you will file the amendment and, while you cannot call it up because the majority leader has filled the tree, come on over while we have got some time and talk about your amendment. It will certainly speed up the process when we do get to the point, as the chairman says, and I think he is exactly right. On every bill such as this, we will ultimately come up with a list of amendments. I would hope all of them are germane. There may be some that have to do with something else, as the Senate always has on every major piece of legislation. We have some that may not be farm bill related that will have to be considered. But that is for negotiation and agreement. But if anybody has an amendment, I would say: Come over, make sure your amendment is filed, talk about your amendment, and at the point in time when the amendment ultimately is considered, it simply will speed up the process.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to take just a minute to address an issue that appeared in the Washington Post earlier this week. In an editorial, the author made some significant statements about the Cotton Program that exists in this current 2002 farm bill. Since we are in farm bill season, we have a constant barrage of editorials that come out--some of them in favor of farm programs; most of them seem to think farm programs are an easy target, and therefore they are very negative. This one was very negative. But as with most people who write these editorials and publish them around the country, frankly, this editorial is filled with total inaccuracies. I want to talk about a couple of those. I want to set the record straight relative to what this author is talking about because there is one particular issue in here that has been discussed over the last several years that is simply wrong. First of all, this editorial takes on the Cotton Program in the 2002 farm bill and says this program has a very negative effect--if you can imagine this--a very negative effect on the ability of cotton farmers in the West African countries of Benin, Burkino Faso, Chad, and Mali. Now, in this editorial the author writes to start with: For years, the Federal Government has guaranteed American cotton producers about 72 cents a pound, even though the real market price of cotton has averaged about 57 cents. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is just a completely inaccurate statement. What the author is talking about is the fact that in the 2002 farm bill, there is a target price for cotton of 72.4 cents a pound, but that simply does not guarantee a cotton farmer 72 cents a pound. The only correlation between guaranteeing a cotton farmer a floor on the price of cotton and the farm bill is the fact that there is a marketing loan available to a cotton farmer, and the marketing loan rate is 52 cents a pound. That is the amount guaranteed to a cotton farmer from the 2002 farm bill. The fact is, the price of cotton today is in the range of 60-plus cents, so what that means is there would be no marketing loan benefits available to a cotton farmer as long as the current price is above the marketing loan rate. So for some off-the-wall editorial writer to come in and say a cotton farmer is guaranteed 72 cents a pound by the 2002 farm bill is misleading and is typical of the statements that are made about farm bills by folks who have no idea what they are talking about. Let me point out another inaccuracy. The author goes on to say: Since 2002, market prices haven't even covered the cost of producing cotton, but the amount of acres planted in cotton has increased because the government guarantees a higher price. Again, the author of this editorial simply has not done their homework. Here are the actual facts: Cotton acreage in the United States in 2002 was 17.2 million--17.2 million. In 2007--this year--cotton acres in the United States are 10.5 million. Instead of cotton acres increasing in the United States, we have seen a 39-percent reduction in the number of acres planted from 2002 to 2007. Furthermore, the author goes on to say: Who benefits from the current system of cotton subsidies? His answer to his own question: About 20,000 American cotton producers, with an average annual income of more than $125,000. Let me tell my colleagues who really benefits from the cotton program in America as we know it today. We have in the United States today about 20,000 cotton producers. Those cotton producers deliver their cotton to gins where it is then processed, and the outcome of ginning cotton is a cotton bale. The cotton bale then goes into the marketing stream, where it can be sold to domestic cotton mills or exported, as most of our cotton is today. Unfortunately, all of our textile mills that were located all over the Northeast and then in the Southeast today are located in either the Caribbean region or in China or in Vietnam or elsewhere. Therefore most of our cotton is exported. But the farms and businesses directly involved in the production, distribution, and processing of cotton employ more than 230,000 Americans and result in direct business revenues of more than $27 billion. Additional economic multipliers through the broader economy, direct and indirect employment surpasses 520,000 workers with economic activity in excess of $120 billion. Now, the author of the editorial makes this statement: The effects in the cotton-growing regions of West Africa are dramatic. The author is talking about the U.S. cotton program's impact on West African countries. What they say is, the production of cotton in the United States under the current farm bill dictates to cotton growers in Africa what they can get for a pound of cotton. Again, nothing could be further from the truth because I have already noted what happened relative to the decrease in the production acres of cotton in the United States. Well, guess what has happened in other parts of the world. If we are having such a negative impact on producers in Africa, does it not stand to reason we are also having a negative impact on cotton growers in Brazil and in China and in India and in other cotton- growing areas? I do not think it would have just a negative impact in West Africa. The fact is, in China, in 2002, the cotton acreage was 10.3 million acres. In 2007, cotton acreage in China was up to 15.1 million acres. During this time that we have been negatively impacting West African cotton growers, China has increased its cotton acreage by 50 percent. In 2002, India had cotton acreage of 18.9 million acres. In 2007, that was up to 23.5 million acres, an increase of 24 percent. In Brazil, in 2002, 1.8 million acres of cotton were planted. In 2007, 2.8 million acres of cotton were planted in Brazil. Again, up 55 percent. For the author of this editorial to say the United States cotton program is having such a negative impact on four West African countries is totally ridiculous. This editorial failed to mention the fact that in this farm bill the Senate has before it for consideration, we provided significant reforms in the cotton program itself to reduce amber box government expenditures. The administration of the cotton marketing loan program is reformed to improve the efficiency of the program. The target price for cotton is the only target price in the Senate bill that is reduced. We thereby save $150 million over ten years. The trade title also includes provisions that repeal authority for the supplier credit and GSM-103 program, measures that are necessary for the United States to comply with the Brazilian cotton case and the WTO. That creates a savings of $50 million. Also, we have significantly reformed the payment limitation provision, and the Adjusted Gross Income limitations are reformed, which saves $456 million. None of this is mentioned in this grossly mischaracterized, inaccurate article that is aimed solely at a program that provides over 520,000 American jobs. If we examine the production of cotton in China during the same 2002 through 2007 period that I alluded to a minute ago, China increased by 57 percent, India has increased by 122 percent, Brazil increased by 79 percent, and the U.S. increased cotton production by 6 percent--6 percent versus 57, 122, and 79 percent in those other three countries. The article insinuates U.S. cotton production alone resulted in the overproduction of cotton when, in fact, U.S. cotton production in 2006 represented only 17.7 percent of the world production and is estimated to be just 15.1 percent in 2007. One other fact that is conveniently left out of this article is, if, in fact, the U.S. cotton program has a direct impact on the C-4 countries in West Africa, it was not that many years ago when the price of cotton worldwide was $1 per pound--$1. There is no mention of the fact that if we had a negative impact, certainly we had a positive impact when the price of cotton was $1 a pound. As one would expect, the editorial cites economic studies by organizations with anticotton agendas that show U.S. cotton production impacting world prices. However, several independent analyses show minimal price impacts attributable to the U.S. cotton program on these West African countries and any other country. The most recent economic study by researchers at Texas Tech University show world price impacts of 3 percent or less attributable to the U.S. cotton program. West African cotton farmers receive less than 40 percent of the world market price. Why is that the case? These West African countries are rampant with fraud and corruption and the issues that typically are present in underdeveloped countries. Growers in China and India are paid between 90 and 100 percent of the world price for their cotton, so somebody other than the West African cotton farmers is receiving the difference. It is pretty obvious there is a lot of corruption going on in the West African cotton industry. But, again, this article conveniently fails to mention that point. West African cotton yields are going down, while cotton yields in other countries are increasing. Here are the real facts that are conveniently left out of this article: From 2001 to 2005, the average yield in the C-4 countries fell by 15 pounds per acre, down to 353 pounds per acre. Average yields in India increased by 77 pounds per acre. Average yields in China grew by 272 pounds per acre. Brazilian yields have increased by 668 pounds per acre in 10 years. West African farmers also have refused to take the latest, most technologically advanced assets that are available to them to utilize in the growing of cotton--again, a fact that the author conveniently left out of this article. They continue to reject genetically enhanced crops, while the adoption of those genetically enhanced crops in China, India, and Brazil allow their farmers to reap the benefits of improved yields and lower costs. The C-4 countries have little in the way of a textile industry, and the textile industry would like to have cotton close by. That is why we are seeing a huge increase in the production of cotton in China, for example. What has the U.S. actually done from the standpoint of impacting the West African countries? Here is exactly what we have done--another fact that is conveniently left out of this article. The United States is engaged in a number of outreach activities with West African countries that began in 2004 which are aimed at raising their agricultural productivity, spurring economic growth, and alleviating hunger and poverty. These efforts are coordinated by the U.S. cotton industry, with USAID, the Trade Representative's Office, and the Millennium Challenge. Now, I could have picked out another crop, be it corn, soybeans, or whatever crop is under attack right now, but this just happened to be a totally inaccurate editorial that appeared in the Washington Post earlier this week. Unfortunately it is pretty typical of the criticism that is leveled at farm programs by people who have no concept of the commitment that farmers and ranchers in America--be they a small farmer or a large farmer--make to ensure the development of their land and production of quality agricultural products that ultimately wind up in the grocery store, which allows all Americans to spend less than 10 cents out of every disposable dollar on food products. That is the lowest--the lowest amount of money that is being spent on food products by any country in the world, and that is the benefit the American consumer gets from our agricultural producers. As we move forward over the next couple of days, I am very hopeful my colleagues will come to the floor and talk about what amendments they have. I see the distinguished Senator from Colorado is here to perhaps talk about some issues he has of concern. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank you for your kind comments. This is only my fifth year in the Senate, but I have never seen a situation evolve in a more bipartisan fashion than we have with respect to this farm bill. I commend you for, No. 1, your insight into ag issues, your insight into budget issues, your insight into finance issues, all of which, when melded together, have been so critical in putting this bill together. Were it not for you and your commitment to the American farmer, we simply would not have this good product on the floor today. I see you have your staffer, Jim Miller, there. Were it not for Jim working very closely with my staff and Senator Harkin's staff, there is no question that we would not be where we are today. But your charts are of significant interest because you and I worked together on the 2002 farm bill. We both remember there was a lot of criticism directed at that farm bill, exactly the same criticism that has been directed at this farm bill today. As I remember, there was a veto threat by the White House in 2002. Is it not true the projected outlays in just the commodity title of the 2002 farm bill have been significantly lower, from an annual expenditure standpoint, than what was presented in 2002?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the Senator would continue to yield for a question, is it not true when we talk about reforms between the 2002 farm bill and this 2007 farm bill, that you mentioned the figure of about 14 percent of this farm bill is spent on the commodity title; that in 2002 about 28 percent of the expenditure in the farm bill was dedicated to the commodity title? So when somebody says we have not reformed the commodity title, that we have not reformed this farm bill, would the Senator not agree there is significant reform just in the pure dollars that are being dedicated to the commodity title?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I, first of all, extend my appreciation to the Senator from Kansas. Senator Roberts is not only a great personal friend, but he is someone for whom I have tremendous respect in so many areas but in no area greater than agriculture. As I said earlier, we served in the House together. He was my chairman on the House Agriculture Committee. Now he is one of the leaders on the issue of agriculture in the Senate and somebody on whom I rely very much in my role as ranking member, as I did when I was chairman over the last 2 years. I just want to say, as we went through this farm bill, with all the complexities we had to deal with in there, there was one issue that, frankly, was a new addition to the farm bill mix, and that was the issue of average crop revenue--an option that is added in the commodity title. It does not look as if it is going to be of much benefit to Southeastern farmers, but to farmers in the Midwest, it has the potential to be a very usable mechanism. I thank Senator Roberts for taking that issue on and really getting into the ``weeds'' and doing the necessary study and homework on the issue and coming up with some strong and valuable amendments that have made that provision much better at the end of the day, when this bill came out of committee, than it was when we started. We are still going to have some debate on the provision as we come to the floor now, but without his leadership, without his studying this issue, we would not be where we are. I know he feels exactly the way I do. The Presiding Officer is, sure enough, one of those farmers who know what getting dirt under their fingernails means, and I know he has an appreciation for this too. We worked very hard over the last decade to improve the Crop Insurance Program. It is not perfect, but what we tried to do was to put the decision of how many crops to plant, how many acres of each one of those crops to plant, in the hands of the farmer and the banker who banks that farmer and him having the ability to use the tools of farm programs, plus the availability of a good, solid crop insurance program and to take the decision off the Government mandating to that farmer what he ought to plant and putting it in the hands of that farmer. I think we have done that over the years. Still, it is not perfect. But today there appear to be some folks who, for whatever reason, want to take some shots at the Crop Insurance Program. I know the Senator from Kansas feels just as strongly as I do about the fact that we do not need to weaken the Crop Insurance Program. We need to strengthen that program to, again, move away from dependence by farmers on the Federal Government and allow them to have the market dictate their stream of income and have safety nets in the form of agricultural programs and crop insurance. So I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for the comments he has made today relative to the product that came out of the committee.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Well, again, if the Senator would yield, I say this is not a perfect product. It is not maybe exactly what you would like or what I would or what Senator Harkin would like, or any member of our committee or this body. But when you take the interest of agriculture all across America, I think this farm bill truly represents the needs of American farmers. It represents the needs of our nutrition folks around the country, whether it be the School Lunch Program, our food banks, or our food stamp beneficiaries. It represents the needs from a conservation standpoint, both farmers and nonfarmers who want to maintain the integrity of the land and the environment. It looks at the needs from a research standpoint, looks at the needs as you mentioned from an oil dependency standpoint, and helps move us in the direction of becoming less dependent on foreign oil. At the same time, it does it, as the Senator well knows because he is chairman of the Budget Committee, within the numbers that were given to us by the Budget Committee. I daresay this is the first bill that has hit the floor this year that does, in fact, stay within the budget numbers. We can argue about that, but the fact is, we were given a budget number by your committee, and we had to craft a farm bill that gave us significantly less money than what we had in 2002. With your leadership, and Senator Harkin, we have been able to craft a farm bill that fits within those budget numbers.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I say to Senator Roberts, you have a tremendous amount of experience from a legislative standpoint on farm bills. This is your which farm bill?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I know during my first year in the House, you were the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. I was privileged to serve on the House Agriculture Committee, and you chaired the committee that wrote the 1996 farm bill. You talked about farm bills seeking to deliver funding to the small farmer. That is such a difficult issue. It sounds good from a legislative standpoint. It sounds like something we ought to be able to do in practice when, in fact, it is so difficult to do, because what is a small farmer? I am not sure what a small farmer is in Kansas. It is probably different from what a small farmer is in Georgia. But a large farmer participates in the production of agriculture in America just like whatever that small farmer does. I would simply ask the Senator, what is your thought on the production by a small farmer versus a large farmer? Who is the one who actually puts products into mainstream agriculture from the standpoint of the quantity of products that are put into agriculture? In other words, what percentage of farmers produce the products?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that three speakers--Senator Salazar for 20 minutes, Alexander for 15 minutes, and Dorgan 20 minutes--go in that order.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I am sorry?

Mr. CHAMBLISS. What is the status of the Senate?

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that Alan Mackey and Patty Lawrence, detailees from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on my committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for today's session.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure to rise today to recognize the work of some remarkable Georgians, Ed and Mary Ettel, of Marietta, who happen to be in the gallery this morning. The Ettels have worked together in their community to help touch the lives of our men and women in uniform. Guided by the Any Soldier Foundation, Ed and Mary send requested goods to our soldiers serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Somalia, and Kosovo. Soldiers can go to www.anysoldier.com and request what specifically they need and want. Good people such as the Ettels are making sure these soldiers' requests do not go unnoticed. Serving 4 years of Active Duty in the U.S. Navy and 22 years on Reserve Duty, Ed Ettel undoubtedly knows what it means to sacrifice for his country. However, his loyalties to his fellow men and women in uniform did not end with his retirement. Together with his wife Mary, and daughters Erin and Alison, the Ettels committed themselves to being a support group for those who are serving overseas today. For the Ettels, many Saturdays over the past 2 years have been similar to last Saturday. The smell of pancakes usually welcomes 40 volunteers arriving at the Ettel's house at Sope Creek Farm. After breakfast, the volunteers pick a soldier's request from the Any Soldier Web site, take it into the inventory room, and pack boxes with food, magazines, school supplies, clothing, toys or Christmas decorations. They also include a handwritten letter of support to each individual soldier, thanking them for their service. Because of the Ettels' community leadership and the help they have received from the other members of the Mount Bethel United Methodist Church in Marietta, volunteers have been able to collectively send 496 boxes, weighing over 4 tons, to servicemembers in theaters around the globe. One of the most fulfilling parts of the experience for these volunteers is how the soldiers respond. There have been countless thank-you and appreciation notes sent from the soldiers, letting them know how great it is that people back home support them and acknowledge the sacrifices they are making. It is unclear whether the motivation behind the Ettels' generosity comes from Mary's history as a public servant in our school system, Ed's service to his country in the Navy as well as the Navy Reserve or if it is out of sheer gratitude for the Nation in which they live. It is clear the Ettels' appreciation for the troops and their love of country has been contagious among civic organizations, school groups, church groups, businesses, and fellow members of their community. People such as the Ettels make this Nation the greatest in the world. I am proud to say such patriotic Americans live in my home State of Georgia. Words cannot express America's gratitude for our Armed Forces and their service and sacrifice for this Nation. As Veterans Day approaches, we should all remember to acknowledge those sacrifices, and I challenge all Americans to follow the lead of Mary and Ed Ettel in finding a way to say thank you. Iraq Mr. President, I also rise today to discuss the progress we are making in Iraq. Over the past few months, we have witnessed some encouraging developments, and I think it is important to acknowledge the successes of our men and women in uniform and the successes of the Iraqi people in helping to secure their own Nation. Since the troop surge was fully implemented, in June 2007, we have seen a steady decline in Iraqi civilian deaths, a decline in the number of bombings, and a decline in the number of incidents involving the most deadly form of roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators. We have sent our forces into Iraqi neighborhoods in order to root out extremists and gain the trust and confidence of the people, and we are seeing encouraging results. Since the surge of operations began in June, the number of IED attacks per week has declined by half. U.S. military deaths have fallen to their lowest level in 19 months. One year ago, Al Anbar was thought to be lost to the enemy. At the time, al-Qaida staged a parade in the city streets to flaunt its control. Last week, there was another parade in Al Anbar Province. Only this time it was a parade of Iraqi citizens and Iraqi forces who had reclaimed their homes and driven the terrorists out. Iraqi forces have now assumed responsibility for security in 8 of the 18 Iraqi provinces. Across the country, brave Iraqis are increasingly taking on responsibility for their own safety and security. The improvements we are witnessing in Iraq further confirm the report given by GEN David Petraeus, Commanding General of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, before Congress in September regarding the troop surge. While testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he stated: The military objectives of the surge are in large measure being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in this arena. Our enemies see the changes underway and increasingly fear they are on the wrong side of events. Day by day, our forces are seizing the initiative from the enemy. Osama bin Laden, who is in hiding out of fear of U.S. forces, has publicly expressed concern about al-Qaida's recent setback in Iraq. In an audiotape, he talks about the mistakes al-Qaida has made and urges terrorists to overcome what he says are growing divisions in their ranks. This return on our success in Iraq means we are slowly beginning to bring some of our forces home, and we are doing it from a position of strength. The military did not replace 2,200 Marines who came home from Al Anbar Province in September, and we will also bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas. While there is good news in Iraq, news that is important for the American people to hear, there are also remaining challenges we need to be realistic about. Parts of Iraq continue to be violent and difficult. The terrorists are still capable of carrying out attacks that will dominate headlines, and the Iraqi security forces will continue to require U.S. support. Now is certainly not the time to give up, restrict funding, or set a surrender date, as some in this body have argued we should do. As we continue to debate Iraq in the body in the coming months, I hope we can all acknowledge there has been real progress, and work together to ensure this progress is not wasted. That approach is clearly in the interests of all Americans and is in the interests of the Iraqi people as well. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a Member from a State with a strong military presence, I am committed to supporting our troops and their families and making sure their needs are met. Clearly our military has answered the call of duty and they continue to perform courageously, and I for one will do whatever I can to ensure they have the resources and equipment to continue executing their mission, and that their families back home receive the support and assistance that we owe them. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I begin by letting everybody know this is a mutual admiration society. Senator Harkin has been a great chairman of the Agriculture Committee. In previous years, back in 2002, when we had this farm bill up for debate, he was chairman then and did a great job of leading us. I think a great product was produced. I was in the House then and had the privilege of working with him as well as other members of this committee, including my good friend, Senator Conrad, about whom I will have more to say about in a minute. It was a good product we produced back then. As chairman for the last 2 years, I had the pleasure of going around the country and holding eight farm bill field hearings as well as a couple of other informal hearings. We tried to extend every courtesy to Senator Harkin. He had staff at each one of those. We had a good working relationship for those 2 years. During this year, when the seat change took place and Senator Harkin reassumed chairmanship, he extended every single courtesy to me he possibly could. It truly has been a good working relationship, not just on production of this bill but on every other issue we had all year long. Senator Harkin has been a great partner and a great friend for agriculture. That is what this is all about at the end of the day. It is not about the individual but about those farmers we represent and who live and work all across this great country of ours. I thank Senator Harkin for the courtesies he has extended to me. I thank him for the dialog we have had. Where we have had differences, he is exactly right: We have been able to talk through them and work them out. We have come up with a good product. I do concur with him that if we could have a vote tonight, I would certainly be glad to see this behind us to move to conference and begin the delicate and difficult challenge ahead of conferencing this bill with the House. At the end of the day, with his leadership, we are going to make that happen. I see our friend, Senator Conrad. He and I forged a good friendship back in 2002, when we were in the conference committee, when I, as a Member of the House, and he, as a Member of this body, agreed on several things that we worked hard together on to make sure were incorporated into the 2002 farm bill. As we moved into the process of the debate on this farm bill, he also has been a great partner for American agriculture. We have had the opportunity, both with our staffs and without, to have numerous discussions, hours of discussion about the direction in which we ought to go. As I told the Presiding Officer the other day, the one thing I learned about Senator Conrad early on was that when he tells you something, it is like money in the bank. You can know that what he said is his word and he doesn't budge from it. On difficult issues, we have had to compromise and come to agreement. We have done that in a very professional way. The product of all of that discussion is this farm bill which the three of us have produced and filed here today. It is a good product, and it shows that when we do work together in a bipartisan way--and too often in this body we don't do that, but in this case we have--we can produce what the American people want; that is, a good legislative package. I rise in support of the bipartisan Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 that was overwhelmingly reported out of the Senate Agriculture Committee on October 25, 2007. This bill is the result of many long hours of hard work on the part of my staff, the staffs of Chairman Harkin and Budget Committee Chairman Conrad. In addition, I have met regularly with Republican members of the Senate Agriculture Committee and tried to address their thoughts and concerns throughout the process. As a result of those outreach efforts, many of the Republican members on the committee played a critical role in constructing this bill. I particularly thank Senator Crapo for all the hard work he did in crafting the bipartisan conservation title. In addition, our entire committee worked in a bipartisan fashion and largely was able to accommodate the interests and priorities of almost every member of the Agriculture Committee. I am extremely grateful we were able to report this farm bill out of committee with all but one member of the committee in agreement. It is indeed a luxury to pass a bill out of committee with 20 out of 21 members lending their support. Particularly in this time of increasing political differences and legislative inactivity, it speaks highly of the men and women of our committee that we were able to have a constructive debate that has led to a bipartisan bill that will strengthen American agriculture. It is my hope and expectation that we will engage in a similarly open, bipartisan process as we consider the farm bill on the floor of the Senate this week and probably into next week. Traditionally, Senate consideration of farm bills has been conducted in an open manner. I see no reason to diverge from that course during this debate. The substitute amendment we will consider beginning today is an extremely complex piece of legislation. I echo what Senator Harkin said earlier. We have a Finance Committee piece, and then we have the Agriculture Committee piece. They have been joined together. We would not have been able to produce the Agriculture Committee piece without a contribution from the Finance Committee. The work of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley is extremely important and is melded into the work we did on the Agriculture Committee. It is complex. Farm bills in and of themselves are extremely complex. When you look at the commodity title where we talk about and use phrases that are not common to most Members of this Senate, most of them don't understand when we start talking about marketing loans or countercyclical payments because they are not used by Members of this body in everyday, ongoing discussions. Likewise, the Finance Committee piece is extremely complex and involves offsets of some programs that most of us don't deal with on a daily basis. I am hopeful that the process will move in the course that it normally moves along with respect to farm bills. That is we have a free and open debate, everybody has the opportunity to come in and talk about any interest they have in the farm bill and to be able to offer amendments to any portion of the farm bill. At the end of the day, when all of the votes are counted, I am very confident we are going to come out of here with a very positive, forward-leaning, reform-minded, forward-thinking farm bill that will allow us to go to conference with the House and come out of that conference with a farm bill that provides a safety net, makes the reforms in the right areas of agricultural policy where we need those reforms, and, at the same time, provides the kind of programs we need in nutrition, in school lunch, in energy, as well as in conservation, research, and the other critical portions of this bill. We will need to carefully and methodically consider all proposals put forth by all Senators, both on the agricultural and finance-related provisions of the bill. It would be counterproductive to attempt to circumvent our careful deliberative process by restricting the consideration of any proposal that is offered. I believe in an open farm bill debate, and I will not support any circumvention of the normal process with respect to amendments that anyone may want to offer. It is my sincere hope the Senate will agree with our committee and support this farm bill that will strengthen the Nation's food security, protect the livelihood of our farmers and ranchers, preserve our efforts to remain good stewards of the environment, and enhance our Nation's energy security efforts. I consider a safe, affordable, and abundant food supply a critical national security interest. I realize many people today are far removed from the farm, and it is hard for them to comprehend the complexities of production agriculture and how vitally important it is to the Nation that our agricultural industry can support the diet of American citizens without relying on imported foods and products. Free market advocates will say we will always be able to buy what we need from other countries. That is true. But I do not want to take that chance. I do not want to rely on other countries for my food, as we do now for energy. Senator Harkin just put up some charts that talked about the production of oil. We could have put up similar charts that talk about the production of food. But, at the end of the day, the bottom line is that American farmers and ranchers produce the safest, most abundant, highest quality food supply in the world. When the consumer buys those products at the marketplace, Americans pay less out of every disposable dollar than any other country in the world for that safe, abundant, and high-quality food supply. Now, despite challenging budgetary constraints, we were able to allocate $3.1 billion in new spending for all farm programs over the life of this bill, thanks in large part to the efforts of Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley of the Finance Committee. Do I wish we had more resources? Sure. But we find ourselves in a different situation today compared to the last time Congress passed a farm bill. It is ironic that the strong prices we are experiencing today in farm country would make our jobs more difficult in drafting a new farm bill. That being said, key agricultural priorities, including specialty crops, nutrition, conservation, and energy programs all received additional funding, allowing these critical agricultural sectors to realize unprecedented gains that will stimulate production and benefit not only the farmers and ranchers who produce agricultural products, but also the consumers and food aid participants who enjoy them at an affordable price. Americans enjoy the safest, most affordable, and most abundant food supply in the world--and all of this being done using less than 1 percent of the Federal budget being spent. As a fiscal conservative, I can support that kind of investment any time. Let me point out that the largest funding increase in this farm bill goes to nutrition. I think in the last farm bill we spent 28 percent of the budget on the commodity title alone. In this farm bill, we are spending approximately 14 percent on the commodity title. We are increasing the nutrition title by over $5 billion, and that is no small accomplishment. The additional resources were made available by reductions in other areas of the bill, including the commodity and crop insurance programs, which have always been the heart and soul of production agriculture. Senators should understand the delicate compromise this entails, and further efforts to take funds from the farm safety net could stall this bill. The nutrition title is a vital part of this farm bill, and the committee-passed bill makes important improvements to the Food Stamp Program that have long been on the agenda of the antihunger community. Senator Harkin alluded to the fact we have increased the asset limit from $2,000 to $3,500. He is exactly right. That is a critical aspect of this bill with regard to the nutrition title. I have been a supporter of trying to increase that to $4,000, which on a cost-of- living scale over the last 20 years that is what it should be. We had hoped to do that. I actually have a bill--it is a stand-alone bill--to do that. But, unfortunately, with the limited funds we have we were not able to do that. But when we did find some additional money, kind of at the end of the day just before we finished the writing of this bill, Senator Harkin and I agreed, very quickly, that where we ought to put that money is in the nutrition title to make sure we can do things such as make some of the programs permanent, as well as raise the asset limit, and make sure we have a Food Stamp Program which benefits farmers and ranchers as much as it does the beneficiaries that will be meaningful and will be workable. I especially thank my dear friend, Bill Bolling, the executive director of the Atlanta Community Food Bank, for not only his counsel as we went through the preparation of this farm bill, but also for hosting the committee's nutrition hearing at his facility this past April. This provided us a great opportunity to better understand the needs of food banks all across America, as well as hear firsthand testimony from Georgians who rely on the food assistance programs that are an important part of this farm bill. This bill takes important steps to improve the food purchasing power of food stamp participants and makes the Food Stamp Program more accessible to working families with low incomes. By raising the asset limit, exempting certain IRS-approved savings accounts, increasing the standard deduction, and increasing the minimum benefit for food stamps, this legislation will better enable low-income Americans to afford the food and nutrition they need to lead productive lives. This bill also substantially increases the Federal funding for the Emergency Food Assistance Program from $140 million annually to $250 million annually. These additional resources will help people in need, as well as the local food pantries that provide these important services in communities throughout the country. In addition, the farm bill promotes healthier diets by expanding access to farmers markets, as well as expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to all States by targeting benefits to low-income children. Again, Senator Harkin is exactly right. We have farmers markets popping up all over. We have a great system in our State of Georgia that is led by our Commissioner of Agriculture, Tommy Irvin, who has made sure we have very active and viable farmers markets in virtually every area of our State and that farms have access to those markets. It is not just in the metropolitan areas, where the price may be a little bit better, but in the rural parts of Georgia. Where I live, there is not a community I can think of or a county I can think of that does not have a very active and viable farmers market, where we sell fresh fruits and vegetables and whatever is in season. Whether it is watermelons, cantaloupes, or snap beans, the farmers markets have all of those products readily available for the consumer. The committee has once again wisely decided to include an energy title in this farm bill. That is not by accident. In 2002, the Congress passed a farm bill that for the first time contained an energy title, and we have expanded this important title in the 2007 bill by including programs to stimulate the production of cellulosic crops that can be converted into energy. The Southeast has not been a participant in this arena to date, but with the expansion of these programs to include cellulosic feedstocks, southeastern farmers will hopefully be able to make fuel from agricultural products, all the way from kudzu to peanut hulls. Mr. President, 100 percent of the ethanol manufactured in this country today comes from corn. We do not grow corn in the southeastern part of our country, nor do we grow it in the western part of our country in the abundance it is grown in the Midwest. There are reasons for that. But we have the ability because of our long growing season both in the West as well as in the Southeast to grow virtually any crop that is out there. So by providing funding for the additional research, by providing funding for those investors who want to manufacture ethanol from something besides corn, they now are going to have that funding available to them to invest in the cellulosic production of ethanol. At the same time we are going to encourage farmers to think outside the box, to not just grow the crops that automatically come to mind when you think of ``The Farmer in the Dell'' or ``Old MacDonald.'' We are going to have farmers now producing all sorts of alternative crops that can be used in the production of ethanol. I will cite just one instance of that. In Georgia, we have the first cellulosic ethanol plant that has been committed for construction in our part of the world. The investor in this particular cellulosic-producing ethanol facility is going to take a crop we grow with great abundance in the Southeast--and that is pine trees--and he has developed a system that will allow them to take pine trees and convert those pine trees into ethanol. The good news is, when he sticks that pine tree in that cylinder for the manufacture of ethanol, nothing escapes. Nothing comes out in the form of emissions into the air. Everything is used and recycled. So it is an amazing process, and it is exactly the type of entrepreneurial exercise that we are encouraging in this farm bill. Through the inclusion of this title, we continue to push forward the necessary research, development, and promotion of renewable fuels that will enable America's farmers and ranchers to contribute to the Nation's expanding alternative energy industry. Notably, the energy title receives the largest percentage increase compared to the farm bill baseline, an increase of over $1 billion. Importantly, this bill takes a fresh look at our commodity programs while continuing the traditional safety net so critical to America's farmers. In addition, we have created a program whereby farmers may choose to manage the inherent risks of agricultural production through a new type of revenue assurance program. I am pleased farmers will have the option to utilize this new Average Crop Revenue Program. Senator Harkin has been instrumental in crafting this program. Senators Durbin and Brown have been instrumental. I particularly compliment Senator Roberts for the great effort he put into digesting this new program that is extremely complex but has the potential of offering farmers and ranchers a new option. It is one of those options where we as a committee and we as a body have been thinking outside the box relative to programs of agricultural policy that benefit farmers and ranchers. I think with the amendment we have in place now in this bill we are going to encourage farmers and ranchers to think about some alternative to the conventional programs we have always had. I understand several Members have an interest in offering amendments to further limit payments to the hard-working farmers and ranchers in this country. However, I want the Senate to realize the committee- reported bill includes the most significant reforms to payment limitations we have seen in the history of American farm policy. Any amendment that attempts to make Draconian reforms is going to be met with my strong opposition. I urge my colleagues to compare this bill with current law and recognize the dramatic changes. As my good friend, Senator Conrad, was quoted in the press the other day as saying, the changes in this bill represent the ``most significant reform'' in the long-fought battle over payment limitations. He is exactly right. He went on further to say: All payments will be attributed to an actual, living, breathing human [being] rather than some paper entity. Because now we are going to have attribution. We have eliminated three entity, and we have changed the numbers dramatically. Many of the proponents of significant reform to agricultural policy will argue that only a small percentage of Americans receive any benefit from farm programs. Agriculture economists at the University of Georgia recently released a study on the Community Economic Analysis and Impacts of Georgia Cotton Production. This study focused on one cotton-producing county in the southern part of our State. The cotton production in this one county alone has a $36 million impact on U.S. output and almost a $9 million impact on labor income in the United States. Another interesting result from this study was that each dollar received in Government payments generated $1.37 of new tax revenue in the U.S. economy. Let me repeat that. This study concluded that for every dollar received in Government payments, that $1 generated $1.37 of new tax revenue in the U.S. economy. The following excerpt came from the October edition of ``Southern Farmer'' magazine. By extrapolating the results of the University of Georgia study, the columnist Steve Ford notes: In summary, if cotton subsidies paid to farmers are $2 billion, $1.2 billion is returned to the federal treasury through tax revenue from economic activity generated by cotton farmers. Economic activity generated by a net investment of $800 million grows the U.S. economy by $28 billion, provides another $800 million in state and local tax revenue, and generates a $7 billion payroll and 230,000 jobs. This investment generates a 3,400 percent return. Although the study only focused on one small county in Georgia, when expanded, the national impact of the cotton industry and the cotton program is astounding. I hope my colleagues understand our farm program benefits all Americans, not just cotton farmers in south Georgia. It is vitally important to the farmers and ranchers of Georgia, as well as to farmers and ranchers all across this great Nation, that we uphold the strength of the safety net American agriculture depends on in this farm bill. The agriculture and food sector represents over 15 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. This bill requires our attention and commitment to the farmers and ranchers who put food on our plates every day. If we go down the path of crippling our farm programs in response to the newspaper editorials, the inevitable result will be the outsourcing of the production of our food and fiber. While U.S. agriculture exports continue to grow, agriculture imports increased by 10 percent and we are fast approaching a point in time when exports will equal imports. This is the one segment of our economy that has consistently and continually over the last several decades provided a positive balance of trade for our economy. If we let that slip away from us, it is going to be a huge mistake. Let the current energy crisis be a warning sign to every Member of this body. If America becomes as dependent on foreign nations to supply our food and fiber as currently is the case with petroleum, we will threaten the security of this Nation and leave our children's health and diets to the political whims of foreign nations. Let me say that at the end of the day, the reason we are here is to represent the hard-working men and women who get dirt under their fingernails each and every day to provide the safest, most affordable, and highest quality agriculture products in the world. I hope my colleagues keep those Americans in mind when they debate this critical piece of legislation. I wish to also discuss several important provisions in the conservation title of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I would like to highlight 5 areas: conservation technical assistance, the Conservation Reserve Wildlife Habitat Program, forest conservation, climate change, and partnerships and cooperation. U.S. agriculture delivers safe, reliable, high quality food, feed, and fiber to the Nation and to the world, but it also delivers much more. Through their careful stewardship, farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners also deliver clean water, productive wildlife habitat, and healthy landscapes. In the 1930s, this Nation made a historic commitment to a conservation partnership with farmers and ranchers. Rooted in our national experience with the devastation of soil erosion at that time, the conservation movement began with the purpose of keeping productive topsoil--and a productive agriculture--in place. Conservation technology was harnessed to meet that challenge. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 also was historic as it renewed our commitment to the Nation's working lands. 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 this 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 land. In addition, more than one million acres of wetlands have been created, restored or enhanced. In 1935, Congress created the Soil Conservation Service SCS, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, to lead conservation efforts at the federal level. SCS was renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, in 1994. NRCS provides technical, scientifically sound advice and assistance to farmers and ranchers to address their local resource concerns. This technical assistance is the foundation of conservation. In the 1980s, Congress began to seriously focus on conservation. During the 1990s, Congress accelerated the investment in conservation by creating additional programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to share the cost of installing conservation practices with farmers and ranchers. These programs are commonly called financial assistance or cost-share programs. NRCS was given the responsibility of managing most of these programs in addition to maintaining its traditional leadership role in the technical aspects of conservation. In response to the popularity of the financial assistance programs and their dramatic increases in funding, NRCS has had to focus almost entirely on implementing them. While the financial assistance programs have increased the adoption of conservation practices and awareness of the benefits of conservation across the country, this shift in focus has potential negative consequences for NRCS's ability to maintain its technical base and ensure scientifically valid technical assistance to farmers and ranchers. Congress is expected to continue to support financial assistance programs well into the future. But in order to help farmers and ranchers put meaningful conservation on the ground, Congress must also maintain NRCS's core technical functions and capabilities--the science, technology development and transfer and resource assessments--that support the programs. Both parts of the portfolio are equally important. In addition to continuing the investment in financial assistance programs, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 also recognizes that the success of the conservation partnership was built on a foundation of proven conservation science, technical assistance, and technology. The legislation updates, clarifies, and consolidates statutes governing technical assistance for easy reference. It defines technical assistance to ensure a common understanding by Congress, stakeholders, farmers and ranchers, and NRCS. The Act reauthorizes the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act and reaffirms its purpose of informing the direction of conservation policy. It better incorporates monitoring and evaluation into the conservation planning process and conservation programs to reflect increasing demands for a better understanding of the real-world environmental effects of conservation policy and programs. Especially important to my home State of Georgia and other southeastern states is the creation of a new program within the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). It will help improve wildlife habitat on CRP acres planted to softwood pine trees. The program is called the Conservation Reserve Wildlife Habitat Program. Currently, there are about 1.5 million CRP acres in pines in the Southeast. Most of these plantings are extremely dense and have few wildlife benefits. The program provides cost-share and incentive payments to landowners to better manage their pine stands, for example, through the appropriate use of thinning and prescribed fire. Wildlife habitat quality can be rapidly restored in pine forests with the use of these and other forest management strategies. This program will be a significant tool to help reverse the decline of northern bobwhite quails, certain songbirds and other at-risk species in the Southeast. I sincerely thank the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, National Association of Conservation Districts, and the National Wild Turkey Federation for all of their help developing the program. This was a true grassroots effort. The Nation's forest resources are a sometimes overlooked but critically important part of our environment and economy. In the United States, approximately 262 million acres of forest are owned by families or individuals. Nearly one million acres of these privately owned forest acres are developed each year. U.S. paper and wood processing generates 1.2 million jobs and $230 billion in annual sales. More than 75 million acres of forests are part of a farm. U.S. forest lands provide two-thirds of the Nation's drinking water, and a single tree can absorb more than 10 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. Unfortunately, 27 million acres of private forest are at risk of insect and disease, and 90 million acres are at risk of wildfire. The Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 helps private forestland owners improve their land and plan for the future. The conservation title places an increased emphasis on forest resources by defining non- industrial private forest land in the Food Security Act of 1985 and clarifying that technical assistance is available for forest land conservation. Forest management practices and conservation plan development are added to EQIP, as is fire pre-suppression. The Conservation Innovation Grant program encourages forestry projects and emphasizes the development and transfer of innovative conservation technologies. One particular area I wanted to address in the 2007 farm bill was how agriculture and individual farmers can help tackle climate change. While I am not sure we understand all of the science of climate change, there are some reasonable steps we can take to begin mitigating its effects and ensure agriculture can meaningfully participate in any future emission reduction program developed by Congress. Agriculture accounts for about 6 percent of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States as measured on a million metric ton carbon equivalent. Since 1995, emissions from the agriculture sector have trended downward. The two primary types of agricultural emissions are methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is released as part of the natural digestive process of animals and manure management at livestock operations. Fertilizer and manure application to soils are the source of nitrous oxide. Carbon captured and stored in U.S. soils partially offsets these emissions, sequestering about one-tenth of all emissions generated by the agriculture sector. Currently, there are many land management and farm conservation practices that reduce GHG emissions and/or sequester carbon. Examples include land retirement, conservation tillage, and manure and livestock feed management practices. These practices are supported through existing farm bill conservation programs. But looking ahead to the future, there are additional opportunities for agriculture to further reduce emissions and sequester carbon. USDA estimates carbon uptake in agricultural soils could double by 2012, and over the long term agriculture could sequester 2 to 14 percent more carbon dioxide. I have been encouraged by Federal, state, and private efforts over the past few years to include agriculture in carbon credit trading programs. However, it is time to go beyond the minimum standards that have been set and develop more robust certification, measurement and verification standards. The key area that needs to be addressed is the measurement and verification of offsets generated by agriculture. Other questions that need to be answered are how to distinguish between emissions mitigation and emissions reductions that would occur anyway, what activities should be eligible, and how the actions are measured, monitored, and verified. I am very pleased the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 addresses these issues by directing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish uniform standards; design accounting procedures; establish a protocol to report environmental benefits; establish a registry to report and maintain the benefits; and establish a process to verify that a farmer, rancher or forest land owner has implemented the conservation or land management activity. The Secretary is required to coordinate and leverage existing activities in environmental services markets but to focus first on carbon markets. For several years, farm, conservation, wildlife and environmental groups have promoted cooperative conservation and debated ways to ``get more bang for the buck'' from the Federal investment in conservation. The 2002 farm bill included an important provision to encourage cooperative conservation through its partnerships and cooperation provisions. Partnerships and cooperation is the next step in locally led conservation as it promotes conservation on a landscape or regional level. Unfortunately, the provisions were not implemented due to a lack of specificity in the bill language regarding the relationship with partners and how funding would flow. The Farm and Energy Security Act of 2007 resolves these issues and significantly improves partnerships and cooperation. The new provisions authorize the Secretary to undertake a competitive process to designate special projects to address conservation issues related to agricultural and non-industrial private forest land management and production. The Secretary may enter into agreements with eligible partners to provide technical and financial assistance to producers to implement on-the- ground conservation to achieve the objectives of the special project. The concept of partnerships and cooperation is based on the highly successful Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). In a CREP, a state and the Farm Service Agency agree to focus CRP resources on a specific area within a state to address a specific conservation need. The state usually agrees to provide some funding and technical resources to the CREP. With the new partnerships and cooperation, all conservation programs, not just CRP, could be leveraged to address specific conservation needs and to produce watershed or regional conservation objectives. I would like to provide an example for how the partnerships and cooperation authority could be used. A cannery has closed, and nearby orchards are going out of business. A local watershed council pulls together several partners, such as a state university, a wildlife organization and an organic growers' cooperative. They agree to work together to improve water quality and wildlife habitat while working with interested local producers to transition their orchards to organic grass-based cattle operations. The watershed council files an application with USDA proposing to conduct local producer outreach; provide training on transitioning to a new agricultural sector, including organic certification and cattle management workshops; assist with tree removal; and assist in implementing habitat diversity practices with workshops, labor, and seed. The council asks for designation of these resources: $10 million in EQIP; $250,000 in the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP); 1,000 acres of Continuous Conservation Reserve Program (CCRP); and 20,000 acres in Grassland Reserve Program easements (GRP). The State Conservationist and State Executive Director agree with the proposal and set aside the approved resources, which will go to producers participating in the project. When the producer applies for the programs, they certify that they are a project participant. If they are qualified, they bypass the regular program ranking processes and enter into a contract in the identified program(s). Each program in this example stands on its own and all program rules apply. What is different is the streamlined application and the process that works to make the programs seamless in application. In closing, I would like to repeat a story of an old man down on a hill farm in the South, who sat on his front porch as a newcomer passed by. To make talk, the newcomer said, ``Mister, how does the land lie around here?'' The old man replied, ``Well, I don't know about the land a-lying; it's these real estate people who do the lying.'' W.C. Lowdermilk, the Assistant Chief of the Soil Conservation Service in the 1930s said: In a very real sense the land does not lie; it bears a record of what men write on it. In a larger sense, a Nation writes its record on the land. This record is easy to read by those who understand the simple language of the land. Conservation leads to prosperous, healthy societies and stable, self- sufficient countries. It sustains the agricultural productivity that allows for division of labor and the growth and longevity of a society. In 1938 and 1939, Mr. Lowdermilk studied the record of agriculture in countries where land had been cultivated for many centuries. He sought to learn if the experience of these older civilizations could help in solving the serious soil erosion and land productivity problems in the United States, then struggling with repair of the Dust Bowl and the gullied South. He found that careful land stewardship through terracing, crop rotation and other soil conservation measures enabled societies to flourish for centuries. But neglect of the land, manifested as soil erosion, deforestation, and overgrazing, helped to topple empires and destroy entire civilizations. He concluded that America's future was tied to conservation and that this calling fell to the Nation as well as the farmer and landowner. Mr. President, I am pleased to have helped develop the conservation title of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I look forward to seeing its resources and programs used by this Nation's farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners for generations to come. The 2007 Senate farm bill includes a new title not contained in bills in the past of provisions regarding the livestock marketplace. I want to state very clearly that I have tremendous concerns with this title and do not support the vast majority of provisions included. I know without question that the entire United States Senate is concerned about farmers and ranchers and their ability to succeed in the marketplace. The livestock industry plays a critical role in the health of rural America. Livestock and related industries account for approximately one half of the total farm-gate receipts to U.S. agricultural producers, employ half a million Americans, and create approximately $100 billion in economic activity. It is therefore clearly important that we make certain the livestock industry continues to thrive and make every effort to sustain the economic viability of this critical sector of our economy. In our efforts to assist constituents in the livestock marketplace, we must exert extreme caution in how we attempt to address the agriculture sector. Our focus must be on expanding the options of producers, rather than restricting their options and penalizing those successful segments of the industry. It is for this reason that I have serious concerns with some of the provisions in this livestock title. The approach taken in this title is an attempt to regulate the industry to profitability, rather than stimulate innovation and encourage stronger relationships between the various industry segments. I am pleased that industry--including livestock producers, packers, and retailers--were able to find a compromise on the issue of Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling. While I have long supported a voluntary program, I believe the compromise included in this bill will allow all livestock market participants to benefit from the program without being burdened by unworkable regulations and excessive fines. But outside of this provision, there is very little in this title that I support. The livestock title includes a provision that would ban the use of mandatory arbitration in livestock contracts unless both parties agree, after the dispute arises, to utilize arbitration. Being from the great State of Georgia, I understand that poultry contract growers must be afforded the right to enter into fair and balanced contracts and to have fair and just means to settle disputes when they arise. But I am concerned that this provision will lead to increased litigation and will not benefit our poultry industry in the long run. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposes the anti-arbitration provisions in the title, because: The long-term effects of such provisions, if enacted, would cause serious damage to the general use and availability of alternative dispute resolution as well as weaken the Federal Arbitration Act. Wisely, the House of Representatives has taken a different approach to this issue and attempted to strengthen the arbitration process in order to ensure that producers are treated fairly. I prefer the approach utilized by the House, but I recognize that many of the members of the Agriculture Committee view this issue differently. I also would like to briefly address another provision that greatly troubles me. The livestock title creates a special counsel for agricultural competition at the Department of Agriculture who will absorb all of the responsibilities for enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act. While I understand the issues that Members are attempting to address by creating this position, I believe we are creating yet another level of bureaucracy at the Department that may in fact make enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act even more difficult. The most troubling aspect of this special counsel provision is that he is given the power to both investigate and prosecute violations under the Packers and Stockyards Act and Agricultural Fair Practices Act. What we effectively do in this legislation is create an Office of Inspector General within the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), and then give that office the power to prosecute as well. This is simply bad policy, that sets a bad precedent, and will potentially lead to overzealous prosecutions and confuse the current roles in the Department of Agriculture. USDA is strongly opposed to this Special Counsel provision because it will alter the current structure of USDA in an attempt to address problems that the Department is already addressing. In fiscal year 2007, USDA has handled more enforcement cases of the Packers and Stockyards Act than in any year in the recent past. As a result of these efforts, violators were assessed civil penalties totaling over $450,000 this past fiscal year. It is evident that GIPSA is making tremendous progress in their enforcement efforts. Rather than build on these recent accomplishments, this provision will likely hamper enforcement efforts at GIPSA and create confusion in the livestock marketplace. The livestock title of this farm bill attempts to create a one-size- fits-all livestock marketplace where all producers are treated the same regardless of economics or free market principles. This approach is simply not reflective of the industry today. Producers have made tremendous investments to improve the genetics, quality, and grades of their livestock in an effort to command a greater return for their products. And, contrary to the popular sentiment reflected in this livestock title, many producers are experiencing great success in their efforts. One producer from Mason City, IA, eloquently summed up his view of the livestock marketplace in a letter to me and Senator Harkin. The producer stated: We don't share the grim view of our industry that others hold. We want you to know that our industry is doing well. We are able to prosper under the current law and regulations that apply to our businesses. For many producers, the stability that arises out of the contracts they strike with packing companies are the key to their financial viability, helping them to obtain credit and avoid the harshest consequences of volatility in the markets. I commend this producer and others like him who have worked hard to secure their position in today's livestock marketplace. The Georgia Cattlemen's Association also strongly opposes the provisions included in this title. These hard-working men and women have made substantial investments in their businesses in order to compete in today's livestock marketplace. The supposed reforms in this livestock title neglect their hard-fought efforts to secure markets for their superior products. Perhaps 15 years ago, these reforms would have made sense. But today's marketplace has evolved and my Georgia producers and many producers across this country have displayed the American spirit and dedication necessary to evolve with that marketplace and enjoy prosperity. Rather than reduce the options available to these hard-working Americans, it certainly would make more sense to provide them with every option at their disposal so that they can continue to compete in this evolving marketplace. Attempts to drag the livestock marketplace back to the way business was conducted 15 or 30 years ago will threaten the livelihood of farmers and ranchers, drive down consumer demand for specialized products, and increase costs--not only to packers, but to the producers this livestock title attempts to serve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Camila Knowles of my staff have floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the farm bill, and that Alan Mackey and Patty Lawrence, detailees from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on my committee staff, have floor privileges for today's session.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment 3391 and that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Isakson from Georgia, in support of this legislation. Georgia is in a critical time in the history of our State. Atlanta, GA, is a great place to live, a great place to work, a great place to visit, but we are in a crisis. The water supply system for metropolitan Atlanta depends on two basins, Lake Altoona and Lake Lanier. Lake Altoona and Lake Lanier are fed by nature, by rainfall that every year, thus far in the history of those basins, has filled those basins since they were built decades ago. Unfortunately, during the month of August, we received very little moisture. But at the time we were receiving very little moisture, we had more 100-degree day temperatures than we have ever had in the history of Atlanta. A combination of natural forces has put us in this situation of crisis, but there is also an unnatural source that has helped produce this crisis, and the legislation that Senator Isakson has proposed, along with my cosponsorship, seeks to address this critical problem and seeks to help find a solution to this problem for the short term. Georgia's lakes are low and continue to decline as the Army Corps of Engineers releases water to protect a handful of sturgeons and mussels in the Appalachicola Bay in the State of Florida. Understandably, folks who have had mandatory water restrictions for months in our State, who are watching these lakes slowly decrease, are wondering where the common sense in Washington has gone. They are calling my office and asking: How can our Government care more about mussels and sturgeons than human beings? Obviously, that is not the case. But water continues to be released, and estimates are that Lake Lanier, Atlanta's main source of water, will be empty--and I repeat, will be empty--by January 2008 if the Corps does not stop releasing so much water or if we do not get rainfall. That is less than 3 months away. It is clear that we are in a crisis. We need to do something to ensure we are not cutting off the drinking supply to 7 million people in the metropolitan Atlanta area. This legislation does something very simple and practical to address this crisis in the short term. It says, if the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Governor of a State, determines that a drought is in effect in a region in which there is a Federal river basin that is managed by the Corps of Engineers, and the drought threatens the health, safety, and welfare of the human population in that region, the Secretary of the Army can temporarily suspend provisions of the Endangered Species Act until such time as the drought is over and the health, safety, and welfare of humans is no longer at risk. We have larger issues to address in the long term. Updating the water control manuals by which the Corps of Engineers operates the river basins in Georgia and getting the Governors of our neighboring States together to apportion the water among the States for the long term are critical issues that have to be addressed. As resources get scarce, these things become more difficult to accomplish. Unfortunately, the people of Georgia cannot wait. They need immediate relief, and swift passage of this legislation will certainly help. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the chairman for his generous consideration of our concerns, and I also thank my colleagues for their hard work on this issue. Senator Inouye is one of the great heroes of our country and continues to earn our highest respect and admiration every day here in the Senate. It is a privilege and an honor to work with him on these important issues.