Blanche Lincoln

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. First of all, I want to correct something. Senator Grassley had some concerns about my comments earlier, and they may have been misinterpreted. Senator Grassley is a champion for his farmers, no question about it. I have no doubt about that. I didn't say it would eliminate the subsidy program. What I said the amendment would do is eliminate our ability as farmers in southern States in terms of being able to mitigate our risks without that marketing loan, uncapped as it is in current law. I wanted to make sure he knows. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes to walk through some of the reforms in this bill that people should be proud of. Over the past 5 years, I ever consistently heard press accounts unfairly characterizing farm programs. All too often, the accounts are very misleading--and that is a nice way of saying it. However, as members of those States, we rely on a strong farm safety net. I paid close attention to that criticism. I have taken it personally because I believe it unfairly calls into question the character and integrity of my farmers, the hard-working farm families I am proud to represent in the Senate. Largely because they are hard working, they are salt-of-the-Earth people, and they go by the rules. The fact is, they may farm something different, and they may farm a little differently than others, but they are still the hard- working farm families of this country. We have eliminated today in the underlying Senate Agriculture Committee bill some of the often cited loopholes, the so-called three- entity rule, and banned the use of generic certificates, which producers use to make their entire crop eligible for the marketing loan cap in less transparent ways. We have been asked to be transparent, and that is what we have done. For reformers, the underlying bill also creates direct attribution of program benefits to a ``warm body'' by requiring the Secretary to track payments to a natural person regardless of the nature of the farming operation earning these payments. Folks also wanted to dramatically lower the overall level that an individual farmer can receive. That is what we have done. I thank you for the opportunity to be here and represent those great farmers. I want to say to all of my colleagues that a vote against the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is still a vote for the most significant reform in the history of our farm bill.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the Dorgan-Grassley amendment before us. But before I explain why, I do want to say I have tremendous respect for my colleagues from North Dakota and Iowa. They are hard-working men who are interested in working hard to get things done. I very much appreciate that. I hope they can see the success they have already had from the hard work they have put in since 2001 and what has come to fruition--the underlying bill that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. We worked very hard on that bill in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We came out with a very balanced bill. It is a bill that, frankly, has more reform, more substantive reform than any farm bill we have ever done. I hope those two Senators--as I said, I have tremendous respect for them and the hard work they bring to this body--I hope they do recognize the success they have had since 2001 in moving forward in reform. I also come to the floor here to oppose this amendment because, unfortunately, it is going to probably have some very dire unintended consequences from the remaining part of this amendment that is not included in the underlying bill. I just have to answer a couple of the questions my colleagues have brought forward. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, mentioned land values. I have approached almost every Member in this body to discuss the farm bill. It is critically important to a small rural agricultural State such as the one I represent, Arkansas. Agriculture is the basis of our economy. In my discussions with Senator Grassley, he mentioned his concern about land values. I went back to do my research, and I found a study done by Iowa State University that gives us six reasons why those land values are out of whack, and not one of those top six reasons is farm payments. So I have a little concern in terms of blaming land values on farm payments. There are multiple things there that we can see that would cause concern. I also would like to touch on a few of the realities for the hard- working men and women who produce our food in this country, to respond to some of the other criticisms I have heard and dispel a few of those misrepresentations of farming that are out there. The most often used--and it was used by my colleague here today--the most used misrepresentation I encounter is the argument that a disproportionate share of farm payments go to the top 10 percent of farms in terms of size. I have heard it reported at 75 percent of the payment, 80 percent--sometimes they even use the number 90 percent. Honestly, it seems to change depending on the day or the source, and that is why I thought I would bring a few charts of my own to clarify the issue and set the record straight. My first chart includes excerpts from a speech by the famed agricultural economist from Kansas State University, Barry Flinchbaug. Here is what he has to say about the distribution of farm payments according to farm size: These programs are designed for the medium-size farmers. They have done what they were supposed to do. We have 2.1 million farms. Small farms make up 84 percent of that, ``small'' being defined as gross sales of less than $100,000. They produce 21 percent of the food supply, but they receive 30\1/2\ percent of the payments. Medium-sized farmers, on the other hand, make up 12.2 percent of the farms, and they produce 28 percent of the domestically grown food supply, and they receive 42.7 percent of the payments. Big farms with sales of more than $500,000 make up more than 3.8 percent of the farmers. They produce half of the food supply, and they receive 27 percent of the payments. I think if we just look at this we will realize those that are producing 78 percent of the commodities are only getting 58 percent of the payments. My second chart brings this point home a little bit more and certainly in living Technicolor. As you can see, my source here is the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. We are pleased to bring this. I know the pie chart Senator Grassley used probably uses the definition of a farmer which even Senator Lugar earlier--I think today or even yesterday, perhaps--agreed is completely out of whack. If we are going to include an FHA student who earns $1,000 or more selling a calf as a farmer, then we have a problem in terms of the definition of a farmer. Unfortunately, that puts us out of whack in some of the statistical dealings that we have to get a good, clear picture of what we are up against. I am going to go into some details on this chart, but I will first point out that the chart shows farmers today receive a portion of farm bill benefits that closely matches their percentage of total production. As you can see here by the red line, which indicates the percentage of Government payment, and the green line, which represents the percentage of production, they are almost identical in many ways. In fact, you will see the only discrepancy that exists is that the farmer who produces 78 percent of the products, combining the nonfamily farmers and the large family farms, receives only 58 percent of the total farm program. Now, remember, those are family farmers who are producing not just food source but a safe and abundant and affordable food supply and fiber, not to mention the fact that they are doing it in an environmentally responsible way, respectful to all of the different regulations that we impose. Other countries do not do that. I will be the first to say I think that is a good deal. I think in this country, to be able to be reassured that we are going to get a safe food supply, that it is going to be done with respect to the environment, that it is going to be done with respect to water and water resources and clean water and clean air, all of those things, that is very reasonable. It is a good investment. It is a good return on that dollar. When you see, in that blue line--and that represents the percentage of farmers in a certain category, the percentage of farmers that accounts for the 78 percent of that production in this country, who are, in fact, that mythical and demonized 10 percent of the farmers our critics like to refer to. So if 10 percent are producing 78 percent of the food source that we take for granted so often, then why should we not want our program to follow the crops? As you can clearly see, 10 percent receive only 58 percent of the total farm program payment. I think all of these numbers and certainly the charts make this point very well. The bottom line is, the payments follow production. That is what we want to see. We want to see an efficiency in that what we are striving to do--and that is to provide a domestically produced, safe, abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber--is done. That is what the insurance of our farm program is there for. And this reflects the fact that is exactly what those dollars are doing. They are a good investment, and they are returning on that investment to the American people. Now, the other issue that was brought up in terms of my colleagues about the marketing loan cap, I am still a little bit confused on what the Dorgan-Grassley proposal does in terms of doubling those payments. I am not sure if that means they are capped at $250,000 or if it is at $500,000 if your wife or spouse is considered actively engaged in farming. But I think many of us have asked those questions, and we are still a little bit confused. But when we talk about the cap, I would simply remind my colleagues, the current law marketing loan is uncapped. The President's proposal is uncapped. And the reason is, because we understand that in some of our crops they cannot use the disaster assistance, which we have plussed up about $5 billion, the crop insurance program is not as detailed to their needs and concerns because, quite frankly, it is hard to find a reasonable crop insurance plan that will, at a reasonable cost, protect you against the kind of risks that you have. So that marketing loan is key. It is key because it allows them to remain competitive. So when they hit those troubled shoals they can use that marketing loan to buy themselves time in the marketplace to be able to market their crops. We have found in years past that when we tried to cap the marketing loan, what happens is particularly farmers in my area who do have difficult times with crop insurance and have a very difficult time being able to access disaster assistance end up forfeiting their crops. So it goes to Government forfeiture and then the Government gets left holding the bag. The taxpayer gets left holding the bag. That is not what we want to see happen. We want these farmers to use the market, and we want to provide them the kind of tools that allow them to use the market, and that is what the marketing loan does, particularly for growers of southern commodities. So it is not capped in underlying or existing law. It is not capped in the President's proposal. I think that is because people realize that Government forfeiture of those crops is unreasonable. I feel as if I have come down here and spoken so many times. I have addressed the issue, particularly, of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment and the overall farm bill numerous times recently because I believe so strongly that the reforms already incorporated in the underlying bill are more significant than any reform effort that we have ever undertaken in farm policy. We have made huge strides. I think both of these gentlemen will recognize that. They certainly have to me in some circumstances. But as a consequence of enacting the provisions of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, it is going to be devastating to some. The amendments that are not already included in the underlying bill that are in this amendment would be devastating to the hard-working farm families, particularly in my State but in other Southern States where we grew those commodities that are grown in the controlled environment, which results most devastatingly in the outsourcing of a significant amount of America's agricultural production. Eighty-five percent of the rice that is consumed is grown in this country. Over half of that is grown in my State of Arkansas. If we outsource those jobs in rural America, if we outsource the production of that unbelievable staple commodity, it is not going to go somewhere else in this country. It is going go to our two biggest competitors more than likely. It is going to go to Vietnam and Thailand. When you look at the lack of restriction and the techniques that are used in their growing processes, you are going to realize it is not something we want to do, to outsource what we already have, and that is, a safe production of a staple food source, not just for us but also in terms of what we do globally. Let me reiterate what outsourcing would mean. It means importing rice from those places like I mentioned, where there is no environmental regulation between sewer water or regular water on crops that are grown there. Is that what American families want? Is that what American mothers want in terms of looking at what they are going to do when they serve that rice cereal to that new infant who is just learning to eat solid foods? Are they going to want to be reassured that what they are dealing with is a domestic product that has been regulated in how it was grown by American standards? Are they going to want to give that up and just look to the consequences of what might happen in terms of imported commodities? I would argue that is a price far too high for us to pay. I think the American people are very serious about wanting a safe and affordable food supply. We should be very grateful for the wonderful bounty that our farmers and ranchers provide this Nation. We should support them with a modest safety net so they can continue to provide this Nation and the world with this incredible safe, abundant, affordable supply of food and fiber on the globe. It is disappointing to me that some in the Chamber and those in the media and special interest groups would take this for granted. You know, if we look at what this costs us, the investment it makes, 15 percent of this bill is in the commodity's title. One-half of 1 percent of the entire budget goes to this insurance policy of assuring America's families they are going to get a safe food supply. It is also disappointing that some in this Chamber would speak about the dangers of poisoned food entering the country and jobs leaving the country and not make the connection to this vital piece of legislation providing this great country of ours with both safe food and jobs in rural America. Now, I know agricultural policy is not the most glamorous issue to some Members. I know I probably bored some of my colleagues to tears discussing the intricacies of this farm bill, and the ramifications of this amendment particularly. So if my colleagues take nothing else away from my remarks today----

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. What is the present business of the Senate?

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am very proud to come to the floor again to discuss and debate and talk about something that is critically important to this country, the working families of this country, and to the well-being of the entire world, frankly, and that is the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. Much has already been said, and I know that as we progress through the rest of this week and next week, there will be much discussion about what is the best way to proceed with the Food and Energy Security Act. Having looked back at what we did in 2002, we worked hard to be more focused on how we could do a better job in this country of providing the kinds of support and safety net that producers in our Nation needed, so they could be competitive in the global marketplace but also encouraging the appropriate and proper way of production in this country, as Americans would want to see; not only making sure there is an abundant source of food and fiber in this country but that it would be produced in a safe way to the environment, safer to the consumer, and that it would be affordable so our farmers would be the most efficient they could possibly be. We took a big step in 2002 in producing a bill that moved us very much in that direction. As we look at what we have done in the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am very proud of the product that the committee has produced and brought to the floor in Senator Harkin's amendment. A lot of time and energy was put into that committee bill to ensure we maintain the enormous blessing in this country that is American agriculture, the hard work that goes into American agriculture from hard-working families, the farm families, the businesses that support them, the rural community that supports them, to be able to produce the most affordable, abundant, safest supply of food and fiber in the world. That is what our American farm families do. They do it very proudly, they do it very distinctly, and they do it very differently in each region of this great country. My message today is the same as it has been for weeks and months and the years I have served in both this body and the other. That is, we have an opportunity to reinforce those farm families, to reinforce the values we feel as Americans, that not only do we want an affordable supply of food and fiber, we want it to be safe for our families and for those we share it with globally, and we want to make sure we are doing that with respect to the environment. Through the years, we have expanded this bill to make sure it is obvious we want to do that in the nutrition programs, in the conservation programs, in the rural development portions of the bill, and now in a new energy title we started in 2002, to show our commitment to American agriculture and what it does, not just for the farmers, not just for the farm community, not just for the children and the families whom we feed in this country but globally, in terms of what we do in feeding these who are hungry and also pushing the envelop a little bit each time with our competitors globally that they, too, will produce in a responsible way toward the environment. Our message today is this is a good bill. This is a good bill that has been produced in the Senate Agriculture Committee, and we need to pass it. The farm bill does so many good things that I have already discussed and about which many of us will continue to talk. Our investments in nutrition are tremendous, conservation, rural development, energy programs--they have all been dramatically increased and will benefit our country greatly. Take nutrition as an example. I know how important nutrition is in our lives from looking at my own children and my own family but particularly in working families, the poorest among us whom we need to put first, and we need to make sure we are acting responsibly. I was pleased to see in the committee bill that we provide an additional $5 billion in increases in programs targeted at reducing food insecurity. Can we do better? We are going to work hard each and every year to do better, but that is a great start toward where we can be. With respect to conservation, Chairman Harkin and many other Members--I know my State is a huge user of the conservation programs-- the chairman has been a tireless advocate for conservation programs, and I am pleased that once again he has produced a bill that assures progress in this area. It ensures we are the best stewards of the land that anyone can be globally and that we will leave our children the environment they deserve, that we will try each time to do better, but in conservation dollars, the 4 billion-plus extra dollars we have put into conservation are meaningful in terms of what we have achieved in this bill. With respect to rural development, broadband is such an incredible tool in rural America. Senator Stabenow and I have worked together and had a hearing not too long ago with telecommunication folks from all across the country as to how do we get rural America connected to the rest of the world, how do we ensure they are connected, whether it is for the educational benefit, whether it is the economic development they need but making sure they have access. In this bill, through broadband and some of the other rural development programs--we find, unfortunately, that disproportionately people in rural areas are lower income, particularly our seniors-- nutrition programs that exist but also the delivery mechanism, the community programs that deliver those nutritious meals to our seniors, many of those are supported by community development that comes through the rural development section of this bill, all very critically important, whether it is economic development, caring for individuals in rural America, health care and the advancement of health care, technologies--a whole host of things we do in rural development. On energy, my colleague, Senator Craig, brought up the issue of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and how important it is. It is critical. It is critical we become more dependent on ourselves for the energy we need and we are responsible in how we do that--responsible to the environment, ensuring that the renewable fuels we can invest ourselves in are the fuels that will take us through the 21st century, not just through the next 5 years. We begin in this energy title of this farm bill to see those renewable fuels that are going to make a difference in lessening our dependence on foreign oil and also cleaning up our environment. Look at what else they do. They provide a secondary market for our producers so we are not as hemmed in and dependent on the global marketplace but that we once again begin to depend on ourselves and that we give those secondary markets to our farmers so they can be competitive, continuing to provide a safe, abundant, and affordable source of food and fiber but also at the same time marketing their crops in a way they can also draw from that, whether it is the cellulosic value and others, but an energy source that will make us independent. Most importantly to me as the mother of twin boys, the farm bill does something I think we should all be very proud of, and that is what I mentioned earlier. It ensures us of a safe domestic food supply that is the envy of the world. Yes, we want to share it with the rest of the world, but we also want to make sure our children, our families have the confidence that when they are able to get the products from this country, grown by the responsible farm families of this Nation, that they can be assured of the safety of those foods. Many of my colleagues and most, if not all, of the media seem to take a lot of that for granted, unfortunately. One day they are reporting about the dangers our Nation is facing with unsafe foods that are entering the country or the atrocities of outsourcing jobs and what that means to working families, and then the next day they are on the floor or on the front page of the paper or in the news on the television criticizing farm programs, our agricultural programs that allow us to ensure that safe and affordable supply of food for our children and our families. The overall farm bill budget is one-half of 1 percent of the whole budget. But if you look at the portion of this bill that provides the safety net to our producers so they can stay in business, so they can stay competitive with the growers all across the globe who don't meet those environmental regulations, who don't meet those safety regulations, who are not meeting the kind of regulations we put into place to make those safety assurances, 15 percent of this farm bill-- only 15 percent--is what we use in those safety net programs. That is a huge return on our money. That is a small investment to be assured that when our families go to the store, the grocery store shelves are not empty or, when we serve those foods at our table, that we are assured of the safety of our children and our families in what we are bringing to that table. It is amazing to me as we see, again, all the confusion about the unsafe imported foods and what we have there and the same people who are worried about that who criticize these farm programs. Yet if we don't provide those safety net programs, there is no way we can keep that production at home unless we block our markets to the imports from other countries, which we have done in some commodities. But in the sustenance of life, if you go down to the Botanic Gardens, you will see a display that talks about rice and wheat and these types of grains that are the staple and the sustenance of life. If we can't produce those competitively in this country, we will lose ourselves to other countries and their production, which again is not done in the safe and reliable way that we do. The level of disparities, in terms of global agricultural trade U.S. farmers face abroad--I know from my standpoint as a region where rice is a big crop for us because we are suited to grow rice. It is an expensive crop to grow, but we are suited to do that and our farmers do it more efficiently and effectively than any farmers on the globe. Yet we are shut out from trade agreements and markets all across the globe. Yet our markets are open to them and to their commodities. We are a very diverse nation. Our crops are different in each region of our country, and that is something we should be proud of, that our Nation is so large and so productive and so fruitful that we can produce all those diverse crops from across this land of ours. For that reason, we have several different programs to support individual commodity needs. I am very proud of that diversity and I am proud to support initiatives for farmers all around our country. I fight for the ones who are important to the farmers and producers in my region, but I also know farmers in other parts of the country are important, too, whether it is the production of milk or sugar or other types of crops that we don't grow as well in our region. But I don't just support those that are programs for me. I support those programs because I believe that as a team, as one country we must support the programs that produce all of these incredible commodities that we enjoy in this country. I have also fought hard to ensure that American agriculture gets the respect it deserves in the world marketplace because, as the Budget chairman has pointed out with his now very famous charts, the world market for our farmers isn't free or fair. My message is simple: We should meet our global competition and we should not unilaterally disarm our farmers in the global marketplace. We have worked hard in this bill to bring about reforms people have clamored for, but if we want to go in the direction of my colleague from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, and to unilaterally begin to disarm some of our growers, it is not to say we don't want reform--there is tremendous reform in this bill--but to say we are not going to look at the diversity of production and how commodities are produced in this country and we are not going to understand that each of those has to be a little bit different. She talked about how important it is for these reforms and the reforms we have in the bill. That is good. She wants to go one step further. But we need to stop and think how dangerous is that next step and does it throw out hard-working families who have made huge investments. To farm 1,000 acres of cotton, you have to take out a $5 million operating loan. That is a big chunk to sign your name to. If you are a hard-working farm family and you don't know what is going to happen this year, you may have lost a good bit last year, you may lose some more next year, you may have a profit this year, but to sign your name on a $5 million operating loan for a 1,000-acre farm which is not that much if you are going to try to recoup and make a little money that year is a tough decision to make. Oftentimes, it means sharing your risk with other people. Maybe it is family members. But that is critically important for us to remember in terms of the diversity of this country. You know, it is an unfortunate reality that our global agricultural competition is heavily subsidized--more subsidized, certainly, than we are--and their markets are closed to the agricultural goods that my State produces particularly. Certainly, we have to negotiate those in trade agreements. But when my commodities are completely shut out of the markets in other countries and yet our markets are open to their goods, I have a huge disadvantage from the very get-go, not to mention the subsidies that might be provided or are provided particularly to the developed countries across the globe. As a result, we have grown our operations in our States because we don't have a lot of those protections in trade to create an economy of scale that allows us to be competitive. If we are not careful, with the tighter payment limits that are being talked about and certainly the AGI limits that the Senator from Minnesota mentions, we are going to make our producers of staple commodities, such as rice, less competitive internationally. When we put them out of business, they are not going to go to another area of our country. They are not going to go grow their rice in Indiana because the environment is not suited for that. They are probably not even going to go to Maryland to grow their rice. What we are going to do is end up with our markets open, importing that staple commodity from countries that don't regulate how it is grown or don't care what types of fertilizers or water sources they use in farming that commodity. Mr. President, I didn't invent global subsidies in agriculture, but I am committed--I am very committed--to ensuring that the Senate helps our farmers meet the kind of global competition they see. To not do so will simply result in an outsourcing of our food supply and our jobs in rural America. Within the WTO negotiations, we have asked our trading partners to reduce subsidies and their tariff levels on U.S. agricultural products we are shipping. What we have said is we will come down further and we will come down faster in our subsidies. But the response from the rest of the world has been abundantly clear. They have continued to say to us: No, thank you, America. We want you to bring yours down, but we are not going to bring ours down. We have to maintain a domestic supply of food. You go right ahead and lower your subsidies, and we are going to hang on to ours because it is really important to us. Well, for the first time in the history of this country, a trade deficit in agriculture is being predicted for the next couple of years. We need to stand up and say what those other countries are saying, and that is that it is very important to us as well. Here at home, I have heard some of my colleagues and most media outlets say that we need to lower the caps on programs. And we went around to talk to folks, after seeing what the 2002 farm bill did, how productive it was in terms of the savings that were realized, which Senator Chambliss mentioned. We did what we heard people were looking to see happen, and the committee bill lowers the overall caps from $360,000 to $100,000 for individuals--$100,000, Mr. President. We also heard that we needed to address the loopholes that allow producers to avoid the caps, and the committee bill eliminates both loopholes most frequently cited; that is, the three-entity rule and the generic certificates--two things people have tried to abuse in the past. They were very necessary tools, in many instances, for hard- working farm families who used them correctly, but there was room for abuse, and so we eliminated them. We eliminated them because people wanted good reform in this bill. I heard we needed transparency, so the committee bill added direct attribution, which will track payments directly to an individual farmer, direct attribution so you can follow that payment. But remember that this is only applicable to the commodity programs, the three commodity programs that are most used--obviously, the direct payment, the countercyclical, and the marketing loan. This doesn't include some of the other specialized programs we have developed for specialized commodities, such as the Milk Program or the Sugar Program or the ethanol tax programs and conservation programs, for instance. So we haven't done this across the board; we are just focusing on a few of our growers--not a few, probably the majority in terms of grains, but the commodity programs that are the most traditional. We also heard that we needed to disqualify millionaire nonfarmers walking around Fifth Avenue or Hollywood, and again my colleague from Minnesota continues to bring those up. So in the committee bill, we moved the adjusted gross income means test from its current level of $2.5 million to $750,000 despite the fact that a recent GAO report brings to us the information that this administration isn't policing the current payment limit regulations effectively. I would be willing to bet that the millionaire real estate individual whom Senator Klobuchar continues to bring up in her debate probably is certainly covered under the existing committee bill but more than likely under the existing law, quite frankly. The problem is we are not seeing those payment limits that exist being implemented by this administration. Well, what good is it to go ahead and implement even stricter rules if we don't even implement the ones that are existing? And if it is not something that he is already breaking the law on and the rule should be implemented on--it is probably the Tax Code, for some reason. But the fact is, we all want to ensure that hard-working farm families across this country are going to get the support they need, that they are going to get the safety net they need in whatever the particular crop is they grow in a sound way. It is interesting as well that when we talk about the GAO study and the implementation of these restrictions that exist, so many of the stories we hear are about individuals, maybe celebrities or what have you, who are maybe getting a conservation payment. Well, they are not going to be corrected by this amendment because we don't extend this AGI test to everybody. They are just targeting it to one specific group. I would beg to differ that there are a lot of things. Does that mean we are going to say to large medical practices: We are going to give you an AGI means test before we are going to allow you to accept Medicare payments. If you are over the AGI means test, you are ineligible for Medicare. I don't think we are going to do that, and we are talking about sustenance of life. We are talking about keeping our farmers competitive in the global marketplace. My sincere hope is that the committee bill will be seen as what it is--a tremendous good-faith effort on my part and a host of other members in the Senate Agriculture Committee to address concerns and to recognize that this is the most significant reform in the history of farm programs. We have done a tremendous job in dealing with both what Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley wanted to do as well as what Senator Klobuchar wants to do in reining in some of those things. You can safely say to anybody that there is more reform in this bill than we have ever seen. Mr. President, I am enormously appreciative of this time we have now to debate what the farm bill does for this country and what it does for farm families all across the Nation. I know it is not particularly glamorous. I know for a lot of Members it is not a lot of fun to talk about the farm bill. It is not a glamorous something that is intricate and detailed in terms of what they can take home and talk about, and yet it is intricate and detailed. It is very complicated. The programs we have designed to provide the support for our growers, the safety nets that still meet the kind of guidelines in our trade agreements and a whole host of other things are very difficult to understand. A lot of times, Members don't want to take the time to understand them. They do not want to understand the differences that are affected to all the different regions and all the different growers, but it is critical. We have come to a critical time in our Nation's history that we have to recognize how important this bill is. I think many of us on the Agriculture Committee are not there necessarily just because somebody put us there, but we are there because we asked to be there. We asked to be there because we know how important it is to our States and we know how important it is to this country. We, as a country, are fortunate. We are very fortunate to have this bounty, and I am not going to let anyone in this Senate Chamber forget that. I may drone on and on, but it is critically important, whether it comes from me as a Senator who represents an agricultural State, whether it is me, a daughter who grew up on a farm in an agricultural operation and saw all of the unbelievable dilemmas, whether it was weather or trade or farm programs or whatever, all of the things that agricultural farm families are up against and that they have no control over, or whether it is me as a mother looking into the 21st century and knowing how critically important it is not just that our children of today will have the opportunity to farm or to carry on that legacy but that the children of all American families will have a safe and abundant and affordable supply of food. There are multiple reasons for every one of us to get excited about this bill, and I hope we will. So I am hoping that no one in this body will again take for granted this enormous bounty we have, what it does for us, and what it does for foreign lands as well, the peoples all across this globe. I appreciate the time now, and I look forward, as we move ahead, to reminding my colleagues that we have done tremendous reform in this bill. We have done tremendous reform. Most of it is levied on farmers who come from my region. A lot of that reform is not extended to other regions of the country. And that is okay because my farmers are strong, and they are proud of who they are and what they do, and they are going to be willing to lead the charge in terms of reforms. But I do say that as we look at the bill we have produced, it is a good, balanced bill. We have made huge investments in things that are important to us and the values we hold as Americans, and we have made a huge step in terms of the reforms that make a difference to many Americans, and we are doing it as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, this Friday, on December 7 in Murfreesboro, AR, the citizens of Pike County will gather together to honor Dr. Hiram Ward as the ``2007 Country Doctor of the Year.'' He is receiving the award for coming out of retirement and saving the Pike County Memorial Hospital from closure. The award is sponsored by Staff Care, a medical staffing firm in Irving, TX, and is presented annually ``to physicians who best exemplify the spirit, skill, and dedication of America's medical practitioners.'' Since 1953, Dr. Ward has served the citizens of Murfreesboro and Pike County as a devoted physician and caregiver. Nearly 9 years ago, Dr. Ward, who just recently turned 82, went into ``semi-retirement,'' only seeing patients occasionally. However, when Pike County Memorial Hospital faced closure due to the loss of its staff physicians, Dr. Ward came out of retirement and resumed work full time to keep the hospital open. For the last 11 months, Dr. Ward has served as the chief of staff for Pike County Memorial and has been on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. His work has kept the hospital, which is the second largest employer in town employing 55 people, from permanent closure. For the people of southwest Arkansas, Dr. Ward has been a constant both at birth and death. He has delivered babies for most of the families in the area and also sat at the bedsides of many people's parents and grandparents at the hour of their passing. His handiwork as a physician is visible on the countless individuals that he ``stitched up'' over the course of his career. He has set limbs, removed gall stones, and simply improved the condition of his patients by just talking to them. He has also saved many lives in Pike County. He has been the family doctor for my State director, Donna Kay Yeargan, nearly all of her life. She told me that Dr. Ward saved the life of her father, Jetty Steel, many times over beginning in 1963 when Mr. Steel suffered injuries from a serious car accident. Dr. Ward treated him in the emergency room before he was transported to another area hospital in Texarkana, AR. Years later, he discovered a heart problem in Mr. Steel and insisted that he receive a new heart valve. In the years after Donna Kay's mother died, Dr. Ward would travel 20 miles down an old country road to Nashville, AR, every Saturday night to visit with Jetty and give him a quick medical check. But it was at the end of Mr. Steel's life that Dr. Ward showed how much he cared about his patients. During the 3 weeks Mr. Steel was in the hospital before his death in March 2006, Dr. Ward came to the hospital at least twice a day to just sit and visit with him. He is a quiet and thoughtful man of few words, but he maintains a commonsense approach to health and medicine that has made him among the most trusted men in the region. His patients are not just patients, they are his neighbors, his friends, his extended family. It is obvious that he does more than attend to their medical needs; he cares for them and loves them like family. Dr. Ward's life is medicine and keeping people healthy and active. He has always understood the value of treating the whole person. He gives each patient his undivided attention no matter how busy he is. There is a big difference between ``medical attention'' and ``medical care.'' Perhaps the key to Dr. Ward's long and valuable service is that he understands that difference and that he really does care. Most people would say that Dr. Ward has gone above and beyond the call of duty, but his friends doubt that he believes that. Already this year, he has been featured in the July 2007 edition of ``Reader's Digest'' in the Grassroots column for his dedication to the people of Pike County and for coming out of retirement to keep the hospital open. So, Mr. President, I congratulate Dr. Ward. The State of Arkansas is very proud of his achievements and happy that Dr. Ward is receiving this well-deserved recognition. Although Dr. Ward will take this in stride and quietly accept the accolades, his true reward comes from the work he has done and continues to do for his community.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss one of the issues we have been talking about an awful lot recently, and that is the farm bill; more specifically, the unique nature of agricultural production in the United States. We are all going to leave next week and go home, hopefully, to celebrate Thanksgiving with our families, to talk about this wonderful blessing we have in this great country of ours--the enormous bounty that exists, the blessings of living in a free country, living in a place where we do not have to worry about going to the grocery store and finding the shelves empty or we do not have to worry about those things that are produced here not being safe or acceptable. That is because we have not only very conscientious producers and farmers, but we have a system and respect in our Government that recognizes how important it is to the American people to maintain that bounty. As we all go home to celebrate Thanksgiving and give thanks for this wonderful country in which we live and the bounty that it provides us, I think it is so important to talk about the big tent that exists in this country, the big tent that encompasses all of the diversity of agricultural production in different regions across our Nation. It is an important aspect that we should embrace, and I hope my colleagues will think about that as well. As we discuss the farm bill and agricultural production, my colleague, the Presiding Officer, is representing a wonderful agricultural State, beautiful and vast, and it is very different from mine in terms of its assets and what it contributes to this great land. My State is different than Colorado. It is vast and different, just within the boundaries of my State, but certainly in terms of what it brings to the table in our Nation in terms of the bounty that it provides. Perhaps one of the most frequent questions from so many, particularly of my urban colleagues--because I do share a seat with so many other farm Senators on the Agriculture Committee, but a lot of times the question from my urban colleagues is, why are farms in Arkansas different from, say, farms in North Dakota or Michigan or Indiana or Colorado or other regions of our Nation? Although the answer is pretty simple, it does require quite a lot of time to talk about. It looks as if we have a good bit of time today, so I thought I would seek this opportunity and, for the benefit of those inquisitive Senators who sometimes ask why are things different in different parts of our country and in all of our different States, offer an explanation that I give, certainly, to my colleagues and to others who are interested and concerned about us as a nation maintaining the safe and abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber that exists in this country for which we are all so thankful. First, and this should come as no surprise, each of our States produces the agricultural products for which its climate and its soil are best suited. That is one of the things we do in Arkansas. It, obviously, has been that way for years. Farms in Arkansas might be older than those in some of the States that exist to our west. As our country was explored and discovered, many of those lands in the West were discovered, and their climates and their soil types were different. As we have grown as a nation, they have adapted themselves to the crops for which they are best suited. For the colder climates of the Midwest, it makes sense to produce corn and wheat and sugar beets. For us in the South, with our more humid climates, and given, certainly, our soil types--we have a large clay content and often sandy soil along our river bottom--we are suited for cotton and rice production. So that is the first explanation I try to give people, to talk about those differences so we better understand what the differences are. Second, you have to take into consideration what the markets are for our commodities. Again, we are a vast country, full of so many blessings and diversity. As we have grown, international markets have grown and changed as well. Let's start with corn. By now I think everyone in this body is familiar with the fact that we mandate a corn ethanol market through the renewable fuels standard. It is important that we move toward a renewable fuel. It has multiple purposes. Renewable fuels will help us clean up the environment and will certainly lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It also gives secondary markets for our growers. But so far we have only gotten pretty far on corn-based ethanol. We have mandated this market for corn, and it has done quite well. We make sure those corn growers' prices stay up because there is a market. There are tax incentives that are built in to ensure those markets are going to be there for corn. In addition to the creation of the market, we place a prohibitive tariff at the borders of our country to ensure that only American farmers have access to that corn market. That is for good reason. That marketplace has really matured in terms of ethanol production and the direction we are going to the point we are now realizing that renewable fuels are going to need to come from other sources as well; that we cannot just depend on that corn-based ethanol program but that we have to start looking toward cellulosic and biodiesel and biomass and a whole host of other renewable energy sources. But the fact is, we still protect that corn market to a tremendous degree. For sugar, we have a unique program that doesn't make payments to farmers, but, like ethanol, it limits the international competition, and it supports the processing of these commodities. Sometimes sugar is supported in the processing facilities, and therefore those protected markets and that payment coming down to those farmers is a little bit trickier to understand than the regular commodity program. Rather than offering a whole lot of detail on a program that does not directly impact my State, I would rather direct folks to the individuals who represent the States here that are affected by those crops. I think it is most important to let those who understand crops in their States give their descriptions because they have a better intuitive idea of how those programs work and how their growers benefit and how the economy benefits from it and certainly how the American people benefit. There are a lot of Members who can tell you about that. As the President knows, we on the Ag Committee--everyone has their specialty and certainly their best understanding when it comes to corn and sugar. I kind of focus on the folks who know those the best to be able to provide you the details. But, in short, sugar has an entirely separate program subject to different disciplines but with a market that is very domestic and exclusively limited to American sugar farmers. So you have two of these products now, or commodities, that have very different disciplines in terms of what protects them or what provides them that very defined as well as insured marketplace through both the constricting of the marketplace without allowing imports to come in and also the incentives they have in the way those safety nets are provided to them through their processing. Now, here is a market that I do know about and that I can talk about, and that is what comes from my region of the Nation, which is cotton and rice. First and most importantly, I need to point out that these two commodities are subject to very intense global competition. Rather than simply state that as a fact, I will offer a couple of explanations. Rice is a stable commodity globally, all over the world. As such, it is produced in many regions, including the developing world, those nations which are not as developed as we are or as old and efficient as we are. The same is true for cotton. What is also true is that our market is open to direct competition from international producers while our access into their foreign marketplace is extremely limited. Now, that means our border is open to their rice and cotton being shipped into our country. So our growers not only have to compete to get into our marketplaces, but they have to compete here with products that are allowed to come in from other countries--the rice and cotton, specifically. I think the best example or one of the best examples is Japan. Japan's rice tariff comes in at over 400 percent. That is more than enough to keep American rice out of their marketplace, I have to tell you, a 400-percent tariff on rice going into Japan. Yet our markets are open. Our markets are open to commodities coming into this country. Another good example that can be used is the treatment of rice in the recently negotiated Korean Free Trade Agreement. For every product produced in the United States of America, we reduce the Korean tariff, limiting our access into theirs immediately or phased in over 20 years, every one with the exception of one commodity--it is rice, one commodity that is not allowed to be exported into the Korean marketplace. So it just goes to show you the fact that our commodities, although they are different and grown differently and a whole host of different things, also are treated differently in the global community and in the global economic venue. At this point, you should start to be seeing a pattern here in terms of the differences not only in how we grow our commodities but also how our commodities are dealt with in the marketplace. Our market is open to competition, while our export markets remain closed to our growers of our commodities. Now, do not get me wrong, I am not here advocating that we need unabashed free trade for agriculture because I know that to expose the Third World to our productivity would decimate vulnerable parts of their economies that support the poorest of the world's poor. So that is not what we are talking about. This dynamic is more than a reality for U.S. farmers; it is a part of America's obligation within the World Trade Organization. Now, I will summarize that point just briefly. In the WTO, the United States and other developed nations must report their subsidy level, and they must restrict their tariff level. The conversion is true for the developing nations that are members of the WTO. They are not subject to even reporting their subsidy, and they have little to no obligation with respect to opening their markets. Now, again, I am not saying this is a total and complete outrage; I am merely trying to paint a more comprehensive picture of what American agriculture is up against in the global economy. Without a doubt, as we have heard in multiple different meetings across the Hill that many of us go to, whether it is our lunch groups or our hearings in committee and others, we hear all of the talk about global trade and about the global economy and developing countries and where they are going, placing priorities in education and infrastructure investment and a host of other things, and we see our trade deficit growing. Yet agriculture has always been one of those areas where not only we as Americans feel it is important to maintain that domestic production of a safe and affordable and available food supply, but we also know it is a big issue to other countries that they can maintain some domestic production and hopefully as much as they possibly can grab hold of in terms of that domestic production. With that said, it simply cannot be ignored that these disparities in international competition contribute to the world in which the U.S. cotton and rice producers must compete and therefore influence how they must structure their operations. So, again, for us, in meeting different demands, in looking at the global marketplace and trying to figure out how we structure ourselves as growers, it is not just about the soil type or the weather and the climate; it is also about the international marketplace, which leads me to the explanation of the last question which is posed to me; that is, Why are Arkansas farms so big? It should not be difficult for Members of this Chamber to understand that when you face intense competition and your foreign markets are closed, you have to create efficiencies. You have to create efficiencies elsewhere in your business operation in order to be able to compete because you do not set the world market price. You have to be able to compete on that international global stage by your own efficiencies. It is the good fortune of everyone in America that our farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world. Certainly, we are the beneficiary of that in this great country, but people all across the globe understand that, that not only are we the most efficient and can do it the most affordably, but we produce the safest and set a standard in many instances across the globe of what is going to be produced in future generations in terms of sustenance of life. We have improved our efficiencies in ways that cannot be described here in a short period of time, but suffice it to say that the American farmer is the most efficient on Earth, and are we not all glad? That is something for us to be proud of in this body and across this land. If you are not or if you take our bounty for granted in this great Nation, you should be ashamed of yourself. That is the reason this bill is so important, is that we have been handed this blessing. We have worked hard on this Earth in this great land of ours. But we certainly have reason to be proud. Despite our efficiency in cotton and rice country, we are still operating on very thin margins of profit. In some years, we merely hope for profit that really never comes. What we have done to help level that playing field is to expand our operation to further reduce our per-unit cost and, in turn, create a competitive economy of scale. Now, that means we have to spread our risk out over a greater abundance of production because that is one of the only ways we have to get the efficiency to be able to be competitive in a very restrictive market, and that is to have a large economy of scale and mitigate our risk over a greater area. Now, unfortunately, many newspapers and some of my colleagues attribute USDA statistics for commercial-size operations to many of our Arkansas and southern farms and assume we are no longer family farms simply because of our size. What a terrible misrepresentation. I think it really diminishes what we are about in this body, which is to embrace our diversity and embrace the good work all of these hard- working farm families do across this Nation. And without a doubt, it is simply untrue. I do not know of too many nonfamily farms in my State. There are a lot of people who are going to tell you that because they belong to a cooperative or because they maybe farm more acreage, they are not a family farm. In fact, I do not even know of one. What I do know a lot about is fathers and sons, wives, daughters, brothers and sisters who work the land with one another. They have to come together. They have to build their operation, come together, and stay together if they are going to survive. Even when that generation upon generation finds that one of those brothers or sisters happens to move to the city to become a doctor or maybe an electrician or maybe a fireman or maybe a lawyer, they still help share the risk of what that farm has to do, which is to create that economy of scale in order to be competitive. So hopefully we can still consider those people a family farm, because, guess what, they are still a family, and they are still farming and they are all carrying the risk of what it takes to be competitive in that global marketplace. Now, their operations may exceed several thousand acres, and they most certainly are still family farms. In fact, I cannot imagine a definition of a family farm that does not include the overwhelming majority of Arkansas farmers, but apparently such a definition exists. USDA seems to come up with these definitions, and they print them out up here in Washington, inside this bubble, and they fail to realize that there is a lot of diversity in this great country. There are a lot of family farms that exist. It is not just family farms in the Midwest, it is not just family farms on the east coast, but it is family farms in other regions of the country too--yes, in our region of the country too. Now, I will go ahead and put my colleagues on notice that until those misrepresentations cease--and I have to tell you, they have been long and hard for many years in terms of the misrepresentations of what a farm is and who constitutes that farm. You know, I am a daughter of a farmer, but I cannot imagine the way I get labeled as having been this huge farmer when I am not even farming. Yet that misrepresentation continues to come out there just because it is convenient and it is sensational and people can use it. Well, I have to say that it does not matter to me what happens to me, but it does matter what happens to those hard-working farm families who are working so hard to make sure we enjoy that safe and abundant and affordable food supply regardless of what happens in the international community. My colleagues know they are going to hear a lot more from me on farm policy that supports farmers throughout this great country as the debate goes on. It is my opportunity to describe and talk about the individuality of each of these areas. I will hone in on my part of the country because I leave how other commodities are farmed up to those who farm them. But I can definitely tell you, having walked rice levees and scouted cotton and chopped down coffee bean plants in a soybean field, how our farms run and why they run that way, I understand the markets. I understand the global trade implications that exist. I understand that all of the programs we design oftentimes in the farm bill don't fit us. For example, take disaster assistance. I was glad to work with my colleagues in the Midwest who wanted to see a disaster assistance program, even though it doesn't benefit my farmers that much. When you have a farm in the South and you are farming rice, you have to control your environment. Have you ever seen a rice field that has no water on it? Unless it is being harvested, you haven't. The reason is, you have to control that environment. When it comes to disaster assistance, those counties get the same national disaster declaration on a drought. But guess what. They are never going to get that disaster assistance because they hardly ever hit the 35-percent yield loss that comes with another stipulation in disaster assistance, because they have controlled their environment. I will tell you what: They have spent twice the effort and resources and money in plowing into that crop what they needed to combat that drought and that disaster that was occurring. So they need another tool. They need another tool within the confines of our farm legislation that allows them to market their crop, to market their crop in this competitive global marketplace so the Government doesn't have to do it for them. As I plow through this--and I know I will have many other opportunities to do so--I hope I have answered some questions or at least demonstrated some of the differences in our ag land down in the southern half of the Nation. We are all a little different. I have to tell you, for that we should be extremely grateful and proud, and we should embrace that diversity. As a nation, that is what makes us strong, our diversity and our willingness to embrace it and our willingness to respect it. That is what makes us Americans. Despite these differences, it has always been my view that regardless of the type of crop or the region of the country you live, if you contribute to the production of safe agricultural commodities, I consider you a farmer. I consider you an American farmer. I don't judge that and I don't judge you as an American farmer based on whether you are in one region or another or how big your family is or how big your farming operation is. I judge you by the fact that you are willing to go to work and work hard every day to do the best you can, to be as efficient as you possibly can, not only in this country but in the global marketplace, with tremendous respect to the environment, the conservation of land, and the ability to produce a safe and productive food supply. That is who farmers are. If we let other people define who a farmer is and a farm family is, then we will be sorely disappointed when we start to outsource our food to other countries. I think we have become sorely disappointed to find ourselves dependent on foreign oil, to have outsourced our need for energy in the oil arena to other parts of the world. We will find ourselves once again in the next several years with a trade deficit in agriculture, outsourcing our food supply. I don't think Americans want to go there; I really don't. I think they are willing to listen for the diversity and expertise and the hard work that goes on by America's farmers to continue to produce that safe and abundant, affordable food supply. As a farmer, regardless of the region of the country, we have to help our farmers keep meeting that competition. I have the reputation of being that kind of person, of reaching out and working with people, understanding differences, accepting differences and accepting other people's ideas. I hope we all have that attitude. But mostly, I try to be respectful of people. Unfortunately, my farmers and I have not been given that same respect by everybody. I am going to continue to work hard to prove my point because I am going to earn that respect. I am going to earn that respect not only in what we have done in this underlying bill, in creating the greatest, most substantial reform in decades. We started over here in current law and most of the extremes that people want are way over here. Guess where we have moved. In terms of providing the reforms that the media and others all clamor about, we have come from here all the way over here. That last little bit people want to ask of us will outsource the food supply that southern growers have so proudly provided this country for many years. I am proud to be here to defend and support and be proud of Arkansas farm families. They have worked hard. They will continue to work hard. I have fought this fight for several years, and I will continue to defend the programs and my farmers who use them within the limits of the law. Creating greater reform is important. Our farmers want to make sure they are in compliance with the law and that they are working hard within the parameters to do their very best. But they also want to be able to be competitive, because they want to continue to provide that safe and abundant supply of food and fiber. And they can--most efficiently, most effectively, most safely, as well as with the greatest respect to the environment. I hope people will not continue the sensationalized stories and misrepresented facts in order to get something done that does nothing but move forward in outsourcing our food and fiber supply. I hope I have brought some clarity here today. I will continue to try to do that. I look forward to working with my colleagues. We have a long road ahead of us to get something done. But I think everybody will agree it is worth it. It is well worth it, as we return home to be with our families, to give thanks for this wonderful Nation we live in and the bounty it provides. I hope we will come back and sit down and get to work supporting America's farm families and the hard work they do, recognizing all of the tremendous challenges they face, mostly challenges they have no control over. Whether it is the trade agreements they operate under, whether it is the environment and the weather they deal with that they have no control over, it is certainly within the confines of the requirements and the regulations we present them to empower them to do a better job or certainly the best possible job in taking good care of the land and being good stewards of this great land we have. I thank the Chair. I look forward to working with my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today and come to the floor to encourage my colleagues to move expeditiously to pass the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. Sometimes we get caught in our bubble in Washington and we forget, we forget there is a whole world outside in this great land of ours: working families, folks who are working hard each and every day to provide for their families, to ensure their safety, to take care of their children, to be a part of their community, and to help their neighbors. On October 25 our Senate Agriculture Committee passed this legislation unanimously, not one single dissenting vote. And that is because there were a lot of Members who understood the importance of this bill. They came together and worked to come up with a bill in which everyone had a vested interest. It passed unanimously for good reason. It does a tremendous amount not only for our farm families but for antihunger advocates, for environmentalists, those working to spur economic development in rural areas, and it takes tremendous strides to rid our Nation of its dependence on foreign oil. All of those are positive, progressive things that happen in this bill, brought together, again, by a group in the Senate Agriculture Committee who wanted to make progress, who wanted to put together a bill everybody could be proud of, that everybody could help move forward. I know this policy effort is not on the top of everyone's priority list in this body like it is on mine. It is on the top of my mine, and it is a huge priority for me for multiple reasons. One, I am a farmer's daughter. I understand. I understand what farm families are doing out there. I understand, when they get up at the crack of dawn, before the Sun comes up, they get out and work hard, to do something that gives them a tremendous sense of pride. They produce a safe and abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber for this country. I also know it is a huge priority for me because of my State, and the fact that my State has an economy that is based on agriculture. They have a great sense of pride in not only being able to provide that safe and abundant and affordable food supply in the most efficient way possible for this great land, but they do so worldwide as well. At a minimum, everyone here should recognize and appreciate what this bill accomplishes, even if you take for granted that the grocery store shelves are full when you go in that grocery store, even if you take for granted that you pay less than anybody in the developed world per capita for your food source, and even if you take for granted the fact that it is produced in the most environmentally respectful way, and also that it is produced in a way that is safe, through all kinds of regulations, all kinds of research that provides us the sound backing that our food source is safe. It is safe for our children, safe for our elderly, safe for our families. That is huge. At a time when we are seeing foods coming in through our borders, through our ports that are unsafe from countries that do not put on those restrictions and regulations, for countries that do not have the efficiency on their farms that we do, it is absolutely critical that we bring ourselves together and focus on this bill. In this bill there is a $5.28 billion increase--an increase--to our nutrition programs. These are programs that provide assistance and a nutritious meal at breakfast and lunch for children, nutritious meals for the elderly across this country, nutritious summer feeding programs, nutritious fruits and vegetables and snacks for school children. That is a huge step in the right direction. Something we can all get behind is over a $4 billion increase to conservation. You know it is unbelievable to see that kind of an increase to reinforce those who love and use the land, that they can do so with the incentives to make sure they are using the optimum of technology and research to conserve that land that means so much to them and to future generations. That is a third straight record for the farm bill in terms of increases in what we are seeing in this underlying bill. There is $500 million for rural development in our small communities where we are seeing a desperate need for broadband and access to the information highway where we are looking for investment from entrepreneurs and small businesses so that we can keep strong our communities in rural America, and we do not see this flight into the cities, making sure those communities can be strong for the schools and for churches and for children and the working families who live in those rural communities, who have their heritage, their heart is there in that community, so that they can stay there, so that we as a nation make those investments. The energy incentives in this bill, when it is coupled with the Finance Committee incentives, shows a true commitment to moving renewable fuels into the marketplace. You know, it does not make a bit of difference if we continue to produce all of these renewable fuels if we do not get them into the marketplace, if we do not get them into the hands of consumers. And it also does not make any difference if we do not start to think outside the box, looking for newer and more innovative processes and research to provide renewable fuels that come from feedstock that might be leftovers. We know we can make cellulosic ethanol from cotton sticks and rice hulls and rice straw, but we have to get that to the consumer. We have to get that process going. There are great opportunities in this bill for that. In short, this bill is a win for every region of our great Nation. And everyone, even if your plow is a pencil, even if you have not spent time walking rice levees or scouting cotton or chopping down coffee bean plants in a bean field like I have, even if your plow is a pencil and the closest farm is 1,000 miles away from you, it should be so obvious to everyone that the farm bill provides exactly what this title suggests: it provides this Nation's security, it provides us with security of knowing that we will have the domestic production of a food supply for our people and for our Nation, that we will help feed the world with that safe and affordable and abundant supply of food and fiber. Unfortunately, it is clear by the criticisms of the farm bill by the editorial boards and major newspapers that many of our hard-working farm families are not getting the respect they deserve for what it is they provide. It is my hope the Senate will not also take for granted the security of safe food and fiber at a time when so much of what is entering this country is either not inspected, nor safe, or sent back. We had a hearing in the Finance Committee. We were told about port shopping, that products coming in commodities, coming into our country come to one of our ports, get inspected, get rejected, and then they start shopping around for a port that does not have an inspector. And, yes, we have ports without inspectors. So not only are we accepting substandard food, but we are minimizing our ability to produce our own with the control and the oversight that ensures us that what we produce domestically is safe. This piece of legislation is about national security, just as foreign policy is in many other regions of the world. Why is it we think that when we go to these trade negotiations, usually the last thing that is negotiated is agricultural products? It is because those countries understand. Those countries have been hungry. They have been subjected to foods that are unsafe or grown in a manner they don't appreciate. But they also know they can control making sure that there is enough there, if they can control and keep out our products. Many of the commodities I grow do find themselves on the international scene as commodities left out of trade agreements. That is because they are critical. They are a staple in the global community for sustenance of life. Whether a country provides subsidies at levels much higher than those included in this bill or protects their farmers by a prohibitive tariff structure, every country in some form or fashion ensures a domestic food supply. If we continue in the direction we are going, where we are seeing for the first time in the history of our country the possibility of a trade deficit in agricultural products, what is that going to mean to us as a nation? It is going to mean we are then going to be more dependent on other countries for food that is critical for children and families all across this land. In the United States, the farm bill is the policy that ensures safe food and fiber. We have worked hard in the Agriculture Committee to come up with a bill that was both bipartisan and biregional, agreed upon by everybody. Everybody got something positive out of a bill that was respectful to the diversity of this country, to the diversity of how we grow our crops. Lord, it was interesting for me to talk with my colleagues from way up on the Canadian border who had snow in August. We had 12 straight days of over 100-degree weather in Arkansas. We are a diverse nation and we are blessed to be that way. It is all the more reason we have the responsibility in this body to be respectful of that diversity and what it is that each of us has to bring to the table from our States. The Agriculture Committee did that. It also respected the needs of those who are less fortunate in the nutrition title. It respected the idea that Americans want to ensure conservation and good stewardship of the land. We did that. We looked at the need for renewable energy, and we have made a huge investment, both in the farm bill in authorizing policy and also in the Finance Committee package that accompanies it, making sure that incentives are there for communities and for ag producers and all of those in rural America that not only can we continue the research but get into production of renewable fuels and, most importantly, that we can get them to the consumer. It doesn't matter how much we produce; if we are not using it, it is not benefiting the environment and not lessening our dependence on foreign oil. In the long term, it is not going to benefit growers who are looking for that secondary market. We should all recognize and appreciate the bounty this bill provides and what it does for the hard-working men and women in farm families across this country who support each and every one of us every day in what it is they do for us for that security. I urge my colleagues to get serious about passing this bill and providing the certainty our farm families deserve, knowing that Government stands with them. Today, this time right now in our State of Arkansas, it is time to plant the winter wheat crop. Without knowing what the policy is going to be for next year or the year after that or the year after that, it is pretty hard to go to that banker and ask for that tremendous loan for that investment one has to make in producing that safe and abundant, affordable food supply, without knowing where one's Government stands. I appeal to my colleagues and ask them to join us on the floor to talk about how important this bill is and, more importantly, to come together and figure out a way we can make this happen before we go home to celebrate Thanksgiving and the incredible bounty this country provides. Let us make sure those who provide for us have an understanding of where their Government stands on their behalf. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to add my remarks to this debate on the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. I see our chairman of the committee in the Chamber. I wish to say a personal thanks to him for his leadership and hard work, along with his staff, who worked diligently through the committee process to really come together. My colleagues, including Senator Coleman, who is on the committee as well, working with others--Senator Conrad has been here--those of us on the committee have worked so hard to come up with a compromise, a bill that is practical and realistic but also actually exhibits reforms that many people have been asking for. But the bill also moves forward in a progressive way, a way I think Americans can be proud in the values and the priorities we set. So as a member of our Senate Agriculture Committee, I am extremely proud of the product our committee has produced. A lot of time and energy was put into the committee bill to ensure we maintain the blessings we have here in American agriculture. Staff and the members worked hard to come up with a good compromise, a compromise that respects and appreciates the diversities across our country and the great wealth and bounty of what our Nation has. The farm bill does many other good things. Several of my colleagues have already touched on those. Our investment in nutrition, conservation, rural development, and energy programs has been dramatically increased. All of these things will benefit our country greatly. As one of the cochairs and cofounders of the Senate Hunger Caucus, I find it very important that we focus, through this bill, on nutrition. I hope others do, and I hope they are willing to look for resources we need to make sure we pay for that, that we are serious about nutrition, and that we are going to continue to work on that. My faith requires me to look after the poorest among us, and I am very pleased the committee bill provides an additional $5 billion increase in programs targeted at reducing food insecurity among our children and our elderly, among our low-income and those who are in need. Conservation is a big part of this package as well. The chairman has been a tireless advocate for conservation programs. I am pleased that once again he has produced a bill that is progressive in this area. It ensures that we are the best stewards of the land we possibly can be and that we will leave our children the environment they deserve. Having grown up on a farm myself and recognizing that my dad, as a farmer, was one of the greatest conservationists I could ever meet--he was conscientious with the way he handled his land. He knew it would be there for future generations if he took good care of it. He also knew if he took good care of that land in the current, it would produce the crops that would provide for our family. So conservation is an essential part of who we are as Americans. What is exhibited in this bill is a step forward--a large step forward--in a very progressive way of how we have invested in conservation. Rural development is also well represented in this bill. Again, growing up in rural America, it is so important to see the investments, whether it is investments in small businesses and entrepreneurs. The broadband effort we have made here is incredibly important. I have a gentleman who bought property in Arkansas to retire on. He was not going to move there for another 10 or 15 years. When he realized his business actually could access three major cities across this country and access those cities through the technology he needed to use, he decided to move to Arkansas ahead of time, ahead of retirement, because it was a place he wanted to be. The outmigration we have seen from rural America has been caused largely because of a lack of opportunity. In rural development, we provide not only many of those tools to help development, help entrepreneurs and small businesses grow their businesses, but we provide for communities to invest in their infrastructure so it will be a desirable place for people to build their businesses and raise their families. That is important. Reducing dependency on foreign oil is absolutely critical, and we know that as a nation now. We see the passion in Americans for wanting an alternative and renewable energy source. In this bill, we have the beginnings, particularly of making sure that not only we lessen our dependence on foreign oil but we do so in a way that is good for the environment. It provides an additional marketplace for our producers with their commodities. We have a win-win in this situation, with all of these things we have brought together in this bill. Yet many of them are new programs over the last couple of decades in terms of the farm bill in our outreach. It is essential that we recognize the investment we are making in this bill and that we do not tarry in getting it passed and that we make again the assurances to hard-working families, both on the family farm as well as in rural America, that we do believe in them, that we do believe as a government in investing in who they are, what their values are, and the contribution they make to the fabric of this country. Most importantly, to me, as the mother of twin boys, the farm bill does something we should all be very proud of: It ensures our Nation, the working families of this country, and the children of this Nation, a safe and affordable domestic supply of food and fiber. We are the envy of the world in how we can do that. Not only do we do it most efficiently and effectively, we do it by keeping the cost of our food per capita the lowest of any developed country in the world. We do it with respect to our environment. It is the envy of the world. Many of my colleagues and most, if not all, of the media seem to take that for granted when we bring up this bill. It is something we should never lose sight of in this debate. As a mother, when I go to the store and I know and can see what it is I am purchasing, knowing those crops and those food sources--domestically produced--can ensure for me a quality food source and sustenance of life for my family, that is unbelievable--again, the envy of the world. We look at what comes out of the media. One day they are reporting about the dangers our Nation is facing with unsafe food entering the country or the atrocities of outsourcing jobs, and the next day they are on the front page of the news criticizing farm programs that keep production agriculture here at home and level the disparities in global agricultural trade that U.S. farmers face abroad. The markets out there are not that open to certainly the commodities we grow in our region of the country. But we are a diverse nation. Our crops are different in each region of the country. For that reason, we have several different programs to support individual commodity needs. In the Midwest, with corn, sugar, sugar beets, and fruit and vegetable producers, they enjoy several different programs outside our traditional farm programs to provide them the support they need to continue producing right here at home. They are different programs than my growers would probably access, and they have different rules for those programs. With sugar, we limit the access for foreign competition into the U.S. market. For corn, we provide several different provisions in law that support those producers, in addition to traditional commodity programs. We mandate a market through the renewable fuels standard. We provide a tax credit for blenders, and we protect ourselves from foreign competition to give this industry a chance to grow and an opportunity to reduce our dependency on foreign energy. In other States across our country, in fruit and vegetable regions of our country, in addition to the nearly $3 billion worth of incentives for this industry, we provide a planting restriction to limit competition from producers of other commodities. Oftentimes, we are told in the South: Why don't you just grow something else, something different that may be less difficult or less of a problem in the international trade market? Well, in many instances, we are unable to do that because of planting restrictions. But I am proud of the recognition of this diversity, and I am proud to have supported these initiatives tirelessly on behalf of the hard- working farm families in other regions of the country. I have also fought hard to ensure that American agriculture gets the respect it deserves in the world marketplace because, as the budget chairman pointed out yesterday with his now famous charts, the world market for our farmers is not free or fair. My message is simple: We should meet our global competition, and we should not unilaterally disarm our farmers in the global marketplace. The unfortunate reality is that our global agricultural competition is heavily subsidized, and their markets are closed to agricultural goods that my State particularly produces. We have to fight hard for the small bit of market access our crops need in those other countries and in those trade agreements. As a result, we have grown our operations to create an economy of scale that allows us to be competitive. If we are not careful, with the tighter payment limits, we are going to make our producers of staple commodities such as rice less competitive internationally. As I have pointed out, rice and cotton face much greater international competition than any of the other commodities we are discussing in this bill. So our point, with these commodities we have and what we face in that global competitive marketplace, is: Yes, our program might need to be just a little bit different, kind of like the sugar program or the corn program and the supports they need. I did not invent the global subsidies in agriculture, but I am committed to ensuring that the Senate helps our farmers meet the global competition. Working with both Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley on the trade aspects, through the Senate Finance Committee, and the Office of the USTR, we are going to continue the fight. I am going to continue to fight to ensure that global access is there for us. As we do that as a nation, I think it is our responsibility and duty to provide the support programs our farmers need. To not do so will simply result in an outsourcing of our food supply and our jobs in rural America. Within the WTO negotiations, we have asked our trading partners to reduce their subsidies and their tariff levels on U.S. agricultural products. What we have said is that we will come down further and faster on our subsidy programs, on our support programs. But the response from the rest of the world has been abundantly clear to us: No, thank you, America. We don't want to bring down our subsidies. We don't want to bring down our supports. We want you to. But, no, thank you very much. We are not going to do that. You go right ahead. You lower your subsidies, and we will simply hang on to ours. Here at home I have heard some of my colleagues and mostly media outlets that have said we needed to lower the caps on programs. Well, guess what. The committee bill does just that. It lowers the overall cap from $360,000 to $100,000. I have also heard we needed to address the loophole that has allowed producers to avoid the caps. The committee bill does just that. It eliminates both of the loopholes most frequently cited--the three- entity rule and the generic certificates. I heard we needed transparency, so the committee bill--yes, the committee bill we bring before this Senate--adds direct attribution, which will track payments directly to an individual farmer. Now, let me be clear. This is only for traditional, what we refer to as ``program commodities,'' not sugar or dairy or ethanol. They will not have direct attribution. But in this bill we provide direct attribution for the traditional program commodities. As I pointed out, those programs operate in a slightly different fashion to provide support to their farmers because we have a lot of different farmers in different regions around this great country. I heard we needed to disqualify millionaire nonfarmers, those who are walking around Fifth Avenue or Hollywood. So in the committee bill we do just that. We move the adjusted gross income means test from its current level of $2.5 million to $750,000. Now I notice my colleague Norm Coleman bringing up celebrities such as Scottie Pippen. But the fact is, Scottie Pippen won't be affected, because most of those individuals--or certainly a large amount of them--are reported because of their conservation payments. These are contracts they enter into with the Federal Government for contracts on conservation, putting their land into conservation. Many of them will have an adjusted gross income above that level, but they will still be listed and they will still be getting their payments, because they have entered into that contract. We don't put an AGI means test on the conservation program. I think that is important for people to understand. Those people very often are not getting program payments; they are getting conservation payments. My sincere hope is this will all be seen as what it is. It is a good- faith effort on my part and the members of the Agriculture Committee-- all of the others on the committee--to address concerns and to recognize this is the most significant reform in the history of our farm program. We have made a tremendous progressive effort on the issues that are important to people, both reform as well as nutrition programs, conservation, energy, renewable energy. Now we have some time, it seems, to discuss what this farm bill does and doesn't do. I am appreciative of this time, because throughout my career I have tried to look after family farmers and to respect the needs of farmers in every region of this great country. I have tried to do that first and I have tried to assist them in providing our Nation and the world with the bounty they do. It is something we far too often take for granted, the blessing of living in this country, knowing there is an affordable, abundant, and safe supply of food and fiber for the people of this country. We in this country are fortunate. We are fortunate to have this bounty. I am not going to let anyone in this Chamber forget it. I am not going to allow anyone to send this bounty to some foreign land never to be seen again in this country, to outsource the opportunity that hard-working farm families in this country have to do what it is they want to do most and what they do most effectively, and that is to provide this country with that safe, affordable, and abundant supply of food and fiber. I look forward to the discussion ahead of us. I have to say if there is one unfortunate thing I find in all of this discussion, it is that there are those people who would choose to misrepresent the facts. When they misrepresent the facts, it breaks down the process. It breaks down the process from what is real. What is real is those of us on the Agriculture Committee who have come together in good faith to produce a bill that makes sense; something everybody can support and that respects people all across this country. My hope is we will continue this conversation, and that those who choose to misrepresent the facts can be countered or at least corrected, and those of us who want to work hard to come up with something that makes sense, that we can continue to do so. I look forward to that debate. I look forward to working with my colleagues. Senator Grassley and Chairman Baucus are here on the floor. They have done yeoman's work on behalf of farmers across this country, and I look forward to continuing to work with them. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the chairman for his thoughtfulness and dedication and would like to recognize the leadership of my colleague from Idaho on this important issue. I share Senator Crapo's concern that COPD is a growing and largely unrecognized health problem in America. Today more than 12 million Americans are diagnosed with COPD, and research published by the CDC suggests that an additional 12 million Americans have undiagnosed COPD. That is 12 million Americans who have a debilitating and lethal disease but don't know it. Equally alarming is the impact COPD is having on women. For several years, COPD was largely considered a disease of men. However, in 2000, the mortality rate for women for COPD exceeded that of men. Today, COPD is an equal opportunity killer. I too am concerned that despite these statistics, the U.S. does not have a coordinated public health strategy to address COPD. Senator Crapo and I would like to urge the CDC to begin developing a COPD response plan.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, this morning in Little Rock, AR, at 10 a.m. local time, the new annex to the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse will be dedicated. In honor of that event, I wanted to take a moment to reflect on the life of Judge Arnold and the contributions he made to Arkansas and this nation. Judge Richard Arnold served his Nation with honor and distinction in the Federal judiciary for a little over 25 years. Considered by some to be the greatest jurist of his time not to serve on the Supreme Court, Judge Arnold was respected for his reasoned, straightforward decisions that he rendered from the bench without any ideological bias. In short, he was a brilliant, fair, effective judge. His colleagues in the legal community recognized his brilliance. In 1999, Judge Arnold was awarded the highly prestigious Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award. This honor is presented to a Federal judge who has achieved an exemplary career and has made significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and the improvement of society as a whole. Judge Arnold also received the prestigious Meador-Rosenberg Award from the American Bar Association for his work and dialogue with members of Congress about the problems facing the Federal courts during his service as Chairman of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States. The award, which has only been presented five times since its inception in 1994, was presented through the ABA's Standing Committee of Federal Judicial Improvements. Born in Texarkana, TX, in 1936, Judge Arnold and his younger brother, U.S. District Court Judge Morris ``Buzz'' Arnold, had many role models in their early life that were active in the legal community. Their father, Richard Lewis Arnold, was a public utilities law specialist, and their paternal grandfather, William H. Arnold, Sr., was a circuit judge and former Arkansas Bar Association President. In addition, their maternal grandfather was U.S. Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas. Judge Arnold received a Classical Diploma from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1953. He graduated from Yale with a B.A., summa cum laude, in 1957. Afterwards, Judge Arnold attended the Harvard Law School where he received the Sears Prize for achieving the best grades in the first- year class and the Fay Diploma for being first academically in his graduating class. Judge Arnold concluded his formal education upon receiving his LL.B. from Harvard magna cum laude in 1960. After law school, Judge Arnold served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Arnold then practiced law in Washington, D.C., and Texarkana, Arkansas. After serving the Honorable Dale Bumpers while Bumpers was Governor of Arkansas and a United States Senator, Judge Arnold was appointed to the federal judiciary by President Jimmy Carter in 1978. He served on the District Bench for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas and was elevated to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1980. He was Chief Judge for the Circuit from 1992-1998 and achieved senior status in April 2001 after he turned 65. In 2003, Congress renamed the U.S. District Courthouse for Eastern Arkansas the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse. Judge Arnold continued to live a full life until he succumbed to complications while being treated for lymphoma in 2004. His passing has left a void, but his legacy continues to live on at the courthouse that bears his name in Little Rock. The recent addition of the annex will bring 21st Century changes to the Richard S. Arnold Courthouse originally built in 1932. A beautiful glass atrium will connect the original structure to the new wing. The annex will house 12 judges' chambers, courtrooms, and a parking garage. In addition, the exterior will feature a fountain and water sculpture, as well as a beautiful plaza. The design that is dedicated today will ensure that Judge Arnold will be remembered and his name will continue to live on for generations to come.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise now somewhat in dismay, I suppose, but certainly disappointed in hearing the debate from the other side. When we first started SCHIP 10 years ago, what a great bipartisan effort it was. Under this administration, so many waivers have been granted for childless adults and for other different categories of individuals to be covered. What we have tried to do, in a bipartisan way in putting together the reauthorization of this bill, is rein in those waivers. I heard my colleague and friend from New Hampshire--he and I have talked often about our own children--say we are going to cover illegal immigrants. We are not only not going to cover them in this bill, we don't even cover those who have stood in line and go through the proper process to come here as legal residents until there has been certain proof of how long they have been here and the contributions they have made. I have great confusion about this effort to portray this reauthorization as something that is expanding. We are actually reining it in. I have to say, in listening to my colleagues talk about covering 200 percent of poverty, I hope the American people understand that when we talk about 200 percent of poverty--my colleague from New Hampshire talked about it as if it was a lot of money. When you talk about 200 percent of poverty, you are talking about a family of four trying to live on $41,300. Eighty percent of the people in the State of Arkansas whom I represent have an adjusted gross income of less than $50,000. As a parent myself, being blessed with two incomes coming into our household, a family raising and caring for a family of four on $41,300 a year--talking about what you are paying for rent, for food, for utilities, and then to say that we as a Nation don't want to support you in caring for your children and seeing that they get good health care, that their health care needs are met; no, go into the private marketplace where the most expensive piece of health insurance you can purchase is in the private single-payer marketplace of health insurance---- I have been disappointed by those comments we have heard this morning. I hope that as we look forward, in this bill, we prohibit any new waivers, waivers that were a part of the first piece of legislation 10 years ago, and this administration granted many of those waivers. My State of Arkansas has been a beneficiary of many of those waivers. But the fact is that we rein them in. We prohibit waivers on childless adults, and as those childless adults are phased out of the program, the States can choose to put them in a block grant program and cover them in a much less percentage than what they are covered now. But they are not going to be in a children's program or a program designed for children. So I hope our colleagues will look at all the hard work and effort that has been put into this bill, to rein in much of the excess that came through those waivers from this administration, and will look at how we can focus on bringing about compromise and making sure we focus on the hard-working families that make up the fabric of this great Nation and do need the help and the support of all of us in making sure their children get the most basic of needs in health care coverage. I thank the Chair and look forward to the debate and encouragement from all our colleagues to bring about a bipartisan bill that moves this Nation forward in recognizing our greatest asset--our children.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I applaud my colleagues who have come to the floor this morning to speak out about the injustices in Burma and to remind us to not lose sight of the discourse and the injustices that occur across the globe, that we must keep a vigilant focus on those and speak out against them. I also think it is important to lead by example in our country. That is why I come to the floor today in such strong support of the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization, the CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2007, and urge my colleagues to support the incredible bipartisan compromise we have all come together to negotiate, to set the example of what our values are so that other countries might see that working together, the values we share and the moral obligation we have to our children can be met as we take these types of steps. That kind of leadership by example is critical not just in our country but to the example we set for the rest of the world. I have to say, as a working mother, I know all too well the importance of reliable health insurance coverage for all children. I feel blessed that as a Federal employee, I have access to quality coverage. When I am up late at night with a sick child, as I was last week, I have been blessed as a Federal employee to have that access and to be able to know that when the Sun comes up, I can call my doctor. I can get my child the kind of medical care I believe he needs. Having health insurance coverage gives me peace of mind. But that peace of mind should not only belong to those families that can afford private health insurance, it should also belong to the working families that are struggling to make ends meet. That is why Democrats and Republicans worked so hard together to come up with a compromise on a bill this important. I commend my colleagues in this body and in the House of Representatives from both sides, both parties, who have worked diligently to come to this agreement. Since the inception of SCHIP 10 years ago or, as we call it in Arkansas, ARKids First, because it is a Federal and State partnership to provide this health insurance for our children, the number of children without health care coverage has been reduced by one-third. During that time, I am proud that Arkansas has become a national leader in reducing its number of uninsured children from over 20 percent in 1997 to 10 percent today. Now nearly 65,000 of Arkansas's children currently receive coverage through the ARKids B part of ARKids First. The bill before us is an important and responsible step forward in reaching the millions of children who remain uninsured. It applies the lesson of the past 10 years and builds upon the success of the program by giving States more of the tools they need while preserving their flexibility to strengthen their programs and ultimately cover more children. In doing so, it would provide an additional $35 billion over 5 years that will allow our States to preserve coverage for children currently enrolled while reaching an additional 3.8 million uninsured, low-income children. This proposal would also provide much needed funding to States for outreach and enrollment efforts to reach many of those currently uninsured but eligible, making sure we are reaching out. For those who are eligible, as we get them on the rolls, it makes a tremendous difference. Because as we begin to bring into the fold those who can be insured, those who are eligible, we begin to mitigate the risk and the balance of the entire cost of what we need to do in covering children. In addition, it takes steps to ensure that they get a healthy start by providing care for expectant mothers and establishing pediatric quality measures to improve the effectiveness, safety, and efficiency of the care they receive. For years we have been putting quality measures into Medicare and other programs. Now we are going to put those same quality measures into pediatric care and children's care so we cannot only be reassured that our children are getting the best of care, but we are going to also see the benefits economically of those quality measures. Our plan would also invest in the development of evidence-based quality measures for children's health care and provide access to much needed dental care for lower income children. I am sure many of my colleagues have done as I have, visited Head Start facilities or other places where children are learning dental hygiene. It is absolutely essential, because when you visit the places where they are not getting dental care and dental hygiene, you see children who have rotting teeth, who can't pay attention in school, who are malnourished because it hurts to eat when they get the opportunity. Dental care is essential because those children who do get it are going to be paying attention in class. They will be getting better at their education, and they will be healthier individuals because they will be receiving nutrition. They are going to be on a pathway to a healthier lifestyle. We ensure that children enrolled in this CHIP would also be able to access mental health care that is on par with the level of medical and surgical care they are currently provided. Earlier this month I hosted forums across the State of Arkansas to discuss renewal of this vital program. We had a wonderful opportunity to meet with health care professionals, parents, single working mothers, business individuals who see the productivity of their employees better when they know those parents have that peace of mind when their children are getting health care, others who emphasize just how crucial this program is to Arkansas. They are anxious for us to get this program reauthorized. We have the opportunity, and we must seize it. They know the clock is ticking. If we don't act in some form or fashion by September 30, we could endanger the coverage of 6.6 million children currently receiving care. Further, those I spoke to wanted to see tolerance. They wanted to see us working together. They had little tolerance, quite frankly, for the political posturing by our President, making this a political issue. They are frustrated that he doesn't seem willing to budge in terms of cost when what we spend in Iraq in only 41 days would provide health care coverage for 10 million children each year. And they, like me, believe that providing health care to our children is not only an investment in our Nation's most precious of resources, but it is a moral issue and, quite simply, the right thing to do. In Washington we sometimes get in the business of debating policy specifics and losing sight of what it is all about. During my recent trip to Arkansas, I was reminded of what this will mean for real people. It is about a wonderful, hard-working, home-based educator from Benton, Jennifer Brown, and her 6-year-old daughter Elizabeth. Because Elizabeth had a digestive problem that required treatment, her mother would have been forced into the position of choosing between care for her sick child or choosing to feed her family if CHIP were not available. Placing families in that position is completely unacceptable. They deserve so much more. I am proud that CHIP was there for Jennifer and Elizabeth. As Jennifer told me: Without ARKids First, I don't know how we could have made it. It is also about a young working mother and a grandmother, Amy Main and Jackie Deuerling, who spoke to me about their daughter and their granddaughter Emily, a 4-month-old blessing I was able to hold in my arms. What a treasured blessing to that family and to this country. Without ARKids First, Emily's family would be unable to provide her with the care she desperately needed. As Amy told me: The health care coverage provided by ARKids First allows me to feed the kids, afford diapers, and pay for Emily's brother's school supplies. I can make sure the kids have everything they need. If I was paying the medical bills [and if it was me and me alone], we wouldn't be able to afford all of those necessities [or the proper medical treatment]. We cannot lose sight of that. We should all agree that providing health care for our children is certainly one area where partisan politics should be placed aside. These working mothers who were there, the working families who were represented in these town hall meetings were saying what an important thing it was to them, as a value, to be able to make sure their children were able to get the health care they needed. But they also felt it was a value of who we are as Arkansans and as Americans. I am very proud the Senate has seen the case we have presented. The members of the Senate Finance Committee, of which I am a member, worked hard in a bipartisan spirit to find a common ground to improve this program. Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, Senators Rockefeller and Hatch, took the challenge. All of us, working together, and others, helped in multiple meetings to produce a bill of which everyone can be proud. Their leadership and vision should be commended by this entire body. That is why it is so unfortunate the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services feel so differently. In fact, their proposal to increase CHIP funding by only $5 billion over the next 5 years falls well short of the funding needed to simply maintain coverage for those currently enrolled in the program. That is not right. In fact, the message sent to me during my meetings in Arkansas was that moving backwards--moving backwards--when it concerns the health care of our children is absolutely unacceptable. Instead of forcing nearly 1.5 million children to be dropped from their current health care providers, shouldn't we all agree, at the very least, absolutely, no child should lose coverage as a result of reauthorization? The President has been adamant about leaving no child behind when it comes to their education. But shouldn't that also apply to their health care? How you choose to spend your money for your families or for your government most definitely reflects your values and your priorities. I ask my colleagues today, what could be a bigger priority than the well- being of our children--all of our children, the Nation's children, our American family? In a time when more and more Americans are struggling to find affordable health care, CHIP has been a success story that has allowed us to make coverage more accessible for millions of children in working families. I urge each and every one of my colleagues to explore your conscience, to set aside partisan influences, and to support this critical effort to invest in the health care of our children--not only for the future of our Nation but for the well-being of millions of children and working families. They are depending on us, and it is time to fulfill our commitment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to expand health care coverage for the children of our American family. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, how much time remains in morning business on each side?

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, September 25, 2007, marks the 50th anniversary of one of the most important days in our country's history and certainly one of the most important days in the history of our State of Arkansas. On that day in 1957, Minnijean Brown, Elizabeth Eckford, Ernest Green, Thelma Mothershed, Melba Pattillo, Gloria Ray, Terrence Roberts, Jefferson Thomas, and Carlotta Walls changed the world when they entered the doors to Little Rock Central High School and desegregated the Little Rock school district. Known collectively as the Little Rock Nine, these brave young men and women faced down a jeering crowd, the Arkansas National Guard, and even their own Governor to take a principled stand and march toward greater equality for all in our Nation and in my home State of Arkansas. As the mother of growing children right now, thinking of what those students must have felt at that time to have taken such a stand, to stand before their peers who were jeering and yelling at them, to stand up to authority as they did, must have been incredible. Next week in Little Rock, we will commemorate the heroic sacrifice these students made to blaze a trail so that future generations could benefit. In doing so, it is also appropriate to recognize those in the community who uplifted these individuals and gave them the strength they needed. Arkansas Daisy and L.C. Bates, Chris Mercer, Wiley Branton, and future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall either gave these children daily guidance or fought for them in the court system to ensure they could have access to a quality education that was their right as a citizen of this country. We all think about the images and certainly the impression we leave on children today. We think about these individuals who made such an impact in the support they gave these children as they took this very important step. We must also not forget the enormous role the parents of the Little Rock Nine played to ignore threats and intimidation that came their way. Again, as a parent and thinking of the preparation that goes into encouraging your children to take new steps and to stand up for what is right is tough because you know what your children will come up against. Those parents had to have had mixed emotions to send their children out there and wonder what kind of harm or what kind of crushing blow would come to their self-esteem or to their confidence. Yet they supported it in every way known, making sure their clothes looked perfect or making sure their bodies and their souls were strong. What incredible parents they were. What happened in Little Rock 50 years ago is not only a testament to those students, but it is also a testament to those who supported them. It is a testament to the people of Little Rock of all backgrounds who decided they would confront their own conscience, and it is a testament to those who, upon reflecting upon the matter, decided that doing what is right was worth the cost. I also wish to recognize other communities in Arkansas that led the way for integration in the Deep South, even prior to the famous standoff of 1957; often these others receive little attention. Shortly after the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, the communities of Charleston, Fayetteville, and Hoxie desegregated their schools to comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court. Former U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers, a Charleston native and the attorney for the Charleston School Board in 1954, was very involved in his community's decision. In a recent newspaper interview, he recounted that the members of the Charleston School Board made up their mind that the Supreme Court decision meant what it said and Charleston could save itself a lot of trouble by going ahead and integrating immediately instead of fighting it, fighting it out, essentially knowing it would be a lost cause. Dale Bumpers continued to push for change, later as a lawyer, our Governor in Arkansas, and our U.S. Senator in Arkansas. In 1988, he authored the legislation that established the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site which is administered by the National Park Service, the Little Rock School District and the City of Little Rock and other entities. He was also responsible for the legislation that awarded the Little Rock Nine with the Congressional Gold Medal, our Nation's highest civilian honor. Monday, I and my colleagues will be in Little Rock to dedicate the new visitors center and the museum at that site. The new center will feature exhibits on the Little Rock Nine and the road to desegregation. As a young child myself who experienced firsthand the integration of schools in my hometown of Helana, AR, I cannot imagine the fear and anxiety those students must have felt in that tumultuous environment in 1957. I feel fortunate that my community embraced the process of integration and that my parents, in particular, were engaged and kept me in the local school district when so many of my friends were being moved to private schools. My husband Steve, who is a graduate of Little Rock Central High School, and I are both better people for learning in integrated schools and experiencing the diversity and what it provides us. I appreciate the lifelong lessons I learned in my early years. It is because of the Little Rock Nine that it was possible. Their decision to move this Nation forward makes me proud to be an Arkansan. It makes me proud to be an American. In closing, I wish to specifically thank my colleagues from the Arkansas delegation, especially the Presiding Officer, my colleague, Senator Mark Pryor, and Congressman Vic Snyder. I have been so proud to work with both of them to secure the funding for the new visitors center. In addition, I joined with Senator Pryor, who also attended Little Rock Central High, to introduce a resolution which recognizes the 50th anniversary of the school desegregation. It passed the Senate earlier this month. I wish to thank all my colleagues for their support in that effort. We all know there is still much to be done, still much that can be done in our country to ensure the goals of the Little Rock Nine are achieved and that equal rights are available for each and every individual in this great Nation. We have come very far in the last 50 years. As we move forward, we should let the lessons of the past provide a measure of our progress and the inspiration to build on our achievements for all our fellow Americans. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. LINCOLN

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

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I was absent for the vote on September 7 on final passage of the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 due to an official trip that I took to Iraq with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Had I been in Washington during the vote on final passage, I would have supported this important piece of legislation as I did when the Senate passed its version in July. The rising costs of a college education have significantly increased the financial burden on college students and their families in recent years. The largest increase in higher education aid since the G.I. bill, the College Cost Reduction Act will increase student aid to low- and middle-income students by $17.4 billion over the next 5 years. It also increases the maximum Pell grant by $500 to $4,810 next year and incrementally increases it until it caps at $5,400 in 2012. Further, the bill will help students manage their debt by capping student loan payments at 15 percent of their monthly income and reducing the student loan interest rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. In addition, the legislation will create a pilot program that reduces the amount of federal subsidies paid to student lending institutions and redirects the funds directly to students. The result will save students real dollars, save taxpayers money, and inject competition into the loan program. Increasing the number of college graduates is one of the best investments that we as a nation can make, and I am proud that this Congress has worked to make college a reality for more Americans. The improvements contained in this legislation will expand the options students have to attend college and pay for higher education for years to come. Moreover, it will improve the quality of life for our citizens and our economy by preparing our workforce for the demands of an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to honor the life of a great Arkansan, Curtis H. Sykes, who passed away last week. As a member of the Special Task Force to Study the History and Contributions of Slave Laborers in the Construction of the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Sykes made valuable contributions to the important and challenging work that the task force conducted. As its name indicates, the purpose of the task force is to recognize and preserve the contributions that African Americans made to the construction of the Capitol complex. The task force has served as a working memorial to pay tribute to those who made an enormous sacrifice to help build the greatest symbol of our Nation's freedom. I was pleased that the task force was developed to include citizen representation, and Curtis Sykes was an integral part of helping us examine those contributions. In addition to his work on the task force, Curtis Sykes was also an accomplished historian and respected community leader in Arkansas. Mr. Sykes served as chairman of the Arkansas Black History Committee since 1993 and was the first African-American member of the North Little Rock History Commission. He brought a wealth of experience to the study of our great State's history and was an advocate for equality, fairness, and justice. Shortly after his graduation from the segregated Scipio A. Jones High School, located in his hometown of North Little Rock, in 1947, Curtis served our Nation in the U.S. Army from 1950 to 1952. He then pursued a lifelong career in education. Prior to retiring in 1985, Curtis worked for 33 years in education as a teacher, football coach, assistant principal and principal. He was one of the first African-American principals in the Little Rock school district during the 1960s, and after his life in education, he led the fight to pass legislation in the Arkansas General Assembly which established a Black history curriculum in Arkansas schools. He also continued to pursue his passion to help young children learn and succeed after retirement through his work in a number of civic and community organizations. His activities included offices in the Arkansas Chapter of the NAACP, the Young YMCA/COPE of Central Arkansas and Headstart of Pulaski County. Mr. Sykes earned his bachelor's degree from Arkansas Baptist College in Little Rock, Arkansas; a master's from Texas College in Tyler, Texas; and his master's in education from Harding University in Searcy, AR. In fact, he became the first African American to receive a degree from Harding in 1962. In addition, Mr. Sykes received a number of honors and awards during his lifetime. He was the recipient of the Salute to Greatness Award from the Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission for his outstanding record of community service. He was also recognized by the city of North Little Rock when Mayor Patrick Hays declared a Curtis Sykes Day in 1992 to honor his many contributions to the city. Curtis H. Sykes will be greatly missed by communities all across Arkansas, as well as those he worked with here in Washington, DC. He had an impact on thousands of people from all walks of life, and his death will leave a void throughout Arkansas. He will not be forgotten, however. The Arkansas History Commission contains the Curtis H. Sykes Collection which includes Scipio High yearbooks, past Arkansas Teacher Association journals, and other North Little Rock memorabilia and documents which will enable future generations to learn about his life and legacy. In the weeks and months ahead, our thoughts and prayers will be with friends and family of the Sykes as they grieve the loss of a true Arkansas pioneer.

Mrs. LINCOLN

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I remind colleagues under the unanimous consent agreement there was also time for my colleague Senator Nelson. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and my amendment No. 2621 be called up for consideration.

Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, having visited with certainly the managing Senators for this bill, I would like to call up my amendment No. 2621. I believe it is appropriate at this time to ask unanimous consent for its acceptance.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be here today, offering this amendment to affirm this body's commitment to move forward with health care reform in the small group and individual markets this year. We certainly know our focus here is on children. We want it to be. We know that is a priority. We know if we take things one step at a time, we do a much better job at it, so we are glad to be here working on children's health care and the availability and accessibility to that. But we are also excited with the group of Members who have expressed their concern about the small group market, those of our small businesses and our self-employed, and the real concerns and needs they have in terms of access to health insurance. As is evident from this distinguished list of cosponsors joining me in offering this amendment, it is an extremely important issue, one that Members across the political spectrum in this body are committed to addressing in the coming months. I know this week has been about children's health care, and rightly so. But we must not get ourselves into believing we are nearly done, because we are not. Much more work is required of us to ensure all Americans have access to affordable and quality health care. There are now approximately 45 million Americans without health insurance. In my home State of Arkansas, 20 percent of working age adults are uninsured. Additionally, more than half of our uninsured workers are employed by businesses with less than 25 employees or are self-employed. These small business employees are almost always in a small group and individual health insurance market, where similar coverage usually costs more than it would in a large group market. Actually, they end up without anything, in terms of health insurance, because it becomes so costly. Addressing this problem must be a national priority. That is why we have come together as a group. Those who lack health insurance do not get access to timely and appropriate health care. They have less access to important screenings and state-of-the-art technology and prescription drugs. This is not a new problem and none of us see it as that, but it is a growing problem and it is one that we must address and we must begin to start to find the solution, the solution using new and innovative ideas to this age-old problem. I, along with each of these distinguished cosponsors on this amendment, have been working for a long time, trying desperately to make progress on this issue. We have not all approached it in the very same way, and, no, we have not necessarily seen the same path to a solution, but that is all right because what is important is that through this amendment we are recognizing and affirming our responsibility to come together in a bipartisan way, to use our individual expertise and perspectives, and to find a workable solution that is going to move the ball down the field and start providing real relief for our working families in this great country this year. I take a moment to thank my partners on this amendment. I thank them for their determination to move forward in a bipartisan fashion, to make real progress on health insurance reform, specifically for small businesses and the self-employed. I thank them for all their tireless efforts, because each person in this cosponsorship list has taken a tremendous amount of their time over the past several years to devote attention to this critical issue: Senator Snowe, who is on the Senate Finance Committee and also on the Small Business Committee; Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley have been wonderful, in the midst of all the things they have been facing, to work with us as a group to talk about what we can and cannot do in the Finance Committee; Senator Ben Nelson, who has a tremendous history in dealing with this issue, from the perspective of his State but also here on the HELP Committee; HELP Committee Chairman Kennedy; and Ranking Member Enzi, who comes with tremendous background; and Senator Durbin and Senator Crapo, with whom I have worked on so many different issues, as well as Senator Smith and Senator Hatch. We have a lot of work to do. I look forward to rolling up my sleeves, along with each of these cosponsors and each of our colleagues, to make the small businesses and the self-employed working families of this country a priority, as we have the children of this Nation.

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask one more unanimous consent request and that is to add Senator Hatch as an original cosponsor to our amendment.