A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to provide individuals with an opportunity to participate in the financing or ownership of local biorefineries.

Mr. President, I again thank Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue. We did have a good, long debate last night, and a number of folks had an opportunity to come over and voice their opinion about the bill. We look forward to wrapping this up this morning and having a vote, hopefully, around 11:15, 11:30.

I urge those folks who want to speak--we have had a number who have indicated they wish some time. Obviously, we are pretty squeezed with a compacted morning this morning, so folks need to make their wishes known and be here to be ready to speak.

I wish to start off by recognizing the Senator from Idaho, who has been a critical asset to us with respect particularly to the specialty crop section in this farm bill. I ask the Chair to recognize Senator Craig for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, who also has played a very valuable role in crafting this bill. He has been a strong member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and a great advocate for not just the farmers and ranchers in Minnesota but farmers and ranchers all across America.

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

At this time I yield 5 minutes to another very valuable member of the committee, a Senator who has had an awful lot of input into this bill, both policywise and otherwise, Senator Thune of South Dakota.

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

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

Mr. President, I have one more speaker. I think Senator Harkin probably is prepared to wrap up. While Senator Cochran is on his way over here, let me make some comments relative to wrapping this up. We are finally here. This has been a long process. The Presiding Officer is a member of our committee and knows what we have been through to get to this point. It has been a lot of hard work, a lot of strong leadership on the part of the chairman, who has done a terrific job, as I said earlier.

My friend Kent Conrad and I have spent countless hours together working through this extremely complex piece of legislation. I cannot say enough good things about his leadership, his intellect, as well as his understanding of what good agricultural policy is all about.

I want to thank also all of the members of the conference committee on our side, Senators Cochran, Lugar, Roberts, and Grassley. What terrific work they did. It was a long conference, having been begun back in December, and from December until now, we have met on a regular basis, and decisions that have been made were sometimes extremely difficult and very emotional. But what great leadership all of these Senators have shown.

To the other members of the committee on my side, Senators Coleman, Crapo, Thune, and Graham, again, we would not be where we are without their input. I thank each of them.

I also want to say a special thanks to Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell. They have provided terrific leadership on both sides of the aisle. They have been extremely cooperative in allowing us to do the technical things we need to do, and at the same time to push Senator Harkin and myself when we needed pushing. And we, again, would not be where we are were it not for their strong leadership, their cooperation. I thank each of them individually.

Following is a list of folks over at CBO I want to thank: Jim Langley, Greg Hitz, Dave Ull and the entire ag team at CBO, as well as Kathleen FitzGerald, Dan Hoople, Megan Carroll, Kathy Gramp, Tyler Kruzich, Kim Cawley, Teri Gullo, Sheila Dacey, Mark Booth, Zach Epstein, Andrew Langan, Lisa Ramirez-Branum, Burke Doherty, Amy Petz, Susan Willie, Sunita D'Monte, Matthew Pickford, and Mark Grabowitz.

As we go through the process of putting a bill like this together, we have to constantly call up CBO and ask them for immediate scores on portions of the bill, and I have to say, CBO has worked overtime to make sure they accommodated every single request we had, and they did it on rush-hour time. They have done a great job over there. I thank each of them.

Another thing we take for granted around here that we never should is the staff of this Senate. I want to say a particular thanks to Dave Schiapa and the folks on his staff, as well as to Lula Davis and the folks on her staff. This has been a partnership that so many people have talked about on both sides of the aisle from an Ag Committee standpoint, but it has also been a partnership between the staff.

I do not want to leave out our folks who show up every day early and stay late: our clerks, our Parliamentarians, who have been unbelievable. They are always here and provide us the professional leadership we need on the technical issues. To each of them, we say thank you.

At this time, I want to turn to Senator Cochran before I ultimately conclude. As I turn to Senator Cochran and give him 5 minutes, let me say as a former chairman of this committee, he is an icon in the ag community all across this great country. Senator Cochran has been a dear personal friend of mine for many years before I came to the Senate. As a friend and as somebody whom I looked up to when it comes to agricultural policy, it is my pleasure to turn to him now and to yield 5 minutes to him.

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

Mr. President, let me again thank Senator Cochran for his generous comments and for his leadership on the committee. He has been such a valuable member of the conference committee but, more than that, he has been a dear friend.

I want to continue to acknowledge the hard work of a number of folks on the other side of the aisle. We had Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, who worked so closely with Senator Grassley and every member of the conference committee on our side of the Capitol to try to find the funding for this bill. It is completely offset as scored by CBO.

In addition, he worked out a very fair and equitable tax package for agricultural issues, and I emphasize that, to be included in this farm bill. And it is that particular amount of spending that has been totally offset as scored by CBO. So Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley deserve an awful lot of credit.

To my good friend, Senator Blanche Lincoln, what a real ally she has been to all of us on the committee. Senator Stabenow has been a tireless worker from a conference committee standpoint.

This truly has been a bipartisan effort. But the real work hard that has been done on this bill--the policy decisions are made by the membership--was done by the staff.

I say to Mark Halverson and Susan Keith, and all of the members of the minority committee, how much we appreciate them for their hard work, their commitment to agriculture. Beginning in December, after these folks had worked so hard to get the bill done and to get the bill to the Senate floor, their real work began. Every single day since this bill was passed, including weekends, these folks have been working tirelessly to try to accommodate the policy decisions the Members have been making. It has been an unbelievable process. Without their hard work we simply would not be here.

Senator Cochran thanked all of the members of my staff, and I will not go back through those again. They know how much I love them and how much I appreciate them. But to Martha Scott Poindexter, Vernie Hubert, and Hayden Milberg I owe a special thanks, because they have had to put up with me and me telling them what they needed to do and when they needed to do it. And that is not an easy task from their side. So I have tremendous appreciation for all of the staff who worked so hard to make this happen today.

There are some other staff members I particularly want to acknowledge because they have been, again, tremendous and they have been right there side by side with all of the Ag Committee staff from day one. That is Amanda Taylor, Elizabeth Paris on Senator Grassley's staff; on Senator Baucus's staff, John Selib, Brandon Willis, Rebecca Baxter, Kathy Kock; on Senator Lincoln's staff, Ted Serafini; and on Senator Conrad's staff, Tom Mahr and Jim Miller. Tom and Jim particularly have been involved with my staff since literally about a year ago in attempting to craft the farm bill that ultimately came to the floor of the Senate. They have been tremendous in providing us numbers, providing us information to help Senator Conrad and myself make policy decisions. To those two gentlemen, I want to say a special thanks.

This bill is going to finally come to a vote on the conference report. This is not a perfect bill, as has been said by several different folks here. There have been some folks who stood up and pointed out some objections they have to the bill.

This is my third bill, two as a Member of the House and now one as a Member of the Senate. All farm bills are extremely controversial. All farm bills are portrayed by the media as being a giant welfare program for farmers.

Nothing is further from the truth, particularly in this farm bill. In this farm bill, about 11 percent of the outlays are projected to go to farm programs, 11 percent, and 74 percent of the outlays are going to go for nutrition programs to feed hungry people in this country. We have an obligation, as the richest and most abundant, from a food standpoint country in the world, to take care of those folks who are in need, and we are doing so in this bill.

In addition, we are providing conservation measures that are going to save the land, save rural America from being developed in many areas where it ought not to be developed. We are also going to make sure that we provide future generations with alternative energy sources, and that we do it in the right way.

I want to close by making a comment on the point of order Senator Gregg made. He knows how much respect I have for him. He did a terrific job when he was chairman of the Budget Committee and now as the ranking member.

Again, he is doing a good job. He knows I have tremendous respect for his position on any issue relative to the budget. But here is what I wish to explain to my colleagues. His point is that we are going to spend more money above the budget than we actually say we are going to spend.

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

If anybody in this body can tell me today what the price of corn, cotton or soybeans is going to be 5 or 10 years from now, then we would not have to worry about projecting exactly what the expenditure, from a budget standpoint, in this farm bill is going to be. The fact is, we can't even project what the price of corn and soybeans and other commodities is going to be tomorrow, much less what we can predict it will be 5 years from now. In fact, the 2002 farm bill, which is currently in place, had the same budget point of order made against it in 2002, when it was passed. The fact is, in that farm bill, not only did we not spend what was projected to be spent, but we spent between $15 and $18 billion less than what was projected to be spent. The reason is that commodity prices have been high; therefore, payments coming out of Washington have been either nonexistent or very low. That is where the $15 to $18 billion in savings has come from. In this bill, as long as commodity prices remain high, again, farmers are going to have what they want, which is their stream of income coming from the marketplace versus Washington. Washington is going to have what we want, which is a reduction and limitations on payments going to farmers. The budget point of order, obviously, is correct in saying we don't know exactly how much money is going to be spent under countercyclical programs. That is the nature of farm bills. But the fact is, we spent less under 2002. We are going to spend less under this farm bill, in all probability. But we cannot say that for certain. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to the

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I receive 4 minutes of the time of the majority.

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the House of Representatives passed the farm bill conference report by a vote of 318 to 106. The Senate will vote in a few minutes and we expect to have an overwhelming majority in favor of this farm bill. I thank Senator Harkin for his great leadership, and Senator Chambliss--it was a bipartisan effort--as well as Senator Conrad and Senator Baucus, all the members of the committee, and I want to take special note of my good friend Representative Collin Peterson from the State of Minnesota who showed such leadership in the House.

America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect struggling family farmers from the financial shocks of volatile weather and equally volatile commodity prices.

Almost 75 years later the reasons for maintaining that strong safety net are still there. The weather is still volatile, as we have seen this year. Crops are still subject to blight and disease. Farming is still a very risk-intensive business. We have seen prices going up and down--recently down in Asia--as we have seen investment and speculation in the farm market. I think it is very important that we have a safety net as we look at our food security so we don't get in the same place as we are with our lack of energy security.

I want to mention a few important things to my State in this bill-- the sugar program, the dairy program, and the conservation program. I know we have people here in attendance from Pheasants Forever. The conservation groups worked very hard on this--the nutrition assistance. But I especially wanted to mention the part of the bill that I worked on, the cellulosic piece, which looked to the next generation of biofuels--looking at prairie grass, switchgrass, other forms of biomass. As we look to, say, the country of Brazil, which is energy efficient--energy independent, based on sugarcane--we can do it in this country.

I believe we have to go beyond our crop-based ethanol and look at these other forms of ethanol and this bill creates the incentives so we can use energy crops such as switchgrass and prairie grass and do it in a way that is consistent with conservation, which is why I am so proud we have the support of the conservation groups that are with us today.

I was a strong proponent for reform in this bill. It didn't have everything I asked for, as Senator Murray was discussing; no bill is perfect. But we had significant problems in the last few years with a small number of people--real estate developers from Florida, art collector from San Francisco, 100 people from the Beverly Hills 90210 area code--collecting money. This bill eliminates the three-entity rule. Also, the conferees have included substantial income limits for those who participate in the commodity program--$500,000 in nonfarm income, and they are banned from getting subsidies; and then third, $750,000 for farm-related income.

Frankly, you can go a long way in Minnesota without bumping into a farmer who made $750,000 after expenses. The reform in this bill may not be perfect but it is a lot better than where we were before.

The 2002 farm bill spurred rural development by allowing farmers in Minnesota and across the country to take risks to expand production. Because of productivity gains and innovation, including advances in renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill actually came in $17 billion under budget.

As the Senate considers the conference report, it is important not to underestimate the value of a strong bill for states such as Minnesota where agriculture is so vital to our economy and way of life.

That is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I support the new farm bill. It includes an increased focus on cellulosic-based ethanol, continued support for a strong commodity safety net and a permanent program of disaster assistance.

And, of particular importance is that we have balanced our budget in this farm bill, with every dollar of new spending fully off-set.

Traveling around the state during the campaign I was visiting all 87 counties this year, so I have had a good opportunity to talk to farmers around our State. They have told me that the 2002 farm bill has worked well for them, and they wanted to see that continued.

I am very pleased that this bill continues the same basic structure of the three-part safety net--direct payments, countercyclical payments and marketing loans--and I am especially pleased that we have succeeded in rebalancing the commodity programs to be more equitable to northern crops like wheat, oats, barley, soybeans and--canola, beginning in 2010.

Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent program of disaster assistance for farmers. I would like to thank Senators Conrad and Baucus for their efforts to see this program through. Farmers are tired of coming back to Congress year after year with a tin cup in their hands.

Minnesota has been hit with drought, flooding and everything in between over the several years, and they have had to wait years on end for Congress to pass adhoc disaster relief bills.

The permanent program of disaster relief in this farm bill will give farmers security moving forward, and quick relief when they need it.

This bill holds some good news for Minnesota's dairy farmers--we were able to restore the MILC payment rate that had been cut to 34 percent, back to 45 percent. We also added a feed cost adjuster to the MILC program, which means that when the price of feed goes up, the payment rate will also go up. This is really going to help dairy farmers cope with the high cost of feed and energy.

The new farm bill is also going to work well for Minnesota's sugarbeet growers. It raises the sugar loan rate by \3/4\ of a cent--it may sound small to you and me, but it's a big deal to the farmers in the Red River Valley.

We have language in the bill that will give U.S. sugar producers the right to supply 85 percent of the domestic market each year before USDA can allow additional sugar imports. And it creates a new sucrose-to- ethanol program to give us a new source of energy, and provide an outlet for potential increases in imports as a result of this administration's trade policies.

One of my major goals for this farm bill was to include a strong cellulosic ethanol program. Farms can and should play a bigger part in the future of this country's energy security.

Instead of investing in oilfields of the Mideast, we should be investing in the farmers and workers of the Midwest.

Our corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel have taken off in Minnesota, and we are ready to expand to the next generation of biofuels: energy from native, perennial crops like switchgrass and prairie grass that require less fertilizer, yield more energy, and protect soil, water and wildlife.

I was proud to draft first-of-its-kind legislation to provide farmers with an incentive to grow cellulosic energy crops, and I would like to thank Chairman Harkin and Chairman Peterson for working with me to include many of my provisions in the farm bill.

Energy crops like switchgrass and prairie grass hold great promise for farmers because they can be grown on marginal land that can't produce a high yield of corn or soybeans, and they restore the land while they're growing. Their deep root systems sequester carbon and put organic material back in the soil.

Native grasses can also save fuel and fertilizer because they don't require lots of passes with farm equipment or heavy fertilizer applications.

The fact that these crops put carbon back in the soil and take less fossil fuel to produce offers us the promise of producing a carbon- neutral motor fuel for this country, which would be a huge advance in the fight against global warming.

In short, the Biomass Energy Reserve Program is going to allow us to expand upon corn ethanol and soy diesel to a new generation of farm- based energy, and greater freedom from imported oil.

I am also pleased that the committee has prioritized beginning farmers and ranchers in the credit title. There are real opportunities today to start out in farming, especially in growing areas like organic farming and energy production. But beginning farmers also face big obstacles, including limited access to credit and technical assistance, and the high price of land.

The beginning farmer and rancher programs in this farm bill provide mentoring and outreach for new farmers, and training in business planning and credit-building--the skills they need to succeed and stay on the land.

So there are a lot of good things for Minnesota and the country in this farm bill. There is, however, one critical area where I fought for more reform, and that was in stopping urban millionaires from pocketing farm subsidies intended for hard-working farmers.

This kind of reform is in the best interests of Minnesota farmers. Here are the facts.

Sixty farmers collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm bill, but none of them have been Minnesotans, even though Minnesota is the fifth-largest agricultural State. The average income of Minnesota farms, after expenses, is $54,000. But under the current system, a part-time farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from outside sources and still qualify for Federal benefits.

It made no sense to hand out payments to multimillionaires when this money should have been targeted to family farmers.

And what we saw so clearly in the media coverage of this farm bill was that big payments to big-city investors were undermining public support for the entire bill, even though commodity payments account for just 16 percent of funding in this bill.

But this bill is going to do better for our farmers by closing loopholes and tightening income eligibility standards.

First, the new farm bill eliminates the ``three-entity rule.'' This will cut down on abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals--and married couples--and ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations to multiply payments.

Second, I am pleased to report that the conferees have included substantial income limits for those who participate in the commodity programs, which is an area where I fought hard for reform. What the bill says is, if you earn more than $500,000 in nonfarm income--so if you have a high-paying job off the farm, or income from investments, or any other source of income off the farm in excess of $500,000--you cannot participate in the commodity programs.

This makes good sense to me. This will take care of multimillionaires, like David Letterman and Paul Allen of Microsoft, or Maurice Wilder, the real-estate developer in Florida, getting farm payments intended for family farmers.

The bill also says that if you have more than $750,000 in farm- related income, you lose your direct payments. I think this also makes sense. I would venture to say that any farm bringing in that much money after expenses is of a size and scope that they no longer need the support of taxpayers.

So the reform in this bill is not perfect, but it is a lot better then where we were before. And I thank the conferees for taking these important steps in the bill.

In conclusion, there are a lot of important changes in this bill, and there is a lot that is good for rural America, and the safety net is vital for farmers. We have made important advances in

conservation, and made much-needed improvements to our nutrition programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill lays the groundwork for farmers to play an even greater role in our country's energy security and will advance us to the next generation of biofuels. For all of these reasons, I will be proud to vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to come to the floor in the final hours of the debate over agricultural policy in this country and to, first and foremost, thank the two principals, who are here on the floor, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Ag Committee. They have done yeoman work in a very difficult process--15 titles and 673 pages of policy--in what is, without question, one of the most complicated efforts at putting public policy and interest groups within the agricultural community together in some degree of harmony. I thank my colleagues for the work they have done.

Mr. President, I will be brief, as I have already come to the floor several times to discuss the valuable programs included in this bill. But I would be remiss not to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues--and this Congress--for producing a good product for the American people.

We have been ``tangled in inaction'' on so many issues. The American people want a functional Congress.

The 2008 farm bill conference report represents a monumental feat for the U.S. Congress. Every 5 years, we undertake the task of reauthorizing our farm policy. This version includes 15 titles; 673 pages.

Though some who have not yet served on an agriculture committee during the reauthorization of a farm bill may disagree, let me assure you this is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation considered by Congress, and it is also one of the most important.

In an age of skyrocketing energy prices, economic uncertainty, and now a global food crisis, there is at least one thing we should be able to be certain of: our Nation's food security. We cannot take for granted our ability to feed ourselves, lest we become dependent on other countries for our food in addition to our oil.

How do we achieve food security? Here are a few key principles.

First and foremost, we enact policy designed to keep our food producers productive and profitable, and ensure access to those foods for all Americans. This includes things such as a safety net to protect farmers from volatile price swings; and nutrition programs that give access to fresh fruits and vegetables in schools.

We enact policy that incentivizes state-of-the-art conservation practices to encourage the best possible stewardship of our agricultural lands. This will ensure these lands stay productive and profitable for future generations. And we enact policy that helps American agriculture continue to diversify--including becoming a larger player not only in our food security, but also in our energy security.

This bill does just that. This bipartisan work product--aptly named the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008--sets a strong and secure direction for our food, conservation and energy future.

The bill has broad support from virtually every corner of my State of Idaho, and every corner of the Nation.

Congress has heard from rural farmers to urban food banks calling for passage of this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. President, 500 farm, conservation, nutrition, consumer, and religious groups sent a letter supporting passage of the farm bill conference report.

These groups--with one voice--recognized that the bill ``makes significant farm policy reforms, protects the safety net for all of America's food producers, addresses important infrastructure needs for specialty crops, increases funding to feed our nation's poor, and enhances support for important conservation initiatives.''

It is not a perfect bill--we all will admit this--but it is a great bill. I commend my colleagues for their work.

The President has stated his intention to veto this bill. It is not often that I so strongly disagree with our Commander in Chief, but on this I must. There are too many great things in this bill to deny its passage over a few areas of disagreement, too many important things for my State of Idaho, and for the Nation.

We began several years ago to ensure that specialty crops were adequately recognized in this new farm bill. We now have a new title devoted to horticulture and organic agriculture. It dedicates approximately $3 billion for specialty crop, pest and disease, nutrition, research, trade and conservation priorities important to this vital industry that represents nearly half of all crop cash receipts in our country, including: $466 million for Specialty Crop Block Grants to support local efforts to enhance competitiveness of local products; $1 billion to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program to all 50 States--which will help our school children develop healthy eating habits; $377 million for a pest and disease program to combat costly damage to crops such as our famous potatoes; $230 million for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative to address food safety, mechanization, plant breeding, and other priorities; $59 million for trade assistance and market promotion to maintain and grow our international markets; and many other programs.

Idaho's famous potatoes, our burgeoning table grape and wine grape industry, our apples and onions and carrots and nursery and ornamental crops--and this just touches the surface of both our current production and our potential to continue to diversify.

Now, it should be noted that this is only one part of the effort to ensure the competitiveness of our specialty crop industry. The next step is to ensure that we have an adequate workforce to conduct the labor in which the average American refuses to participate. The harvesting of those healthy fruits and vegetables--this, I contend, is as important, or more important, than these ``competitiveness'' priorities that we have finally set forward in the farm bill. So our work is not done.

And I could go on for a great deal of time, talking about: the commodity programs that create a vital safety net for our wheat, barley, peas, lentils, chickpeas, oilseeds, sugar, wool producers, and so on; the conservation programs that will help Idaho's booming dairy industry address environmental challenges associated with their growth, and our crop producers to incorporate better stewardship practices; the nutrition programs that are vital to improving the health of our youth; the rural development programs that will ensure funding for things such as water and wastewater programs, broadband, and rural housing; the energy programs that will help us reach the 36 billion gallon RFS by creating new incentives for cellulosic ethanol and beginning to pare down the subsidy for corn-based ethanol; the wildlife programs, such as the provision authored by my colleague from Idaho, that creates incentives for endangered species recovery; the forestry, trade, credit, disaster programs.

Those programs that will benefit the Nation--and my State of Idaho in particular--are simply too vast to cover.

I thank my colleagues once again, and urge support for this vital piece of legislation.

I will now speak, again, specifically to Idaho and to the specialty crops provision that Senator Saxby Chambliss spoke to that is now a very important part of agricultural policy.

We know specialty crops are about 51 percent of the gross revenue of American agriculture, and yet they were never mentioned in agricultural policy from a Federal level. Oh, yes, we had research and experimental programs, and we targeted money into the specialty crop area, but the program crops--those kinds of base crops we think about, be it cotton, soybeans, corn, wheat--all of those were the staples, if you will, of American agriculture, while today they do not represent the majority of the portfolio.

That is why several years ago I thought it was critically important we begin to work to include a specialty crop title. So we began that effort. Today, we have completed that effort with the help of these two Senators and a broad-based coalition to now have a title devoted to horticulture and organic agriculture.

In my State of Idaho, specialty crops are a big deal. Many people have heard about potatoes and Idaho. It is almost synonymous in the minds of the average American. Yet, by definition, that is a specialty crop. Is this a loan guarantee? No, it is not a loan guarantee. It is an effort to advance specialty crops in a variety of ways: specialty crop grants to enhance competitive local markets; expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program in our high schools and grade schools in all 50 States; pest and disease management control; research programs in these areas; initiatives for food safety, mechanization, plant breeding and priorities to keep our edge, if you will, our world- class edge in the area of specialty crops; along with trade assistance and market promotion.

That is a full title. Not only did these two Senators--our chairman and ranking member--who led the effort for us, get this in the bill, they also got money behind it. Frankly, I thought maybe we would have to go the first 5 years simply authorizing the program and then beginning to fund it. But there is now substantial money behind it. It will go a long way toward helping the specialty crop areas and organic agriculture in the kind of farming many of our agricultural areas are moving into.

When you get at the edge of urbanization and agriculture and agricultural farmland, boutique farming, small specialty crop farming oftentimes becomes the transitional form of agriculture. To keep it profitable on the land, so we can keep the land in agricultural production, is very important, and I think that is offered in all of this.

I also thank my Idaho colleague, Mike Crapo, who has worked a long while on making the Endangered Species Act and those private properties that care for endangered habitat--to have a relationship, to have an advantage, to incentivize landowners to appreciate the reality of having an endangered species on their property. He has done that. Our colleagues have recognized it. It is very important we do that.

I could go on a great deal more about the programs that are there: the commodity programs that create a vital safety net for our wheat, barley, peas, lentils, chickpeas, oil seeds, sugar, wool products, and so on; conservation programs that are adjusted and important.

A great deal of effort has been focused on energy over the last several years and agriculture's role in that. It is not by accident that this bill has a title that recognizes energy, and that being a part of--a very valuable part of--American agriculture. To transition dollars out of a mature market in corn-based ethanol into cellulosics is a major step and a correct step in the right direction.

My time is up, but I want to thank my colleagues for the effort at hand. We had a solid vote out of the House last night. I think we are going to have a strong vote in the Senate today on this conference report.

Let me say in closing, to the White House and to our President: Mr. President, you and your people have been at the table working on this program with us for well over a year. It is time you recognize the value of this program, what has been put into new agricultural policy, and support us in that effort.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I rise today in support of the Food and Energy Security Act. The provisions of the conference report represent a tremendous step forward in ensuring the health of American consumers, for example by providing low-income citizens with better access to healthy food choices by increasing the amount of funding for nutrition programs, increasing food stamp payments, bringing more fruits and vegetables into schools, and providing assistance to low-income seniors so that they can shop at farmers markets. This bill also recognizes the important place that specialty crops have on the dinner table.

In addition to the benefits that Americans will see at their tables, this bill also provides unique opportunities to better the environment and look out for those who cannot speak for themselves. The bill continues to support land conservation and expands protection for wetlands, grazing land, wildlife habitats, and forests. The bill increases our investment in biofuels research and production so that we can move away from foreign oil, and instead use American-made cellulosic and sugar-based ethanol and biodiesel. It also strengthens protections for animals by quadrupling penalties for Animal Welfare Act violations and prohibiting dog fighting.

For these and other reasons I will support this farm bill legislation. However, I am troubled by the bill managers' use of the narrow provisions in the bill addressing agriculture security to expound in the Joint Explanatory Statement about the proper roles of the Departments of Homeland Security and Agriculture, and the performance of DHS, in this area. Allow me to address a few of my concerns.

The managers assert, for example, that DHS has ``claimed Federal jurisdiction as the lead agency'' for activities ``traditionally managed by USDA.'' This statement is unnecessarily dismissive and ignores numerous laws that establish the current Federal framework for addressing threats to agriculture and food security, a framework in which the Secretary of Homeland Security is the principal Federal official to lead and coordinate efforts among Federal departments and agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector to protect critical infrastructure and key resources in all sectors. Among the laws that make up the framework are the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Intel Reform Act, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, Post-Katrina Act, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, PAHPA, and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, 9/11 Commission Act. Various Homeland Security Presidential directives further undergird the current structure--including HSPD-5, Management of Domestic Incidents, HSPD-7, Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization and Protection, HSPD-8, National Preparedness, HSPD-9, Defense of U.S. Agriculture and Food, and HSPD- 10, Biodefense for the 21st Century.

Under these laws and directives, a number of agencies have responsibilities specifically relevant to agriculture and food security. These include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which is responsible for infrastructure protection for the agriculture sector and matters pertaining to meat, poultry, and egg products; the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, is responsible for the remainder of the food sector, as well as for public health and healthcare; and the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for drinking water and water treatment systems. HSPD-9 details the roles and responsibilities of these and other Federal agencies regarding specific aspects of agriculture and food security, including awareness and warning, vulnerability assessments, mitigation strategies, and research and development. Since enactment and issuance of the aforementioned bills and directives, numerous activities to advance agriculture and food security have been undertaken throughout the Federal Government in reliance on, and within, this framework.

That said, I agree with the bill managers that USDA is the agency best equipped to handle routine agricultural disease emergencies. USDA continues to serve that function, and DHS relies on USDA to do so.

The managers also assert that agricultural inspections have degraded since the inspectors were incorporated into DHS--as required by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This statement ignores the factual record:

While there were initial problems, not entirely

unexpectedly, integrating various components into one

Department, the situation has improved dramatically, and the

agriculture inspection mission has a clear roadmap for how to

improve further. The number of agriculture inspectors has

increased, as has the number of canine teams, beyond those at

the time of the transition. The same high educational

standards for agriculture specialists apply, but now they get

more field training. The Customs and Border Protection, CPB,

primary inspectors, which in their legacy roles have always

been responsible for referring agriculture products to

secondary screening, now get substantially more training to

recognize products and pests that need further examination.

The Joint USDA-DHS task force has outlined 10 concrete

action plans for further improvement and is making

considerable progress in implementing them. Last month, the

joint agency task force met with agriculture stakeholders to

further refine their recommendations and to draft new

recommendations.

USDA remains integrally involved in the inspection process,

with continuing responsibilities for the training of CBP

agricultural specialists and CBP officers, training of canine

teams, setting rules and regulations for the agriculture

inspection process, and for identifying the pests that CBP

agricultural specialists intercept.

I do appreciate the managers' recognition that the agricultural specialists within CBP who are responsible for inspecting agricultural products at the border need to remain within DHS. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 brought together in the CBP directorate of DHS customs inspectors from the Treasury Department, immigration inspectors from the Justice Department, and agricultural inspectors from the Agriculture Department. The purpose was to create a single, integrated force at our borders to keep out people and goods that pose a threat. For the first time, all those who protect our borders report up a single chain of command. To do otherwise than to keep the agricultural inspectors within CBP would splinter the integrated border security force we have been building for 5 years, and weaken both our homeland and agricultural security.

The managers further suggest that DHS may not be placing sufficient priority on agricultural security and agricultural inspections and they appear to be concerned that DHS may not be paying sufficient attention to the concerns of the agricultural community. In fact, the agriculture mission has repeatedly received the highest level of attention. DHS Secretary Chertoff addressed the agriculture inspection stakeholders' meeting just last month. A directive reiterating the importance of the agricultural mission has been disseminated to every CBP office. A new position--the Deputy Executive Director, Agriculture Operational Oversight at Customs and Border Protection--has just been created to provide oversight of all agriculture inspectors no matter where they serve to ensure that mission needs are being met.

Finally, the managers suggest that USDA should oversee DHS's agricultural inspection program and issue comprehensive reports on it to Congress. I cannot recall an example of one executive branch department overseeing and reporting to Congress on another executive branch department. The proposal is unprecedented, unnecessary, and fundamentally misapprehends the roles of the respective independent departments, and threatens what has become a productive partnership between the agencies of the two departments.

Rather than pitting Departments against one another, we should be encouraging the cooperation between DHS and USDA that, in fact, is now occurring. USDA and DHS are working together to a greater extent than ever has historically been the case in the relationship between agriculture and border officials. While challenges remain, the current level of partnership should serve as a model for interagency cooperation.

With active participation by USDA and the Federal Drug Administration, FDA, DHS is assessing agro-terrorist threats, capitalizing on the substantial assets at its National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasure Center and its connections with the intelligence community that have been applied to other biological and WMD threats to the Nation. USDA is also participating in the DHS- operated National Biosurveillance Integration Center, NBIC, authorized by the 9/11 Commission Act, to bring together information from multiple sources to detect and contain biological incidents as rapidly as possible.

The agricultural biosecurity communications center authorized by the bill, as the managers note, is expected to provide a central collection point for USDA generated information and to provide important information to DHS's National Operations Center, which acts as the central source for homeland security situational awareness for the Federal Government.

DHS and USDA also engage in research and development together to promote agricultural security. DHS's role includes its sponsorship of the National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease and its Plum Island Animal Disease Center at which both DHS and USDA researchers work collaboratively to address the catastrophic threat of foot and mouth disease.

The Office of Homeland Security at USDA, also authorized by the bill, should be helpful in coordinating the homeland security activities of the various offices and agencies within USDA, thereby providing a primary point of contact between USDA and DHS for agricultural security issues.

While I find the manager's statement troubling and unfounded, I have worked with the Agriculture Committee to ensure that the bill itself will not endanger homeland and agriculture security.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Georgia. Along with all the thanks that have been set forth by the Senator from North Dakota, I wish to thank the Senator from North Dakota.

I went to Lake Bronson in northwest Minnesota in 2005, and the room was filled with family farmers who were talking about disaster assistance. We look at the farm bill--and today we are at a time when commodity prices are high. Folks look at that and say: Why do we need a safety net? Why do we need a farm bill? Two years ago, I had people who were struggling. The pain and fear on their faces was something I wish I had a picture of that I could show you.

My colleague from North Dakota has been a champion--a champion--for ensuring that there is a safety net, particularly regarding disaster assistance. With all the partisan divide we have in this body, here we have an example where it is not about partisan politics; it is about doing the right thing. Folks have dirt under their fingernails who are helping provide the safest, most affordable food supply in the world, and we are talking about a safety net. My colleague from North Dakota has been a tremendous champion, and I wish to express my thanks.

Also, I see the chair of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who has also been involved in providing the kind of safety net that when bad things happen, we are going to be proud of this bill; we will be proud. So I wish to express my deep appreciation for the continuous effort that finally has yielded some fruit right here. It will be a shame if we don't make sure this becomes law.

These are tough times right now. Folks are worried about their jobs, they are worried about the cost of food, they are worried about the cost of energy. I don't need an economist to tell me whether we are in a recession or talk to Minnesota families and business owners to know folks are worried out there. We need something that promotes job growth.

I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to work with me to pass one of the most critical economic stimulus packages this body will have a chance to vote on all year. This is a balanced proposal, both ensuring the viability of a key economic sector--agriculture--and helping the many Americans who are struggling to put food on the table. It is a farm bill that we will soon vote to send to the President. At only 1.9 percent of the Federal budget, this farm bill will have enormous impact--providing, as I said, a safety net for American agriculture that in turn employs one out of five Americans and contributes roughly $3.5 trillion a year to the U.S. economy. In my State of Minnesota, agriculture generates $55 billion in economic activity and underpins 367,000 jobs.

We labeled this bill, as folks have said, a farm bill, when in reality it is a food bill, a nutrition bill. Over 66 percent goes to the nutrition safety net. We have all seen the rise in foreclosures and the impact of food prices depleting our food shelters. Families are being hit hard right now. This farm bill helps meet the increased needs. It provides an additional $10 billion above baseline to nutrition.

As the ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, I worked hard to see that nutrition programs--and the Emergency Food Assistance Program, EFAP, in particular--saw substantial increased funding. Well, we got it. The farm bill conference agreement will provide an additional $1.3 billion for our food banks. I have been to Second Harvest and Heartland in St. Paul. The needs are great, and we are meeting those needs today.

The Food Stamp Program receives an almost $8 billion boost in this bill. Our Nation is too prosperous not to lend a helping hand when it is needed.

Despite the importance of the farm bill safety net for hungry families, most of the attention is centered on the commodity programs. Commodity prices are high, critics say. The farmers are doing well. Why should they get a safety net? The reality is the critics don't understand agriculture. They don't understand that although the importance of agriculture to our economy is certain, the survival of individual farm families is not. Once again, the farm bill supports a sector of the American economy that provides millions of jobs, and it is insulting to farmers who put their necks on the line every year to wake up with the Sun and work all day to say they should be able to farm without a safety net.

I urge my colleagues to step into the shoes of one of my Minnesota farmers for a moment. We see high prices in the world market today, but we have no way of knowing whether the drought in Australia is going to continue or whether the consumption habits in countries on the other side of the world will change. Input costs for diesel and fertilizer are going through the roof. Meanwhile, depending on where your farm lies, Minnesota weather has kept you off the tractor, threatening your yields, and not knowing whether you will even have a product to sell for those high prices.

What price is too high for a safety net that keeps farmers, such as those in Minnesota, farming, despite all the uncertainty that allows the agricultural economic engine to continue generating trillions of dollars? How about 0.27 percent of the Federal budget? That is what this bill's commodity title costs. By the way, this bill's safety net is based on the structure of the 2002 farm bill that costs $20 billion less than expected.

From a jobs perspective, this bill is a bargain, and from a commodity payment reform perspective, this bill is historic. I firmly believe we should

eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in farm programs and try to get the Ted Turners of the world out of the commodity payment business. At the end of the day, no bill is perfect, but this bill is something we can be proud of.

This bill will prevent payments from going to nonfarmers with an adjusted gross income over $500,000, an 80-percent reduction from current law; repeal the triple-entity rule, reducing title I benefits by 50 percent for some producers. We require direct attribution of all benefits to natural persons so we know exactly where it is going--100 percent transparency. We explicitly prevent farm benefits from ever going to a deceased person. There are other reforms. I could go on and on.

I read a headline the other day: ``Fiscal Hawks Eye Farm Bill.'' They should, because this is a fiscally responsible piece of legislation that delivers big bang for the buck.

When I talked with my farmers, again, they told me the 2002 farm bill had the right safety net, it just needed to be improved. And in this conference report, that is what we do. Building on the existing safety net, the bill updates target prices and marketing loan rates for key Minnesota commodities such as wheat, barley, and soybeans. For sugar beet farmers who have been waiting 15 years for updated loan rates, there will finally be an increase. Minnesota's dairy farmers will be relieved to hear the payment rate for the MILC Program will return to 45 percent. I have appreciated Senator Leahy's leadership on this issue.

In addition to tweaking the current safety net, this farm bill also creates entirely new programs that American farmers desperately need. One I have talked about: permanent agriculture disaster assistance. The other is about sugar to ethanol. I take great pride in the sugar-to- ethanol provision in this bill. This was a proposal that was once met with indignation when I first raised it a few years ago. Even some folks in Minnesota sugar country said it couldn't be done. But I believed then as I believe now--and clearly the conference report lays this out--that it only makes sense to take excess sugar from trade agreements, get it off the market, and use it to help address our dependence on foreign oil. I saw what Brazil was achieving with oil independence, largely as a result of the production of sugar ethanol. The technology for sugar ethanol isn't out of reach. It is at our fingertips. U.S. sugar producers now share this vision and when this sugar ethanol program is implemented, we will be able to quickly add more diversity to our economic food stocks. We have to end our dependence on foreign oil. We have to stop sending billions of dollars out of this country into the pockets of thugs and tyrants, such as Ahmadinejad and Chavez, and we need to do it again with the renewables being a part of it. This bill does it.

The renewable energy vision doesn't stop there. It looks to the future by paving the way for the next generation of biofuels: cellulosic ethanol. Included in this bill is a program I have supported to promote the production, harvesting, and processing of biomass. The bill's biomass loan program will prioritize local ownership--local ownership--so it is not the fat cats on Wall Street, as some say, but it is folks in our local communities who will benefit from America's energy independence movement, which is renewables, which is biofuels.

On the tax side, there will be a $1 production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol. All in all, this bill provides $1.2 billion in new energy investment.

This conference report is a real victory for Americans fighting hunger and working to feed the Nation, but it is also a victory for bipartisanship. I wish to thank the chairman, Senator Harkin, Senator Conrad, and Senator Baucus for committing to a bipartisan process from the very start and working with me throughout this process. It has been a pleasure to sit across from them and my colleague, Senator Chambliss, and I appreciate the work they have done to produce something this Nation needs right now.

I am disappointed the President intends to veto this bill. If he does that, that is a mistake. I will work hard with my colleagues to override that veto. This country needs this farm bill. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this bill.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) would vote ``yea.''

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 2008 farm bill. I thank the chairman, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia for their leadership on this bill.

This is, on balance, a good bill, but it could be better. In particular, I am concerned that we were not more aggressive in making sure that the commodity program payments are targeted and justified. At a time when millions of middle-class Americans are struggling to keep up with higher gas prices, grocery bills, and health care costs, the Federal Government should not be in the business of sending checks to millionaire land owners.

Currently, most full-time farmers are eligible for farm subsidies regardless of income. Many of my colleagues and I began this process hoping that Congress would change this situation in the farm bill. Unfortunately, the conference agreement rejected all farmer income tests for the countercyclical and marketing loan subsidy programs and includes only a weak net income cap for direct payments: $750,000 for single farmers and $1.5 million for married farmers after all business deductions.

The conference report also waives payment limits for the Marketing Loan Program. The current cap is $75,000. Millionaire land owners are now eligible for unlimited LDP payments without any income test.

In addition, the bill puts in place provisions that shield our domestic sugar program from all international competition. Sugar growers secured an increase in price supports and a guarantee of 85 percent of the domestic sugar market at these guaranteed prices. This isn't reform and it isn't justified.

I am disappointed with other aspects of the bill as well.

There is less than $100 million in the bill for rural development. Rural communities are aching for water and wastewater infrastructure, high speed telecommunications, and financing for business development. This bill underfunds that key priority. In conference, a program designed to improve broadband deployment by providing cost-share assistance to statewide nonprofits was removed. This was a missed opportunity to improve access to broadband in rural areas at a time when the United States is falling farther and farther behind in this key area.

The bill provides marginal funding for agricultural research. The bill provides less than $100 million for the McGovern-Dole School Feeding Program, which uses U.S. commodities to feed some of the world's poorest children in schools.

However, the bill makes significant investments in nutrition, conservation, and renewable energy programs. It creates a forward- thinking revenue-based safety net. The members of the Senate Agriculture Committee can be proud of these components of the package.

The most significant impact of this package may be in the nutrition title.

In Illinois, over 158,000 households experienced hunger in 2005. If we include households that have had to struggle to put food on the table or have had to skip meals to make sure the food would last through the week, it adds up to 500,000 households in Illinois living with food insecurity. These are working families who just are not able to make ends meet.

This farm bill provides $10 billion more over 10 years for domestic nutrition programs that help lower income families put food on the table, including $7.8 billion for the Food Stamp Program, $1.25 billion for the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, and $1 billion for the fresh fruits and vegetables snack program.

In Illinois, over the next 10 years, this bill will provide $373 million in additional funding to help families that haven't been able to outrun hunger.

In the Food Stamp Program, the bill will raise the standard deduction and the minimum benefit and index them for inflation. Nationwide, that helps 11 million low income people, including families with children, seniors, and people with disabilities. The adjustment to the standard deduction will increase benefits for 415,000 Illinois residents, and the minimum benefit increase will boost benefits for 27,000 Illinois recipients.

This farm bill also eliminates the cap on the dependent care deduction and no longer counts retirement accounts and education accounts toward the asset limit.

The conference report helps food banks and soup kitchens meet the growing demand for assistance by increasing funding for commodity purchases for TEFAP--The Emergency Food Assistance Program--by $110 million each year. The bill increases the availability of fruits and vegetables in low-income schools.

And, I am glad to report that this package includes a modified version of the Hunger Free Communities Act, a grant program I have long supported that will help fight hunger in communities. This antihunger grant program is the first program that will encourage communities to work together to identify and address hunger locally.

What we see here is strong bipartisan support to end hunger. Even with a war abroad and budget deficits at home, this Senate made the decision that progress against hunger is possible.

This farm bill makes another important investment, to protect open lands and restore habitat for future generations to enjoy. The USDA administers the largest conservation easement programs and this bill continues and expands those programs.

In Illinois, there are a total of 78,000 contracts statewide and more than 1 million acres in the CRP program, including more than 55,000 acres of wetlands. The Wetlands Reserve Program is aiding in what will become the second largest restoration of wetlands in the United States, in Emiquon in Fulton County, IL.

These open spaces provide important wildlife habitat and recreation benefits and prevent erosion of sensitive ground. The conservation title makes significant investments in the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Security Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.

Unfortunately, a key provision that I originally authored in the 2002 farm bill to prevent over-planting on sensitive land, called Sodsaver, was significantly weakened in conference. These weak protections, combined what can only be called the most generous Commodity Title in history relative to market conditions, provides perverse incentives to overproduce, which will result in the breaking up of sensitive ground.

The investments made in conservation are tempered by the fact that we are missing an opportunity to protect wildlife and native habitats in some of the few areas that have never been farmed in this country.

Another important feature of the bill is that we were able to secure a modified version of a revenue-based safety net that Senator Brown and I originally proposed last summer. The version in the conference report allows farmers to elect to enter into this program starting in 2009 and provides a revenue guarantee to producers in the program depending on market conditions and previous earnings.

It is a good step forward for Illinois producers and for the future structure of our commodity programs. At this time of high prices, the program provides producers a risk-management tool they can really use.

The energy title funds renewable energy technology, particularly focused on next-generation biofuels. These should diversify our energy portfolio and help us lower U.S. dependence on petroleum. America's heartland is poised to become this nation's power plant if we make the right investments in wind, solar, and bioenergy.

The bill provides $230 million for grants and loan guarantees to build and develop next-generation biofuels plants. It provides $250 million in loans and grants for smaller-scale renewable energy projects in rural parts of the country and about $200 million in cellulosic feedstock and harvesting research.

I do think we missed an opportunity to make further reforms, to invest in rural America, and to help address the international food crisis with a strong commitment to McGovern-Dole. But we also made important commitments to nutrition and conservation, and I thank Chairman Harkin and the committee for their work.

I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, this year's farm bill includes many important programs that will benefit Michigan and the Nation as a whole. Few States have Michigan's diversity of agricultural crops, and I am pleased that this farm bill contains a range of measures that will benefit farmers throughout my State. Agriculture is Michigan's second largest industry and this bill will help support this industry at a time when Michigan's economy is struggling.

This bill will provide significant additional assistance to specialty crop growers that has been severely lacking in past farm legislation. Specialty crops are an important part of the agriculture industry and a healthy part of our Nation's food supply. While Michigan is a leading producer of traditional crops, such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, our State is also a leader in the production of specialty crops, such as apples, asparagus, beans, blueberries, and cherries. This farm bill will provide much needed support for the specialty crop community throughout Michigan and that means a more assured supply of U.S. grown fruits and vegetables so important to Americans nutritional needs.

Nutrition programs, such as the Food Stamp Program, provide assistance to children, low-income working families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. This bill includes a significant increase in funding for our Nation's critical food and nutrition programs on which our Nation's least fortunate and most vulnerable rely. In my State of Michigan, over 500,000 households will benefit from increased nutrition assistance, and the bill will also help to alleviate some of the stress local food banks all across Michigan are experiencing at this time.

The farm bill includes measures to improve conservation. These programs, which are aimed at both working lands and lands taken out of production, are intended to protect and improve soil quality, prevent erosion, benefit water quality, and preserve and restore habitats. This legislation expands the Conservation Stewardship Program, CSP, increases funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, and reauthorizes the Conservation Reserve Program, CRP, and Wetlands Reserve Program, WRP, to protect environmentally sensitive lands.

I am pleased that this bill also includes incentives that will encourage continued development of biofuels and increased production of renewable fuels. I have long supported incentives for new technologies that can move us away from our significant reliance on foreign oil, and this bill makes critical investments in alternative energy that will help move us toward that goal.

While this bill includes modest reforms to our current producer protection programs, these reforms do not go far enough. It would have been my hope that this bill would have included more innovative measures, such as farm savings accounts, and additional reforms to our agricultural subsidy programs. I am hopeful that we can work to enact further reforms when Congress next considers farm legislation.

There is another important reason to support the farm bill. It contains a key provision which would finally close the Enron loophole that has contributed for so many years to the problem of rampant speculation in our energy markets. It would close the Enron loophole by requiring government oversight of electronic trading of energy commodities by large traders to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation.

In 2000, at the behest of Enron and others, a provision was slipped into law--section 2(h)(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act--that exempted from oversight and regulation the electronic trading of energy and metal commodities by large traders. This loophole took the cop off the beat in those electronic markets and allowed traders to operate with less supervision and fewer controls than regulated commodity markets like the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX.

Beginning in 2003, my Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI, issued a series of reports exposing how these unregulated markets and their unregulated trades had opened the door to energy price manipulation and excessive speculation. A 2006 subcommittee report, for example, presented evidence that excessive speculation was adding substantially to energy prices, including as much as $20 out of a $70 barrel of crude oil. In 2007, the subcommittee issued a report and held 2 days of hearings showing how excessive speculation in futures contracts by a single hedge fund named ``Amaranth'' on the unregulated markets had increased consumer prices for natural gas. The report showed how Amaranth deliberately avoided trading limits on NYMEX by moving its trades to an unregulated electronic exchange.

Our reports repeatedly recommended legislation to close the Enron loophole, and over several Congresses, I introduced or cosponsored legislation to do just that. In 2007, for example, I introduced S. 2058, the Close the Enron Loophole Act which was endorsed by a wide range of consumer, business, and agricultural groups. In response to this legislation, our reports and hearings, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, suggested its own legislative approach to close the Enron loophole. I then worked with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Snowe, and others to come up with legislation that was acceptable to both sides of the aisle as well as the administration. That legislation was offered as an amendment to the Senate farm bill, and a closely related version of that amendment is now part of the conference report before us today.

The farm bill provisions are designed to put the cop back on the beat in all U.S. commodity markets to protect against price manipulation and excessive speculation. Specifically, the bill provides that any contract that is traded on an electronic trading facility and serves a significant price discovery function is subject to CFTC oversight to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation, just as it is subject to that oversight on regulated markets such as NYMEX.

For each such contract, an electronic trading facility is required to comply with the same key standards--called ``core principles''--that apply to regulated exchanges, like NYMEX, to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation. For example, electronic exchanges are required to list only contracts which are not readily susceptible to manipulation; monitor trading to prevent manipulation and price distortion; establish rules to obtain information from traders and provide it to the CFTC upon request; establish position limits or accountability levels that trigger review of a trader's positions in order to reduce the potential threat of manipulation; possess emergency authority to require traders to reduce positions; publish daily trading information; and enforce trader compliance with its rules.

Essentially, an electronic trading facility will now have to function as a self-regulatory organization under CFTC oversight in the same manner as a regulated futures exchange like NYMEX. The bill gives the CFTC the same oversight and enforcement authority over the electronic exchange with respect to these contracts as it has with respect to a futures exchange. The days of unregulated electronic energy markets are over.

Passage of this critically important legislation is the culmination of many years of work by Senator Feinstein, myself, Senator Snowe, and others, and I thank them for their sustained effort to close the Enron loophole. I also would like to thank Senators Harkin and Chambliss for working with us to include this legislation in the farm bill. In addition, I would like to thank our many friends in the other body who worked diligently to get this legislation done. The legislation to close the Enron loophole is a bipartisan, bicameral success story and the winners are the American people who will gain greater protection against price manipulation and excessive speculation.

This farm bill is a bipartisan piece of legislation which includes many programs that are beneficial to Michigan. While this bill is not perfect, I believe the combination of improved assistance for specialty crops, enhanced conservation spending, increased funding for nutrition programs, investment in renewable energy programs, and the provisions closing the Enron loophole which are included in this bill are worthy of support. I am pleased we are finally able to send a farm bill to the President's desk that will benefit our Nation's farmers and rural communities, and I urge the President to sign this bill into law.

Mr. President, I wish today to speak about the farm bill conference report. Without a doubt, our Nation's rural communities are in need of a new national agricultural policy. Since the last farm bill was passed in 2002, there have been substantial changes in agriculture and this bill is needed to keep American farmers and ranchers on track during a time of growing demand on our food system. In recent weeks, I have come to the floor to ask my colleagues to do something about health care, do something about high energy prices, and today I am asking that we do something for our agricultural producers.

When this farm bill passed the Senate in December, it passed with substantial support. Today we are considering a farm bill that reflects that support and takes steps to improve American agriculture. That being said, for many agricultural producers this farm bill is coming months late and dollars over budget. The opportunity to consider a farm bill is rarer than an October harvest moon and lawmakers must take special care to ensure that the seeds we sow today will reap a bountiful harvest tomorrow. I wish to make the point that addressing the needs of both producers and consumers goes beyond the language of this farm bill. Successful farm policy begins with lower energy costs, affordable health care, and competitive domestic and foreign markets.

As the Senate considers this farm bill, the question that should be on all our minds is at what cost does this farm policy come to our producers, our consumers, and our country. This conference report comes to the floor at a time when U.S. farm income is expected to reach an all-time high of $92.3 billion. It is true that our Nation's producers are facing higher costs to fill their tanks, fertilize their fields, feed their livestock and pay for their health care. However, this farm bill does not go far enough to cut the subsidies handed out to the wealthiest of farmers. I supported and applauded the efforts of my colleagues when the Senate considered amendments to the farm bill in December to limit these payments. Family farms are the backbone of American agriculture and the farm safety net should only be extended to only those who are in the most need, not to those making nearly $750,000 a year. This farm bill balloons to nearly $300 billion because the conference report makes only modest cuts to the largest payments. There is nothing wrong with helping our farmers guarantee a safe and secure food supply, but that assistance does not deserve to go to farmers who fashion diamond studded coveralls and golden pitchforks.

It is not just a financial travesty that these payoffs to agribusiness are in the bill, it is a policy travesty because this farm bill does have some very good policy contained within its pages. Many of these provisions I have worked to pass for a long time, but like gophers in the garden, these payments to millionaires have ruined a good product.

I support provisions that were included in the farm bill that help livestock producers and come at no expense to the U.S. Treasury. For the first time, the farm bill contains a livestock title to promote competition and fairness in our agricultural markets. In the past, I labeled the farm bill as, ``Do No Harm, Do No Good'' for ranchers across this country. I said this because the farm bill never addressed the needs of hard-working independent livestock producers like those found in Wyoming. Well this farm bill includes something I have been working on since I came to the Senate 11 years ago and that is language to implement mandatory country of origin labeling, often referred to as COOL. COOL provides consumers with important information about the source of food and allows our livestock producers, who hands down produce the highest quality meats in the world, to remain competitive in a growing global market. No more excuses, no more foot dragging, the time is hot for COOL.

The livestock title also contains provisions that will improve the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act by making market information easily accessible online and will improve the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act by requiring the USDA to report annually on its investigations into violations. All important provisions for livestock producers who simply wish to have a fair and competitive market for their animals. I was disappointed to see that the conference committee left out an important provision that was passed by the Senate last year, just as it did in 2002. The ban on packer ownership was an important step in ensuring that independent livestock producers have access to markets in light of growing consolidation among meat packers. Finally, I would like to address language in the livestock title that promotes the ability for local ranchers to market their product across State lines when processed at State-inspected plants. The interstate meat inspection language is critical for the small mom-and-pop processing plants who meet Federal standards but cannot afford to pay for a full-time Federal inspector. These facilities, that already meet rigorous state inspection standards, will now be able to sell specialized products across State lines and ultimately help producers find value-added marketing opportunities for their livestock.

For Wyoming and a number of other Western States, another provision in this bill that costs little but yields significant results, is this Nation's investment in animal health programs. I was pleased to see language that makes brucellosis a high-priority research initiative in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and clarifications for the Animal Health and Disease Research Program that provides vital applied animal research to producers on the ground.

For conservation, this bill makes significant improvements to the incentives and financial assistance offered to land owners who use the Environmental Quality Incentives and Conservation Reserve programs. I am especially pleased to see that the CRP program offers additional assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers since we all know that one of the greatest challenges to the future of agriculture is attracting young people into the industry.

There are some positive changes made in the farm bill, but the conference report clearly lacks alternatives and only makes small steps to improve the condition of agricultural producers across our country. One alternative that I would like to present to my colleagues is to continue promoting new markets for American agricultural products through trade overseas and develop better markets domestically by promoting fair and competitive markets for our livestock producers. In addition to these steps, there are scores of things this Congress can do today to ease the burden on rural America that cannot be solved in farm legislation. The Senate should take action to address the cost of rising energy costs and more importantly reduce the cost of health care for Americans. For the past several months, I have come to the Senate floor to speak about my 10 steps to transform health care in America and policies to lower energy prices by increasing supply and developing domestic sources of production. All of these things being said, this country desperately needs a new agricultural policy, and I hope that we will not stop merely with this farm bill. Sound farm policy goes beyond commodity payments and nutrition programs. It begins with providing the men and women sitting in the saddle with affordable energy, affordable health care, and fair and competitive markets to sell their products.