Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act

Mr. President, today I am offering a measure which could serve as a first step towards eliminating the inequities borne by the dairy farmers of Wisconsin and the upper Midwest under the Federal Milk Marketing Order system.

The Federal Milk Marketing Order system, created nearly 60 years ago, establishes minimum prices for milk paid to producers throughout various marketing areas in the U.S. For 60 years, this system has discriminated against producers in the Upper Midwest by awarding a higher price to dairy farmers in proportion to the distance of their farms from areas of high milk production, which historically have been the region around Eau Claire, WI.

My legislation is very simple. It identifies the single most harmful and unjust feature of the current system, and corrects it. Under the current archaic law, the price farmers receive for fluid milk is higher the further they are from the Eau Claire region of the Upper Midwest. This provision originally was intended to guarantee the supply of fresh milk from the high production areas to distant markets in an age of difficult transportation and limited refrigeration. But the situation has long since changed and the provision persists to the detriment of the Wisconsin farmers even though most local milk markets do not receive any milk from Wisconsin.

The bill I introduce today would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from using distance or transportation costs from any location as the basis for pricing milk, unless significant quantities of milk are actually transported from that location into the recipient market. The Secretary will have to comply with the statutory requirement that supply and demand factors be considered as specified in the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act when setting milk prices in marketing orders. The fact remains that single-basing-point pricing simply cannot be justified based on supply and demand for milk both in local and national markets and the changing pattern of U.S. milk production.

This bill also requires the Secretary to report to Congress on specifically which criteria are used to set milk prices. Finally, the Secretary will have to certify to Congress that the criteria used by the Department do not in any way attempt to circumvent the prohibition on using distance or transportation cost as basis for pricing milk.

This one change is vitally important to Upper Midwest producers, because the current system has penalized them for many years. The current system is a double whammy to Upper Midwest dairy farmers--it both provides disparate profits for producers in other parts of the country and creates artificial economic incentives for milk production. As a result, Wisconsin producers have seen national surpluses rise, and milk prices fall. Rather than providing adequate supplies of fluid milk, the prices often lead to excess production.

The prices have provided production incentives beyond those needed to ensure a local supply of fluid milk in some regions, leading to an increase in manufactured products in those marketing orders. Those manufactured products directly compete with Wisconsin's processed products, eroding our markets and driving national prices down.

The perverse nature of this system is further illustrated by the fact that since 1995, some regions of the U.S., notably the central States and the Southwest, are producing so much milk that they are actually shipping fluid milk north to the Upper Midwest. The high fluid milk prices have generated so much excess production that these markets distant from Eau Claire are now encroaching upon not only our manufactured markets, but also our markets for fluid milk, further eroding prices in Wisconsin.

The market-distorting effects of the fluid price differentials in Federal orders are shown by a previous Congressional Budget Office analysis that estimated that the elimination of orders would save $669 million over five years. Government outlays would fall, CBO concluded, because production would fall in response to lower milk prices and there would be fewer government purchases of surplus milk. The regions that would gain and lose in this scenario illustrate the discrimination inherent to the current system. Economic analyses showed that farm revenues in a market undisturbed by Federal orders would actually increase in the Upper Midwest and fall in most other milk-producing regions.

While this system has been around since 1937, the practice of basing fluid milk price differentials on the distance from Eau Claire was formalized in the 1960's, when the Upper Midwest arguably was the primary reserve for additional supplies of milk. The idea was to encourage local supplies of fluid milk in areas of the country that did not traditionally produce enough fluid milk to meet their own needs.

That is no longer the case. The Upper Midwest is no longer the primary source of reserve supplies of milk. Unfortunately, the prices didn't adjust with changing economic conditions, most notably the shift of the dairy industry away from the Upper Midwest and towards the Southwest, and specifically California, which now leads the Nation in milk production.

The result of this antiquated system has been a decline in the Upper Midwest dairy industry, not because it can't produce a product that can compete in the marketplace, but because the system discriminates against it. Over the past few years Wisconsin has lost dairy farmers at a rate of more than 5 per day. The Upper Midwest, with the lowest fluid milk prices, is shrinking as a dairy region despite the dairy-friendly climate of the region. Some other regions with higher fluid milk prices are growing rapidly.

While the distance provision is a longstanding inequity, a recent proposal threatens to heap additional inequities on top of the current distance provision. A new proposal has been made asking the USDA to change the pricing formulas by decoupling fluid milk, Class I and II, price and the price for milk used in dairy products, Class III and IV, along with increasing the support for fluid milk. This would advantage areas with high fluid milk utilization by providing them a relatively higher price and disadvantage areas like Wisconsin where cheese-making is also a major use for milk. This price signal would likely then cause over-production in these regions, eventually driving down the price for milk used in dairy products and the price received by Wisconsin's dairy farmers.

On top of this double-threat is a third negative impact. Decoupling the fluid milk price will undercut the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) safety net in Wisconsin because the trigger price for counter-cyclical support is based on Class I price in Boston. A higher fluid milk price will mean the MILC safety net is less effective, especially for regions that depend on the now decoupled class II and IV price like Wisconsin. It is very conceivable that this new proposal would allow the Class III and IV price to plummet while the Class I price remains above the trigger, eliminating the MILC safety net's usefulness for Wisconsin family dairy farmers.

I joined with Senator Kohl and Representative Obey in sending a letter expressing these concerns to Secretary Johanns last month. In this letter we urge the USDA to reject this proposal which would amount to further unfair treatment in the federal regulations for Wisconsin's hard-working dairy farmers.

In a free market with a level playing field, these shifts in production might be acceptable. But in a market where the government is setting the prices and providing that artificial advantage to regions outside the Upper Midwest, the current system is unconscionable.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and bring reform to this outdated

system, eliminate the inequities in the current milk marketing order pricing system and reject proposals to add further inequity into the system.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a measure that will begin to restore democracy for dairy farmers throughout the Nation.

When dairy farmers across the country supposedly voted on a referendum eight years ago to consolidate and modernize the order system, perhaps the most significant change in dairy policy in sixty years, they didn't actually get to vote. Instead, their dairy marketing cooperatives cast their votes for them.

This procedure is called ``bloc voting'' and it is used all the time. Basically, a Cooperative's Board of Directors decides that, in the interest of time, bloc voting will be implemented for that particular vote. It may serve the interest of time, but it doesn't always serve the interests of their producer owner-members.

While I think that bloc voting can be a useful tool in some circumstances, I have serious concerns about its use in every circumstance. Farmers in Wisconsin and in other States tell me that they do not agree with their cooperative's view on every vote. Yet, they have no way to preserve their right to make their single vote count.

I have learned from farmers and officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that if a cooperative bloc votes, individual members have no opportunity to voice opinions separately. That seems unfair when you consider what significant issues may be at stake. Coops and their individual members do not always have identical interests. Considering our Nation's longstanding commitment to freedom of expression, our Federal rules should allow farmers to express a differing opinion from their coops, if they choose to.

The Democracy for Dairy Producers Act of 2007 is simple and fair. It provides that a cooperative cannot deny any of its members a ballot to opt to vote separately from the coop.

This will in no way slow down the process at USDA; implementation of any rule or regulation would proceed on schedule. Also, I do not expect that this would often change the final outcome of any given vote. Coops could still cast votes for their members who do not exercise their right to vote individually. And to the extent that coops represent farmers' interests, in the majority of cases farmers are likely to vote the same as their coops. But whether they join the coops or not in voting for or against a measure, farmers deserve the right to vote according to their own views.

I urge my colleagues to return the democratic process to America's farmers, by supporting the Democracy for Dairy Producers Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the Quality Cheese Act of 2005. This legislation will protect the consumer, save taxpayer dollars and provide support to America's dairy farmers, who have experienced a roller-coaster in prices over the past few years.

When Wisconsin consumers have the choice, they will choose natural Wisconsin cheese. But in the past some in the food industry have pushed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change current law, which would leave consumers not knowing whether cheese is really all natural or not.

If the Federal Government creates a loophole for imitation cheese ingredients to be used in U.S. cheese vats, some cheese labels saying ``domestic'' and ``natural'' will no longer be truly accurate.

If USDA and FDA allow a change in Federal rules, milk substitutes such as milk protein concentrate, casein, or dry ultra filtered milk could be used to make cheese in place of the wholesome natural milk produced by cows in Wisconsin or other parts of the U.S.

I was deeply concerned by these efforts a few years ago to change America's natural cheese standard. Efforts to allow milk protein concentrate and casein into natural cheese products fly in the face of logic and could create a loophole that would allow unlimited amounts of imported milk proteins of unknown quality to enter U.S. cheese vats.

While the industry proposal was withdrawn, my legislation would permanently prevent a similar back-door attempt to allow imitation milk as a cheese ingredient and ensure that consumers could be confident that they were buying natural cheese when they saw the natural label.

Over the past decade, cheese consumption has risen at a strong pace due in part to promotional and marketing efforts and investments by

dairy farmers across the country. Year after year, per capita cheese consumption has risen at a steady rate.

These proposals to change our natural cheese standards, however, could decrease consumption of natural cheese by raising concerns about the origin of casein and milk protein concentrate. Use of such products could significantly tarnish the wholesome reputation of natural cheese in the eyes of the consumer and have unknown effects on quality and flavor.

This change could seriously compromise decades of work by America's dairy farmers to build up domestic cheese consumption levels. It is simply not fair to America's farmers or to consumers. After all, consumers have a right to know if the cheese that they buy is unnatural. And by allowing milk protein concentrate milk into supposedly natural cheese, we would be denying consumers the entire picture.

The proposed change to our natural cheese standard would also harm the American taxpayer. If we allow MPCs to be used in cheese, we will effectively permit unrestricted importation of these ingredients into the United States. Because there are no tariffs and quotas on these ingredients, these heavily subsidized products would quickly displace natural domestic dairy ingredients.

These unnatural foreign dairy products would enter our domestic cheese market and could depress dairy prices paid to American dairy producers. Low dairy prices, in turn, could result in increased costs to the dairy price support program as the federal government is forced to buy domestic milk products when they are displaced in the market by cheap imports. So, at the same time that U.S. dairy farmers would receive lower prices, the U.S. taxpayer would pay more for the dairy price support program--and in effect be subsidizing foreign dairy farmers and processors.

This change does not benefit dairy farmers, consumers or taxpayers. Who then is it good for?

It would benefit only the subsidized foreign MPC producers out to make a fast buck by exploiting a system put in place to support our dairy farmers.

This legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, consumers and taxpayers by prohibiting dry ultra-filtered milk, casein, and MPCs from being included in America's natural cheese standard.

Congress must shut the door on any backdoor efforts to undermine America's dairy farmers. I urge my colleagues to pass my legislation and prevent a loophole that would allow changes that hurt the consumer, taxpayer, and dairy farmer.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I laid out my vision for the legislation I introduce today, the Rural Opportunities Act of 2007, in an opinion piece that was published in the La Crosse Tribune at the end of last year. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record after my statement.

My bill is a four part plan to increase opportunities for rural America. Despite its breadth, the bill is not meant to address all of the challenges facing farms, other working lands and rural communities. I know from the listening sessions that I hold across Wisconsin about the many challenges facing those communities, such as lack of access to affordable healthcare, threats from unfair competition abroad and at home and even misguided Federal policies such as the dairy pricing system that provides higher prices based on how far your farm is from Wisconsin. I will continue working to address these and other challenges. My current bill focuses on the future, by identifying and encouraging potential benefits for rural areas.

The first section of the Rural Opportunities Act of 2007 tries to fulfill the potential of bioenergy and the broader bioeconomy to be a value-added enterprise for farmers and communities by encouraging sustainable development with an emphasis on local, farmer and cooperative ownership. The second theme supports both the development of the next generation of farmers and other rural professionals and the areas of agricultural growth such as organic production that provide viable long-term models for family farms. In an exciting win/win situation, the third main section of my bill strives to improve both farmers' income and access to healthy foods by supporting local food systems. The final section, while less focused directly on working lands, would establish the goal of providing affordable broadband access to rural and other underserved areas. Moreover, my proposal doesn't pass any extra costs on to the next generation, but is offset by reducing the payment limits for the largest corporate farms and transferring funds from other unobligated balances within USDA. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these common sense goals.

I will now explain both the details of my proposal and how I have modeled the proposal after programs that I have seen working in Wisconsin. My goal is to both boost resources for these programs and, where appropriate, establish partnerships to fulfill common goals and direction--ultimately encouraging similar opportunities across all of rural America.

Most of the incentives and support for the development of bioenergy and other bioproducts, or the bioeconomy, has been at the macro scale. I have supported these efforts, including the renewable fuels standard and broad goals such as providing 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025 and increasing our long-term security by becoming more energy independent. But I saw a gap in the amount of support at the local and regional level, especially with regard to making sure the bioeconomy develops properly.

There is a lot of excitement in rural America about the bioeconomy and potential for renewable fuel production especially to be the driver of a rural renaissance. But there is also concern, because while this potential is definitely there, it is still unclear how it will develop and whether the potential benefits to farmers, rural communities and even the environment will be fulfilled. This concern seems well founded, as these macro level incentives may fall short, perhaps opening up a new market for corn and driving more farms toward intensive corn production, but doing little to add value at the local or regional level especially if large agribusinesses take over.

From an environmental standpoint there is also this combination of risk and opportunity. Cellulosic ethanol produced from biomass has the potential to allow for the development of less intensive perennial systems especially on environmentally sensitive land, where the continuous cover would benefit the soil and water quality. But if the only incentive is to maximize bushels and dollars or remove too much biomass, environmental damage could clearly occur. For example, land that is not well suited for corn production such as that on steep slopes could be returned to production or taken out of pasture and put in corn production. Or where farmers have shifted to no-till corn production, the corn plant residue that now feeds the soil could be diverted to biomass for cellulosic ethanol. While these risks exist, there are also abundant win-win opportunities for farmers in following a sustainable approach. For example, the Wisconsin Farmers Union is leading efforts to establish a carbon credit program so the improved soil qualities also mean a return to the farmer.

Taking these risks and opportunities into account, it seemed that more needed to be done to make sure that the development of the bioeconomy occurred in the best way to maximize the value to the public through an emphasis on sustainable local and regional research, extension and development. This emphasis isn't to say that conventional grain production and large agribusinesses don't belong, just that there needs to be balance. While many individuals have begun working to fulfill this potential in Wisconsin, there seems to be a gap at the Federal level. This is the gap my proposal aims to close both through some new initiatives and boosting and better focusing existing Federal programs.

My sustainable local bioeconomy proposal has six main parts, starting with $30 million per year in matching funds to support implementation of collaborative State-based plans. States would be required to prepare a comprehensive energy plan and support the implementation of the plan through matching funds for research, extension, energy conservation, technical assistance and direct support. When developing the plan, a State would need to consider ways to encourage the development so as to best support the local communities and protect or even enhance the environment, with an emphasis in local, farmer and cooperative ownership of the new enterprises. Wisconsin has already taken significant steps in this regard, starting with the Governor's Consortium on Biobased Industry and Biobased Industry Opportunity (BIO) grant program. In the Governor's recent State of the State address, he has proposed to go even further building on these initial efforts. My proposal would allow the Federal Government to be a partner with him and every other State.

While charting the course of development of the bioeconomy should occur at a State and local level, research questions are often of regional or even national importance. That is why my bill provides $20 million per year for regional research, extension and education. These multi-state partnerships would follow the existing USDA research and extension divisions. Specific projects would be determined by a regional board with broad representation from each State, the region's extension service, agriculture experiment stations, agriculture secretaries, farmers, foresters, businesses, cooperatives and non- profits. This cooperative regional effort will bring together the resources to make sure these new agricultural and forestry systems can be evaluated holistically at a landscape scale. Independent of my proposal, I understand there is a discussion ongoing to develop a similar partnership within the north central region which includes Wisconsin. My bill is specifically designed to allow existing or future consortiums

to coordinate or even become the regional body supporting these research and extension activities.

While there has been significant focus on agriculture as the means of developing the bioeconomy and biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel especially, our forestlands can contribute significantly as well. While States and regions will likely include forestry components in their state energy and regional research and extension, my bill also provides $10 million per year to support a pair of specific agroforestry pilot programs. The first would evaluate whether there needs to be a support mechanism for landowners during the establishment phase of a woody biomass system which can often take up to a decade to develop, though it may be the best long-term use of the land both for biofuel production and for the environment. The second project would assist in the development of at least one commercial scale cellulosic ethanol production facility using woody biomass as a feedstock. While I expect other regions with significant forestry resources to participate as well, with the Forest Products Lab in Wisconsin and the Governor recently proposing support for forestry-based cellulosic ethanol, Wisconsin is well positioned to be a leader in this area.

The Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements program, also known as Section 9006 of the 2002 Farm Bill, provides grants to farmers and ranchers to establish a wide range of wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and conservation technologies on their farms. This direct support is important, which is why I propose a significant increase in funding to $40m per year so farmers can do their part in this larger effort for energy independence farm by farm.

Another existing federal program that has been beneficial is the Value-added Production Grant (VAPG) program. These grants broadly assist farmers and ranchers in developing projects that help them retain more value from their crops and products, including many bioenergy projects. I propose providing an increase to $60m per year and shifting the funding to mandatory spending because this program is so important in allowing farmers to be entrepreneurs and plan their own future. Specifically for the bioeconomy, I require that at least 10% of these funds be directed toward projects relating to bioenergy or biobased products.

Without the fundamental knowledge on how to convert biomass into other products such as fuel and the applied research on how to best implement this technology, the development of the bioeconomy may be limited. For this reason, I propose to double the spending within the USDA's National Research Initiative that is dedicated toward the development of the next generation of technology, including cellulosic ethanol. The institutions of higher education in Wisconsin are ready to assist in this task and often work together or regionally toward this goal. For example, The University of Wisconsin--Madison and Michigan State University have recently submitted a proposal to establish a Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center supported by the Department of Energy. It will take this type of collaboration and involvement of multiple Federal, State and local entities to fulfill the potential of the bioeconomy for increasing-our national security and hopefully at the same time spurring a rural renaissance.

Finally, but still very important, we need to assess whether our current incentives for bioenergy production and utilization are performing as intended and having no negative side-effects. There is some concern that the current incentives may not be adequately reaching consumers and farmers. My bill requires the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to evaluate whether the current incentives are the most effective ways to encourage the production and use of bioenergy. I especially ask them to assess whether there are better ways to support local ownership and the local and regional benefits to communities, while preventing excessive payments.

There are many very positive efforts ongoing in Wisconsin to support the development of the next generation of farmers and ranchers and to provide viable models such as organic production for these new producers, which also benefit existing small and medium-sized farmers who are looking for other options. Like the sustainable local bioeconomy highlighted in the first section of my bill, I have designed my proposal so these positive projects in Wisconsin are supported and become the models for other states that may not be as far along.

There is a very strong Federal, State, university and non-profit involvement in supporting the future of farming in Wisconsin. It is heartening to see so many different groups and interests coming together to work together to support this common goal. I just wanted to highlight a few examples of many that make me proud.

From the Federal side, Wisconsin's State office of the USDA's Farm Service Agency leads the Nation or is the top five States for various loans provided to beginning farmers. Fully 37 percent of the loans in Wisconsin go to beginning farmers, a testament to the dedication of the State's FSA office.

The University of Wisconsin's Center of Integrated Agricultural Systems, (CIAS), continues to be both a leader in innovative ideas and research, but also in putting that knowledge to work for Wisconsin. To pick just one of many great projects, the School for Beginning Livestock and Dairy Farmers provides both the knowledge and the mentoring and support network to help beginning farmers get off the ground. I have followed CIAS' development and actions since my time in the Wisconsin State Senate, and always appreciate their approach.

The future of Wisconsin's agriculture and rural communities has even been the focus of a project at the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. The Future of Farming and Rural Life project has been going around the state holding forums on this important topic and I look forward to their recommendations. I think they have been hearing a lot of the same sort of comments I hear at listening sessions in rural areas.

Organic production, especially dairy production in southwest Wisconsin, has been a bright light in that comer of the State. The growth of this production and--potential for more growth shows a need for more significant Federal support in the Farm Bill. But in the meantime, the farmer-owned Organic Valley cooperative and groups such as the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service, MOSES, are providing invaluable support for the revitalization of small dairy farming in the area.

The concept of cooperatives is very important in Wisconsin and often provides support for these developing models of agriculture. For example, the Edelweiss Graziers Cooperative in Dane and Green Counties was recently established with technical assistance of the Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives. This effort combines managed grazing and cheese making from this grass-fed milk to support both the cooperative's members and the local economy.

In addition to supporting important projects, my proposal also improves on existing Federal programs. The first element of this section is $30 million per year in funding for State-based collaborations to plan for and support beginning farmers, ranchers and other rural professionals. Specifically these State plans and projects should support, encourage the development of and reduce barriers for the next generation of farmers, ranchers and other important rural professions such as foresters. States would have flexibility to determine where to spend the funds, but required to take a broad approach that incorporates extension, public colleges, State agriculture agencies, non-profits, private-public partnerships and direct aid to support the farmers with tuition and capital.

The second main portion of the future of farming section of my bill would fund an important Federal effort from the 2002 Farm bill, which unfortunately has never been funded. My bill provides $20 million per year in competitive grants for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, BFRDP. These funds would be mandatory to make it more likely the program was funded. The BFRDP funds initiatives directed at new farming opportunities in the areas of education, extension, outreach, and technical assistance. The program is targeted especially to collaborative local, State, and regionally based networks and partnerships.

The third main element of my future of farming proposal seeks to evaluate and improve existing Federal programs. This includes directing the USDA to provide additional support for the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers to allow for increased meetings and outreach activities. It also proposes that this committee work with the USDA Secretary to oversee a series of pilot projects, which would use $10 million per year to find ways to better support the credit and capital needs of beginning farmers and ranchers. Also along these lines, the GAO would conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of tax incentives, contract guarantees and other measures that could be used to support and encourage the transfer of land from retiring farmers to beginning farmers. Finally, my bill supports the bonus cost- share provided in conservation programs and highlights the importance of stewardship through the Conservation Security Program for beginning farmers as part of a broader review to ensure that all USDA farm assistance and conservation activities are accessible and useful for beginning farmers and ranchers.

Two exciting growth areas in agriculture have been the development of more sustainable agricultural systems and organic production, often driven by consumers' desire to be more responsible. This increased support includes more than doubling the authorized funding for Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, ATTRA, to $5 million per year and for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, SARE, program to $120 million per year. The boost for SARE would also include a dedicated mandatory fund of $20 million per-year for the Federal-State matching grant program.

Organic agriculture has had the greatest growth in the past decade of any segment of agriculture. The funding for research, extension, technical assistance and direct aid to organic producers has not kept up. So my bill would provide significant increases for several existing organic programs and propose one new program. More specifically, existing research, extension and education programs would receive $15 million per year and $25 million in additional certification cost-share funds would be made available. A new $50 million per year program to assist with the conversion to organic production and encourage conservation practices on the farms is also included. Since the integrity of the organic label is critical to the success of these efforts and there have been recent concerns about problems in this area, an annual report would also be required on USDA's activities to enforce proper use of the organic label and protect the integrity of the program.

Finally, no proposal on the future of farming would be complete without recognizing the need to foster more diversity within the farm community. My proposal would quadruple the current funding for outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers by providing $25 million per year in mandatory funds. This also includes an added emphasis on encouraging the development of new farmers from these communities by requiring the USDA to periodically report to Congress on their efforts.

Local markets and especially food systems benefit farmers economically and consumers through access to food that is often fresher, riper, better tasting and more nutritious. Farmers benefit both by cutting out the middlemen and through differentiating their products to often get a premium price. My bill supports these local opportunities in several ways including giving local institutions more flexibility to preferentially select local products, providing additional funding and areas of emphasis for existing farmers markets, farm-to-cafeteria and value-added grants. A special emphasis of many of the programs my bill supports is to provide healthier food to schools and low-income populations that might not otherwise have access to local fresh produce.

More specifically, my bill allows local preference in procurement of fruits and vegetables by federally supported programs. The current procurement rules are often interpreted to prevent this local geographic preference, so I would clarify the food procurement rules for USDA and Department of Defense programs that support schools nutrition programs and other produce procurement, e.g., commissaries, to allow agencies to give a preference to locally produced products. This change would allow these institutions to select local produce which is often better tasting and more nutritious. In order to provide oversight of this modified rule, my proposal would also require any local agency that selects a bid that is more than 10 percent higher than the lowest bid to report this to the Federal agency for possible further review to help ensure the integrity of the system.

The Farm-to-Cafeteria program or, as it is also known, the Access to Local Food and School Gardens, was part of the Child Nutrition reauthorization. Unfortunately it has never been funded, but it would support projects like Madison's Homegrown Lunch that link local farmers to the cafeteria and often classroom as the students learn more about where their food comes from. My proposal dedicates $10 million per year in mandatory funding toward this important program.

There are two important programs that let low-income individuals access healthy local fruit and vegetables at farmers markets which my proposal supports. The Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Program would be increased to $25 million per year to provide more vouchers to low- income seniors. Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee helps distribute these voucher and reports that it is extremely popular and could be expanded. A similar program, the WIC Farmers Market Supplemental Nutrition Program, provides similar vouchers to low-income mothers, infants and children and would be increased to $30 million per year.

The proposal also supports farmers markets directly as well and increases the funding for the Farmers Market Promotion Program to $20 million per year. This program provides grants to assist with the development of new farmers markets and also helps farmers markets improve their services by doing things like installing EBT readers to accept Food Stamps.

The Value-Added Producer Grants, VAPG, program supports a variety of farmer-based enterprises including support for local food systems. My bill already increased the funding for this program to $60 million per year and would also require that 30 percent of the VAPGs go to support local food, bioenergy and bioproducts. In addition, half of these funds would be dedicated to supporting mid-sized value-added chains, which establish ways for mid-sized farmers to differentiate their products and work with distributors and retailers along a supply chain. Many believe these mid-sized value-added chains are the key to accessing regional markets and expanding local food systems. There are several examples in Wisconsin of farmers and cheesemakers working together to establish this sort of relationship and value chain in producing specialty cheeses.

My proposal builds on the recommendations from the Community Food Security Coalition to expand the current Community Food Projects Competitive Grants by providing $60.5 million per year. Community food projects fight food insecurity by increasing the access of low-income people to fresher, more nutritious food supplies along with projects that increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs.

Numerous studies have shown that rural areas lag behind their urban and suburban counterparts in access to broadband Internet services. The United States is losing ground to other nations in broadband availability. For example in 2001, the United States ranked 4th out of nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD. The United States now ranks 12th.

From my trips to rural areas of Wisconsin, I can attest that broadband availability is spotty and a concern for local officials and residents. They tell me that the lack of broadband access can limit their opportunities for employment, entertainment, education and communication. There have been several different ways proposed to increase availability of affordable rural broadband. In this legislation, I do not take a specific stand on which solution is best, but I require efforts to better assess the problem and I set forth a

goal for the Senate in solving this problem.

More specifically, the Sense of the Senate finds that given the growing number of opportunities provided by broadband access, the digital divide affecting rural households and other underserved groups should be eliminated within a decade. The ultimate goal should be to provide affordable access to broadband nationwide.

The FCC data on rural broadband availability and affordability is limited in several regards, most importantly by not collecting detailed enough information. The zip-code level data now available does not have a fine enough resolution to fully understand which specific areas lack any affordable access to broadband.

Even several of the FCC Commissioners agree on that point. My proposal requires the FCC to improve this situation to get a better picture of the extent of the problem.

As technology improves and faster data transfer rates become the norm, the FCC should make sure their definition of broadband keeps up. My proposal requires a periodic review of what is standard in the marketplace and an update of the definition as warranted. Without this requirement, the government could potentially end up subsidizing an obsolete service.

The USDA Inspector General found a number of deficiencies within the Rural Utilities Service Broadband Grant and Loan Programs and set forth a series of recommendations in a report in 2005. My bill would require the USDA to update Congress on the progress of these changes so these important programs work efficiently and provide the increased access they are designed to support.

The Universal Service Fund helps ensure that rural areas have affordable access to telecommunications services such as telephone and 911. The program allows for the coverage to be extended to other services such as broadband Internet based on a review of a Federal- State Joint Board. My bill requires a new review by the Joint Board after receiving the updated and improved FCC data since they previously had limited data and have not done such a review in several years.

My proposal is fully offset by reducing payments to the largest farmers, transferring funds from unobligated balances within USDA and reallocating authorized funds that were replaced by mandatory funding in my legislation. This offset, especially the reduced payment limits, is consistent with my longstanding feeling that Federal aid should be directed toward the farmers and communities that need it instead of the largest producers who don't. In fact, I estimate that my proposal could even return a couple hundred million dollars to the treasury over 10 years.

All too often in agriculture we are filling breaches in the safety nets, combating unfair trade, seeking equity in the programs such as the dairy marketing orders, or ensuring the large don't take undue advantage of the small. So it was a welcome change to propose ways to open doors and encourage development for family farmers and rural communities.

I worked with many Wisconsin-based groups and individuals along with others nationally and regionally in developing this legislation. I will work to include my proposals in the upcoming Farm Bill or other legislation.

I would especially like to thank the following groups and individuals who have supported my legislation: Wisconsin Farmers Union; Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; Stan Gruszynski, Director, Rural Leadership and Community Development Program, UW Stevens Point; the Community Food Security Coalition; and the Land Stewardship Project. The National Organic Coalition has also sent me a letter expressing support for the organic sections of my proposal.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letters from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the Land Stewardship Project and the National Organic Coalition be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I send a series of 18 amendments to the desk which have been cleared by myself and the now acting ranking member, Senator Warner, and ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider those amendments en bloc, the amendments be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any specific amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Warner, for that suggestion. This is a good moment to do that before we have a vote later on the bill. Our staffs, as always, put in an amazing amount of time--in the evenings, mornings, over weekends--in order for us to get through hundreds of amendments.

Actually, the Senator is right. I think there were 180 cleared amendments and about 35 amendments that

have been disposed of separately one way or another.

So I do not know if we set a record because my good friend from Virginia probably is the record-holder--and probably more than once. But, I say to the Senator, we are going to try to get to where you have been. We are going to try harder.

With you every time. But when you were chairman and you--

One time each, I think, for 18 days.

But, in any event, I thank our staffs.

I thank my friend for raising this issue.

Mr. President, if I could add one word on that subject, the Senator from Massachusetts is not only about as diligent a Senator as one can imagine, but he has had great success on this particular bill. I do not know how he manages to keep all the balls in the air that he does, including the CHIP program, immigration, and so many other issues. But he has had an extraordinary success on this particular bill, and it is a real tribute to him--this bill--for many reasons.

Mr. President, I wish to rise in support of the pending amendment by Senator Kennedy on public-private competition. Sometimes this amendment is described as the Kennedy-Mikulski or the Mikulski- Kennedy amendment. Both Senators deserve a great deal of credit for their support.

The Department of Defense has allowed its workforce of civilian employees to atrophy to the point of a human capital crisis. Since fiscal year 2000, the number of contractor employees under DOD service contracts has roughly doubled, while the number of DOD civilian employees has remained virtually unchanged. As a result, the Department of Defense has found in area after area--acquisition management, financial management, even security and intelligence--it must now rely upon contractors to perform functions that were formerly performed by Federal employees.

These adverse trends have been exacerbated by an administration that has consistently pushed to have more Federal work performed in the private sector. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget established a goal of subjecting half of the work performed by Federal employees to private sector competition within 4 years. While the administration subsequently backed off of this Government-wide goal, OMB continues to establish agency-specific goals, and to grade agencies on their performance in converting work to private sector performance.

The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would end this artificial effort to drive contracts to the private sector by codifying a commonsense set of rules that govern competition between Federal employees and private contractors.

Some of these rules have already been enacted through appropriations acts in previous Congresses. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would make these rules permanent law. Others have

already been enacted for the DOD. The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would make these provisions Government-wide.

I wish to focus on one provision of the amendment which addresses a fundamental element of fairness in competition between the private and public sectors. OMB circular A-76, which governs public-private competitions, establishes rules for what happens after one side or the other wins a competition. If the private sector wins a competition, the work stays in the private sector forever. If the public sector wins, however, the work must be subject to a new competition within 5 years. Attachment B to OMB circular A-76 specifically states that if the public sector competitor wins a competition, ``an agency shall complete another . . . competition of the activity by the end of the last performance period'' in the performance agreement.

This rule is fundamentally unfair. It also undermines the morale of Federal civilian employees by contributing to the view of civil servants as second-class citizens. At a time when the Department of Defense should be recruiting thousands of new civilian employees to address a human capital crisis, the rule is clearly contrary to the Department's own interests.

The Kennedy-Mikulski amendment would address this problem by stating that OMB may not require the Department of Defense to conduct a new public-private competition within any specified period of time after the public sector wins a competition. That is the right answer. DOD's human capital policies should be driven by the Department's human capital needs--not by arbitrary policies established by the Office of Management and Budget. So I hope our colleagues will support the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate adopted a historic amendment offered by Senators Webb, McCaskill, and others, to establish an independent commission to review the many problems with fraud, waste, and abuse that have arisen in Iraq relative to contracting and to give us recommendations on how we can avoid similar problems in the future. I wish to commend the Senators that were involved in this effort for the leadership they showed in drafting this amendment and getting it adopted by the Senate.

The Department of Defense faces huge problems in its acquisition system today. Over the last few years, we have seen an alarming lack of acquisition planning across the Department; the excessive use of contracts that make open-ended commitments of DOD funds; and a pervasive failure to perform contract oversight and management functions necessary to protect taxpayers' interest. These problems have been particularly acute in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are in no way limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The contracting commission established pursuant to the Webb-McCaskill amendment should help us identify the sources of these problems and provide us with constructive recommendations to avoid similar problems in the future.

In addition to the commission language adopted last week, there are significant acquisition reform measures already in this bill, as it came to the floor, that will make improvements in the DOD acquisition system and to wartime contracting. Taken together, these provisions will make the bill that is now before the Senate, by far, the most significant acquisition reform measure to be considered by Congress since the enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act more than 10 years ago.

For example, section 821 of the bill would require increased competition in large ``umbrella contracts'' awarded by the Department of Defense. The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing in April on the Department of Defense management of the $20 billion so-called LOGCAP contract, under which a company called KBR--until recently, a subsidiary of Halliburton--has provided services to U.S. troops in the field.

Here are some of the things we learned in our hearing:

The company was given work that appears to have far exceeded the scope of the contract; all of this added work was provided to the contractor without competition; the contractor resisted providing us with information that we needed to monitor and control costs; there were almost $2 billion of overcharges on the contract; and the contractor received highly favorable settlements on these overcharges.

When asked why the Army had waited 5 years to split the massive LOGCAP contract among multiple contractors, allowing for greater competition of the work to be performed under the contract, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics gave the following answer: ``I don't have a good answer for you.''

The provision in our bill would avoid the kind of abuses we get in sole-source contracts by ensuring that future contracts of this type provide for the competition of task and delivery orders unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. If our language stays intact, we should never again see the kind of abuses which existed with the Halliburton-KBR umbrella contracts.

Similarly, section 871 of the bill would require tighter regulation and control over private security contractors operating in areas of combat operations. Over the last 4 years, there has been a number of reports of abuses by private security contractors operating in Iraq. There have been allegations, even films, of contractors shooting recklessly at civilians as they drive down the streets of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. Some of these contractors work for the Department of Defense, but many others work for other Federal agencies or for contractors of other Federal agencies.

Most recently, the Iraqi Government has complained about an incident in which employees of Blackwater allegedly opened fire on innocent Iraqis in downtown Baghdad. According to published reports, Blackwater employees shot into a crush of cars, killing at least 11 Iraqis and wounding 12. Blackwater officials insist their guards were ambushed, but witnesses described this shooting as unprovoked, and Iraq's Interior Ministry has concluded that Blackwater was at fault.

Last week, the Washington Post reported that senior military officials are deeply concerned about this shootout and other similar incidents which could undermine our efforts to combat terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. This is what the Washington Post article reported:

``The military is very sensitive to its relationship that

they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely

degraded by actions such as this event''. . . .

``This is a nightmare,'' said a senior U.S. military

official. ``We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was

very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse

than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to

have an impact for the long term''. . . .

In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and

government officials, many expressed . . . concern over the

shootings. . . .

``This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their

hands around yet,'' said another U.S. military official.

``It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held

accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly

care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude,

which means they rarely listen to anyone--even the folks that

patrol the ground on a daily basis.''

``Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later,''

said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to

the September 16 shootings, the officer added, ``None of us

believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their

black eyes.''

``Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of

control,'' said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq.

``They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to

play by the same rules everybody else tries to play by.''

The provision in our bill would address this problem by ensuring that the Department of Defense and its combatant commanders are in a position to regulate the conduct of all armed contractors in the battle space, regardless of whether they are employed under contracts of the Department of Defense or other Federal agencies. Under the provision in our bill, private security contractors employed by any Federal agency or any contractor or subcontractor for a Federal agency would be

required for the first time to comply with DOD rules on the use of force and with orders, directions, and instructions issued by combatant commanders relating to force protection, security, health, safety, or relations and interaction with local nationals.

Other provisions in our bill would provide added protection for contractor employees who blow the whistle on fraud, waste, and abuse. They would require the DOD to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the billions of dollars it spends every year to purchase contract services. Our bill will tighten rules for the acquisition of major weapons systems; ensure that we get fair prices when we purchase spare parts for those weapons systems; enhance competition requirements for products purchased from Federal prison industries; and address abuses of undefinitized contract actions.

The root cause of these and all the other problems that we read and hear so much about, or at least most of the other problems, in the defense acquisition system is our failure to maintain an acquisition workforce with the resources and skills that are needed to manage the Department's acquisition system.

Earlier this year, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, chartered pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004, reported that ``curtailed investments in human capital have produced an acquisition workforce that often lacks the training and resources to function effectively.'' And they went on:

The Federal Government does not have the capacity in its

current acquisition workforce necessary to meet the demands

that have been placed on it.

The failure of Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to adequately fund the acquisition workforce, the panel concluded, is `` `penny-wise and pound-foolish,' as it seriously undermines the pursuit of the good value for the expenditure of public resources.''

Senior DOD officials have recognized the deficiencies in the defense acquisition workforce, but they have been unable to obtain significant funds that are needed to remedy the problem. Section 844 of our bill will address this issue by establishing an acquisition workforce development fund to enable the Department of Defense to increase the size and quality of its acquisition workforce. In the first year, we will provide roughly $500 million for this purpose. It is a large sum of money, but it is a small investment to ensure the proper expenditure of more than $200 billion of taxpayers' money every year.

We look forward to working with the House conferees after we pass our bill, hopefully this evening, to make these important provisions on acquisition reform and the acquisition workforce the law of the land.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, first, let me commend the Senator from Florida. As chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, with his ranking member, the members of that subcommittee have worked through some of the most difficult and thorny issues we faced on this bill this year, and he identified a few of them. He very modestly gives credit to others, but, truly, Senator Nelson deserves most of the credit for working out those very difficult issues on a bipartisan basis.

As a passionate defender of what we should do as a country for the survivors of those men and women we lose in war, I can only assure him we are going to do everything we can possibly do in conference because I assume that had that been brought to a rollcall vote, it would have been unanimous or nearly unanimous on the floor of the Senate. We appreciated his willingness to have that go as part of the managers' package, but for the purpose of that conference, I can assure my dear friend from Florida that there is an assumption on our part that would have been a unanimous or near unanimous vote by the Senate and so, obviously, it is the right thing to do.

I also have a longer statement later--because 5:30 has arrived--about our work as a committee, the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members, and the staff. I will save that statement for after our vote on final passage, which will come immediately after the vote on the Kennedy- Mikulski amendment, but I wanted to add that quick comment.

I thank the Senator for that. The hour of 5:30 has arrived. I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, No. 3109 be withdrawn and that there be 2 minutes of debate at this time prior to a vote in relation to the Kennedy-Mikulski amendment, No. 3058; that no amendment be in order to the amendment; that no further amendments be in order; that the debate time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 3058; that upon disposition of that amendment, the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to and that the Senate then vote on the passage of H.R. 1585; that all other provisions of the previous order relating to H.R. 1585 remain in effect and that on Tuesday, October 2, following a period of morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 353, H.R. 3222, the Defense Department Appropriations Act.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, is a request for a quorum call in order at this time?

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, the bill we have just adopted is the 46th consecutive annual Defense authorization bill that has come out of our committee and been brought to the Senate for debate and passage. It has been no secret that this is one of the largest and most complex and important pieces of legislation that comes before the Senate every year. Every year since 1961, it has been a challenge to get it passed. Thankfully, because of its vital importance to our Nation, we have always found a way to do so. This year was particularly difficult, as we continue to debate the war in Iraq. Today is the 19th and final day of debate on this bill. Only two other annual Defense authorization bills have required longer to pass. In 1969, the Senate debated the bill for 37 days. In 1970, it was debated for 28 days. History shows that in time of war, the Senate acts as it should and takes the necessary time to carefully consider this bill and its impact on our Nation.

We had over 400 amendments that were filed to this bill. We were able to work with all Senators and pass several large packages of managers' amendments while we were wrestling with Iraq-related amendments. All told, we acted on a total of 214 amendments during the bill's consideration.

Whenever we reach the point of final passage of legislation, we take a moment to thank Members and staff. To some this may seem to be a routine matter. It is not. All of us who make up the Senate should honor its customs and traditions. They are really the foundation of this Senate.

With that as my motivation, I want to take a moment to express my thanks to those who worked so hard and cooperated so well to bring us to final passage of this bill.

First, my thanks go to Senator McCain who is serving as our ranking member for the first time this year. Senator McCain's leadership and determination helped forge this bill through the committee and on to final passage.

Next, I thank and acknowledge our former chairman, Senator Warner. Senator Warner has made innumerable contributions to this bill. This bill would not be here but for the work of Senator Warner. Working within arm's reach of Senator Warner each year for the past 28 years has been truly one of the highlights of my Senate career.

He is a good friend of mine. More importantly, he is a good friend to national defense and to the people who depend upon it and who work for it in this country.

To our majority leader, Senator Reid, and his floor staff, a special word of thanks for giving us the time and the tools to get this bill through the Senate.

To all of our committee members who, again, worked on a bipartisan basis, we appreciate their work. We do not often take the time to express it. I am afraid this will kind of have to be that moment. People do not realize our committee has one quarter of the Senate as its members. We work together in the committee. Our differences on the bill did not divide us. We reported the bill by a unanimous vote.

To Charlie Armstrong in the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel, he did his work skillfully. He proved over 400 times, with those 400 amendments, that he knows how to draft amendments.

To our committee staff members, they truly earned the thanks and recognition of the entire Senate for their

time and their efforts on this legislation.

I want to mention two of the members of our staff who lead our staff and one woman who has served on our committee staff for the past 19 years.

To Rick DeBobes, our committee staff director, he serves us so brilliantly and well and so unselfishly 24/7. He is within earshot, so I will not embarrass him and have him blush other than to say he is so totally indispensable not just to me but to the Senate and all of the staff that work so well with him. Our gratitude.

To Senator McCain's new Republican staff director, Mike Kostiw, his leadership is so effective that it is quite difficult to believe this is Mike's first year.

To Cindy Pearson, our assistant chief clerk and security manager, a special word of thanks and encouragement. Cindy has been serving the committee for the last 19 years. She is the consummate professional in every aspect of her work. She is away from us right now as she undergoes treatment for breast cancer. We want her to know she is ever present in our thoughts and in our prayers. We all look forward to welcoming Cindy Pearson back to the committee family soon.

So Rick's and Mike's and all the other committee staff members' long and hard work and personal sacrifices, day in and day out, to get this bill enacted again this year paid off. They are the backbone of the Senate. They and other people who work for us in this Senate make it possible to turn our ideas into policies and into legislation.

I thank them all. I know I thank them for their expertise and their dedication on behalf of all the members of the committee. They brought us again through to the point of conference with the House. We are hopeful to bring back promptly a conference report. But in the meantime, thanks to them, their professionalism, and their hard work. We are where we are at.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the entire Armed Services Committee staff be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my dear friend Senator Warner is here. Again, I cannot say too often what it means to have as a partner John Warner of Virginia.

Mr. President, I again come to the floor today to highlight the ongoing needs of our small businesses in the gulf coast who were devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In Louisiana alone, these disasters claimed 1,464 lives, destroyed more than 200,000 homes and 18,000 businesses and inflicted $25 billion in uninsured losses. Many of my colleagues here in the Senate have been down to Louisiana and have seen firsthand the size and scope of the destruction.

The Congress has been very generous in providing billions of Federal recovery dollars as well as valuable Gulf Opportunity--GO--Zone tax incentives to help spur recovery in the region. These resources will be key in the recovery of the region but there are additional needs on the ground that still must be addressed. That is why I am proud to introduce a comprehensive package of three bills today--the Gulf Coast Back to Business Act of 2007, the Helping Our States Through Tourism Act of 2007, and the Work, Hope, and Opportunity for the Disaster Area Today Act of 2007. I believe these three bills provide substantive, commonsense solutions for addressing needs on the ground in the gulf coast. I am pleased that my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, as well as Senator Kerry, chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, joined me in cosponsoring both the Gulf Coast Back to Business Act and the Helping Our States through Tourism Act. My friend Senator Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, also joined me by cosponsoring the Gulf Coast Back to Business Act. I appreciate my colleagues' support on these bills and hope that we continue to work in this bipartisan manner to provide real solutions for the gulf coast.

As you know, Katrina was the most destructive hurricane ever to hit the United States. The next month, in September, Hurricane Rita hit the Louisiana and Texas coast. It was the second most powerful hurricane ever to hit the United States, wreaking havoc on the southwestern part of my State and the east Texas coast. This one-two punch devastated Louisiana lives, communities and jobs, stretching from Cameron Parish in the west to Plaquemines Parish in the east.

We are now rebuilding our State and the wide variety of communities that were devastated by Rita and Katrina, areas representing a diverse mix of population, income and cultures. We hope to restore the region's uniqueness and its greatness. To do that, we need to rebuild our local economies now and far into the future.

My State estimates that there were 81,000 businesses in the Katrina and Rita disaster zones. As I mentioned, a total of 18,752 of these businesses were catastrophically destroyed. However, on a wider scale, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over 125,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in the gulf region were disrupted by Katrina and Rita. Many of these businesses have yet to resume operations

and others are struggling to survive. We will never succeed without these small businesses. They will be the key to the revitalization of the gulf coast.

After talking to the business leaders and small businesses in my State, there are three things that they need right now: immediate capital and their fair share of Federal recovery contracts, help in attracting more travel and tourism to the area, and tax relief, especially on some of the Gulf Opportunity--GO--Zone provisions which are set to expire.

For example, under current law, the SBA cannot disburse more than $10,000 for an approved disaster loan without showing collateral. This is to limit the loss to the SBA in the event that a loan defaults. However, this disbursement amount has not been increased since 1998 and these days, $10,000 is not enough to get a business up and running or to allow a homeowner to start making repairs. The Gulf Coast Back to Business Act increases this collateral requirement for Katrina and Rita disaster loans from $10,000 to $35,000.

To address the lack of access to capital for our businesses, this bill includes a provision to provide funds to Louisiana and Mississippi to help small businesses now. Not 3 months from now, but as quickly as possible. We are asking for $100 million so that businesses can have money they need for to repair, rebuild, and pay their employees until they get back up and running again. The States know what the needs of their affected businesses are and we want to provide them with this money so they can start helping businesses now. These funds would bolster existing State grant/loan programs and would help Louisiana and Mississippi reach out to more impacted businesses.

Many businesses and homeowners are also coming up on the end of their standard 1-year deferment of payment on principal and interest on their SBA disaster loans. For most disasters, 1 year is more than enough time for borrowers to get back on their feet. But for disasters on the scale of Katrina and Rita, 1 year came and went, with communities just now seeing gas stations open and some homeowners are just now returning to rebuild their homes. This is a unique situation and for French Quarter businesses, where tourism is down at least 60 percent from pre-Katrina levels, to require them to start making payments on a $50,000 loan is virtually impossible if there are no customers. Homeowners, too, are experiencing widespread uncertainty and I believe this current 1-year deferment requires serious reconsideration. That is why this bill gives borrowers an additional year to get their lives in order--allow residents to begin fixing their homes and allow businesses the time for economic activity to pick back up.

The Gulf Coast Back to Business Act also addresses the problem in which many of our local small businesses have been unable to obtain Federal recovery contracts. I understand that this is due to many reasons ranging from a lack of sufficient bonding to a lack of experience with contracts of these sizes and scope. That said, I know of countless local businesses with the right experience and personnel, yet they have had to settle for being a subcontractor on a contract some out-of-State company won. We appreciate out-of-State firms wanting to help our region recover, but if our local firms can do the work, they should get their fair share of these contracts. It is a no-brainer to let local firms rebuild their own communities but this has not happened on a wide scale in my State or across the impacted areas. This bill would fix that by designating the entire Katrina and Rita disaster area as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone. The expansion of this program to the devastated areas would help give our local small businesses a preference when they bid on Federal contracts. I should note that this proposal had bipartisan support in the 109th Congress and actually passed the Senate as part of the Fourth Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill. However, despite the fact that this provision had widespread, bipartisan support from the gulf coast Senate delegation, it was stripped out in conference with the House of Representatives. So for the 110th Congress, I am pleased to re- introduce this provision in the Senate and to work closely with my colleagues to get our small businesses this vital help.

As I mentioned, following these disasters, about 18,000 businesses were catastrophically destroyed, many more economically impacted, and most still are struggling with the ongoing slowdown in travel and tourism to Louisiana. In terms of ongoing needs on the ground, the lack of tourism is stifling our full economic recovery, particularly the recovery of our small businesses in New Orleans. I do not think that people outside Louisiana know how vital tourism is to our economy. In 2004, tourism was the State of Louisiana's second largest industry-- employing 175,000 workers. The tourism industry also had a $9.9 billion economic impact in the State in 2004 and generated $600 million in State/local taxes. That is huge for our State and, by all indications, 2004 was a record year for tourism to the State and 2005 was on course to beat that. But then came Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the subsequent levee breaks, and tourism literally came to a grinding halt for the rest of the year. Travel and tourism picked up somewhat in 2006 but it has remained slow and has economically impacted our small businesses, many of which are dependent on the steady stream of revenue coming in from out-of-State tourists.

For example, according to the New Orleans Conventions and Visitors Bureau, Mardi Gras brings in about 700,000 tourists each year. Jazz Fest, which is a world-renowned music festival in New Orleans that happens each summer, usually draws half that--350,000 tourists. These tourists not only spend their time and money in New Orleans, but oftentimes travel around South Louisiana or even visit our friends next door in Mississippi. So in this respect, New Orleans is the gateway to tourism elsewhere in Louisiana and the rest of the gulf coast. For this reason, I believe it is important to not only spur travel/tourism to New Orleans but also to the rest of Louisiana and Mississippi as our smaller communities in these areas depend on tourism for their economic well-being.

Take Natchez, MS, for example. This historic town is full of beautiful antebellum homes and had a thriving business district pre- Katrina. It suffered minimal damage during the storm but now is struggling to get the word out that it is open for business. New Orleans is in much the same situation. Many parts of New Orleans, such as the Lower Ninth Ward and New Orleans East, do indeed have damaged houses and vacant businesses--as seen on television. But there are also parts of these communities which are slowly recovering and many parts of New Orleans, particularly the historic French Quarter, which survived Katrina are relatively unscathed. Despite that they are open and desperately need the revenue, businesses in the French Quarter are struggling to attract visitors.

With this mind, the Help Our States through Tourism Act, or HOST Act, which I am introducing as part of this legislative package, will provide significant assets to help our tourism sectors recover. In particular, this bill provides a total of $175 million for tourism marketing for the States of Louisiana and Mississippi. This pool of money would not only be used for the promotion of the States, but also to help communities rebuild their tourism and cultural assets, such as arts and music, which makes them a unique attraction for visitors.

The $175 million is also a wise investment for the Federal Government and not without precedent. In 2004, for every dollar spent on tourism in Mississippi, the State generated $12 in revenue. Louisiana was even better, generating $14 for every dollar spent on tourism that year. Also, when we talk about small business recovery, nothing helps our impacted small businesses more than having tourists return and spend money in these communities. In effect it works just as good as a grant but also helps the airline industry, our local restaurants and hotels, as well as the small businesses themselves. Furthermore, following September 11, Lower Manhattan was able to use supplemental Community Development Block Grant--CDBG--funds for tourism marketing. The State of Louisiana also recently used $28.5 million of supplemental CDBG funds for the ``Come Fall in Love With Louisiana All Over Again'' campaign. Given that Katrina and Rita were the first and third most-

costliest disasters in U.S. history, as well as the unprecedented media coverage on the destruction, these funds are badly needed to spread the word that our impacted communities are ready for our friends from around the country, and the world, to return and enjoy our unique culture, cuisine, and entertainment.

This bill also authorizes the U.S. Small Business Administration to provide Economic Injury Disaster Loans to tourism-dependent businesses in Mississippi and Louisiana that can demonstrate direct economic impacts from the post-Katrina and Rita tourism/travel slowdown. In talking to Federal agencies as well as our local small businesses, it is clear to me that no one believed that the economic impact would continue this long. Businesses also expected Federal/State assistance much sooner so many were left in a position of lacking revenue but waiting, and waiting, for the promised recovery funds to get into their hands. It has slowly come in the past year but now many businesses who waited months for Federal financial assistance, are now struggling to stay in business with little/no customer base. These Economic Injury Disaster Loans would help our tourism-dependent businesses stay afloat since the economic injury, as well as the tourism slowdown, has lasted much longer than most experts expected.

The HOST Act also would establish a $2.5 million fund in the Federal Treasury for Government agencies to hold conventions, workshops, and other events in the Katrina/Rita Disaster Area. Federal workers, like other convention visitors, bring in valuable revenue to our communities and pre-Katrina, New Orleans was one of the top convention destinations in the country. Post-Katrina, Federal agencies are already conducting activities and holding events in the disaster areas, but this fund would be separate of the normal administrative funds normally used for these purposes. Since this would be a separate pool of money that agencies could access, it would encourage more Federal agencies to hold their big conventions/events in the gulf coast. In the scheme of the billions allocated for recovery in the gulf coast, $2.5 million is not a large sum of money, but for Federal agencies looking to hold large events, it would serve as incentive to choose New Orleans or Mobile or Natchez for their next event. This amount of money is also not large enough to severely impact other destinations such as Las Vegas or San Francisco, but would be just enough funds to, hopefully, steer a couple of large conventions in our direction.

I am also pleased to introduce the Work, Hope, and Opportunity for the Disaster Area Today Act of 2007 to help small businesses in the hardest hit areas of the Gulf Opportunity--GO--Zone as they work to succeed in a very challenging environment. We have made great progress in rebuilding our communities and our local economies in the gulf coast. The Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 has produced needed investment in housing and provided businesses with important tax incentives to invest in new plant and equipment as part of their rebuilding. The Federal Government has made funding available to rebuild our levees. At the end of the last Congress, we passed the Domenici-Landrieu Outer Continental Shelf Revenue sharing bill that Louisiana will use to restore our wetlands as an additional barrier of hurricane protection.

However, we still face many challenges that are making it difficult for our small businesses. In Louisiana, as I mentioned, tourism--one of our most important industries--is down. We have had 22 percent fewer visitors and those that are visiting are spending 35 percent less money than before the storm. The city of New Orleans has lost more than half of its population. On top of this, labor costs and insurance premiums have skyrocketed, making it more expensive for businesses to keep paying the workers they have.

The combination of these various factors have hit our small businesses hard. They used the tax benefits of the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act to invest and rebuild, and they are open for business. But they are losing money because of downturn in tourism and they cannot afford to do that for much longer. I am hopeful that the HOST Act will address many of these needs but additional assistance is needed.

The Work, Hope, and Opportunity for the Disaster Area Today Act is a package of short-term tax breaks that will help put money in the hands of small businesses immediately, as well as extend tax breaks that already exist in the GO Zone. The main tax provision is a wage tax cut for employers. Small employers in the most heavily hit areas of the GO Zone--defined as those parishes and counties that experienced 60 percent or higher housing damage--will be eligible for a tax credit in the amount of FICA taxes they paid on up to $15,000 in salary per employee. This would lower employer tax burdens immediately, leaving them more money in hand as an offset to the losses that they are experiencing.

My bill also contains a bonus business meals and entertainment deduction to encourage business travel to the GO Zone. Under current law, businesses can only deduct up to 50 percent of meals and entertainment expenses. The Work, Hope, and Opportunity Act would allow a full deduction for these expenses if they are incurred in the areas of the GO Zone that need it the most. This will bring more conventions, meetings and conferences to the Gulf.

We must also extend some of the expiring provisions in the GO Zone Act. For example, my legislation will extend the special small business Section 179 expensing that is available in the gulf coast. Small businesses in the rest of the country can deduct up to $112,000 in 2007 of the cost of investments they make in their businesses such as computers and software, or new equipment and machinery. GO Zone small businesses can deduct an additional $100,000 for these investments. This special GO Zone benefit, however, will expire at the end of this year. The Work, Hope, and Opportunity bill will extend this much needed assistance until 2010. It will also extend the availability of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit for Katrina employees and the special 15-year depreciation schedule for restaurants, retail, and other leasehold property for the GO Zone.

In introducing this comprehensive legislative package today, I am hopeful that it sends the signal to gulf coast residents and businesses that Congress has not forgotten about them. Congress made great strides during the 109th Congress to help disaster victims, but that does not mean we should just write off recurring problems to the responsibility of States or disaster victims themselves. There are still ongoing needs in the gulf coast and I believe the 110th Congress should address these needs. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide substantive and lasting solutions for our small businesses.

I urge my colleagues to support these important pieces of legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the three bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a moment of personal privilege to acknowledge the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee. It has only been a little over 6 months, or almost 6 months, that Mr. Conyers has taken the realm of this august body. And I think if history is to be accurate, to recount the volcanic change that has come about on the life-changing legislative initiatives that have been able to be moved out of this committee, we recognize that hate should not be applauded, but it should be made illegal.

We have confronted the issues dealing with the creativity of America, addressing the questions of patent reform. We are looking closely at the idea of how do we find a balance on the issue of immigration. We are listening, we are learning, we are sympathetic. We are, in fact, what the Judiciary Committee, one of the oldest committees, was really intended to do: to listen to the grievances of people and be able to find relief.

Let me thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the ranking member of the full committee, for they have partnered on a number of initiatives, and we have found, sometimes, common ground. Today I rise on that very shining example of a common ground.

Allow me to thank Congressman Hulshof of Missouri for his passion and his commitment, and Mr. Sykes, who was a witness and who humbly said he was simply a public servant, someone who thought this idea was long in coming.

And so why we are here today is to talk about what many of you perceive as a television program called Cold Cases. I wish it was as simple as that. On that program, you do see the impact on families, but it is, in fact, a television program. Today, we speak of lives, lives long left on the dusty road of unsolved crimes, lives that are broken, torn, full of tears, looking for just a semblance of justice and hope in America. Maybe they were thinking of the words of Winston Churchill when he spoke to President Roosevelt in the dark ways of World War II, ``Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.'' That is what this bill does today; it gives the tools to America's prosecutors to pick up the broken pieces of the civil rights movement.

In 1989, we put together a memorial for those who had lost their lives in the civil rights era. They lost their lives not because they were criminals, not because they were caught in an unfortunate accident, but they lost their lives because they were on the battlefield for justice. They were murdered because they were active in the civil rights movement. They were killed by organized hate groups as acts of terror aimed at intimidating blacks and civil rights activists of many different colors and religious backgrounds. Their death, like the death of Emmett Till, helped to galvanize the movement by demonstrating the brutality faced by African Americans in the South. It is an era of terror which all of us have come to stand against, proudly so, which makes you very proud to stand here as an American, frankly, the greatest country in the world. For we have traveled a blood-stained road, but yet as we've traveled it, there have been those who have tried to go back and be able to bring us forward, united, arm in arm together, sweeping across America talking about the injustices of the past, but looking forward to the future for our children.

And so this bill is in tribute to the likes of Rita Bender, a witness who was brought before this committee. It was in recognition of the lives that we have heard of, Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney, buried deep in a mud pile. It was a testimony to John Lewis, who sits among us as an icon of conscience, who will tell you that in those muddy fields of Mississippi and Alabama, there are still skeletons that have yet been found. For many were killed, unnamed, and the relatives were too frightened to ever come forward. Maybe now, because this bill has a section in it on community relations, and I am hoping that as we provide oversight on this bill, we will increase those dollars from $1.5 million to $2 million or $2.5 million, because one of the witnesses said they could not have prosecuted the case had it not been for the persistence and the heart and determination of the family members, having lived under the shadow of this sin for so long.

This bill does create a deputy chief in the Criminal Division of the Civil Rights Division. Many of us would have preferred a division, some separate fixture standing with the responsibility to have the hammer, if you will, of rightness. But we support this legislation, and we hope that as our chairman has been diligent and vigilant, as he looks forward, that we will ensure that that deputy chief does the right thing and provides a vigorous advocacy and prosecution of those unsolved crimes.

Let me, Mr. Speaker, just recount very briefly the moving testimony that was given of the witnesses. Let me home in, if I could, on Myrlie Evers Williams. Why? Because it is part of my psyche to have seen Medgar Evers folding down on his front yard as he was murdered going into his home to see his wife and his children.

Can you imagine the horror of waiting for daddy to come home, waiting for your husband to come home, the dinner on the table, the radio playing, the children making the kinds of pleasant noises that children make? Her husband was a warrior, but a gentle man, a man of peace, a man who was willing to sacrifice his own future so that he might bring justice to some.

Let me, Mr. Speaker, as I close, simply ask my colleagues to remember this past and go to the future as I ask for support for this legislation.

I thank you, John Lewis, and I thank you, John Conyers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong of H.R. 923, the ``Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act of 2007.'' This legislation, which I am proud to co-sponsor and strongly support, is intended to complete some of the Nation's most important unfinished business. And that is to solve some of the most depraved acts of violence against persons belonging to a racial group that was vulnerable, politically powerless, and innocent, and against those persons who risked life and limb to help them secure the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence and made real in the Constitution.

The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act of 2007 is long overdue. I thank our colleague, John Lewis of Georgia, who is widely recognized as the moral conscience of the House for sponsoring this legislation and I thank Chairmen Conyers, Scott, and Nadler for their work in shepherding it through the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, in 1989, the Civil Rights Memorial was dedicated in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the modern Civil Rights Movement. The Memorial honors the lives and memories of 40 martyrs who were slain during the movement from 1954 to 1968, including Emmett Till. But we know that many more people lost their lives to racial violence during that era. In fact, at the time the Memorial was dedicated, the killers of 13 of the 40 martyrs whose names are inscribed on the Memorial had not been prosecuted or convicted. In 10 of the 40 deaths, defendants were either acquitted by all-white juries or served only token prison sentences. We also know there are many cases that still cry out for justice. These unsolved crimes represent a continuing stain on our Nation's honor and mock its commitment to equal justice under law. The legislation before us is intended to help us remove that stain once and for all.

The 40 victims selected for inclusion in the Civil Rights Memorial fit at least one of three criteria: (1) they were murdered because they were active in the civil rights movement; (2) they were killed by organized hate groups as acts of terror aimed at intimidating blacks and civil rights activists; or, (3) their deaths, like the death of Emmett Till, helped to galvanize the movement by demonstrating the brutality faced by African Americans in the South. The 40 persons who fit the selection criteria ranged in age from 11 to 66. Seven were white, and 33 were black. They were students, farmers, ministers, truck drivers, a homemaker and a Nobel laureate.

But Mr. Speaker, there are many, many other victims besides the 40 who are remembered on the Memorial. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that its research uncovered approximately 75 other people who died violently between 1952 and 1968 under circumstances suggesting that they were victims of racial violence. For most of them the reason their names were not added to the Memorial is because not enough was known about the details surrounding their deaths. Sadly, the reason so little is known about these cases is because they were never fully investigated or, in some cases, law enforcement officials were involved in the killings or subsequent cover-ups. And because the killings of African Americans were often covered up or never seriously investigated, there is little reason to doubt that many slayings were never even recorded by the authorities.

The reason justice had not been served was the callous indifference, and often the criminal collusion, of many white law enforcement officials in the segregated South. There simply was no justice for African Americans during the civil rights era. The whole criminal justice system--from the police, to the prosecutors, to the juries, and to the judges--was perverted by racial bigotry. African Americans were routinely beaten, bombed and shot with impunity. Sometimes, the killers picked their victims on a whim. Sometimes, they targeted them for their activism. In other cases, prominent white citizens were involved and no consequences flowed. Herbert Lee of Liberty, Mississippi, for example, was shot in the head by a state legislator in broad daylight in 1961.

It is, of course, fitting and proper that H.R. 923 bears the name of Emmett Till, whose slaying in 1955 and his mother's decision to have an open casket at his funeral stirred the Nation's conscience and galvanized a generation of Americans to join the fight for equality. Sadly, hundreds of them were killed in that struggle, and many of the killers, like those of Emmett himself, were never successfully prosecuted.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to learn that the Department of Justice strongly supports this legislation. It should. No government agency has done more through the years to protect and defend the civil rights of African Americans and other victims of injustice. I hope the DOJ's embrace of this legislation represents a rededication to its historic role of ensuring equal justice under law for all, even the poor, powerless, and vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, the heart of this legislation is sections 3 and 4. Section 3 establishes a Deputy Chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division. Section 3 requires the Attorney General to designate a Deputy Chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights division who will be responsible for coordinating the investigation and prosecution of violations of criminal civil rights statutes that occurred before December 31, 1969, and ended in death.

Section 3 also requires a study and report to Congress about the number of cases opened, the number of Federal prosecutions commenced, the number of cases of State and local prosecutions where the DOJ assisted, the number of cases that have been closed, and the number of open pending cases. The report shall be made not later than 6 months after the enactment of the Act.

Section 4 of the bill establishes a parallel component in the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be headed by a Supervisory Special Agent designated by the Attorney General. This Supervisory Special Agent in the Civil Rights Unit is responsible for investigating violations of criminal civil rights statutes that occurred not later than December 31, 1969, and resulted in death. The Supervisory Special Agent should, where appropriate, coordinate investigations with State and local law enforcement officials.

Mr. Speaker, although I strongly support H.R. 923, I believe the bill would be even stronger if it incorporated three small but important amendments. First, I would recommend an amendment containing Congressional findings of fact that help explain to the nation and the world why the Congress was compelled to enact this vitally important legislation. We are enacting this legislation not because of who the perpetrators of these unsolved criminal violations of civil rights statutes are, but who we are, and who their victims were.

Mr. Speaker, over the past half century, the United States has made tremendous progress in overcoming the badges and vestiges of slavery. But this progress has been purchased at great cost. From Reconstruction through the modern Civil Rights Movement, heinous and depraved acts of violence were committed against persons belonging to a racial group that was innocent, vulnerable, and politically powerless, and also against those persons who risked life and limb to help them secure the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence and made real in the Constitution. Many of these crimes remain unsolved and no one has ever been held accountable.

Examples of unsolved cases include the 1968 ``Orangeburg Massacre'' at South Carolina State University where state police shot and killed three student protesters; the 1967 shooting death of Carrie Brumfield, whose body was found on a rural Louisiana road; the 1957 murder of Willie Joe Sanford, whose body was fished out of a creek in Hawkinsville, GA; the 1946 killing of a black couple, including a pregnant woman, who was pulled out of a car in Monroe, GA, and dragged down a wagon trail before being shot in front of 200 people.

These unsolved crimes represent a continuing stain on our Nation's honor and mock its commitment to equal justice under the law. Solving these cases is part of the unfinished work of America. President Kennedy said it so well 44 years ago, when he addressed the Nation on June 11, 1963: ``this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.''

A second amendment I would recommend is the establishment of a specially created section within the Civil Rights Division with dedicated resources, personnel, and budgetary authority to investigate and prosecute notorious and neglected pre-1970 criminal violations of the civil rights statutes.

I believe that in designating the Deputy Chief required by this legislation, the Attorney General must also be required to delegate to the Deputy Chief authority over the necessary personnel and budgetary resources. The high hope of H.R. 923 is that it may help bring justice to those whom justice has been delayed for more than two generations. The Deputy Chief, therefore, has an awesome responsibility. If we are to expect positive results, it is incumbent upon us to provide the Deputy Chief the resources and authority needed to be successful. As Winston Churchill said to President Roosevelt during the dark days of 1940: ``Give us the tools and we will finish the job!''

I am pleased, however, that the bill authorizes annual appropriations of $10 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2017 for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting pre-1970 criminal violations of the civil rights statutes that resulted in a death. Similarly, I am pleased that the bill authorizes annual appropriations of $1,500,000 to the Community Relations Service of the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance by bringing together law enforcement agencies and communities in the investigation of criminal violations of civil rights statutes.

My third amendment I would recommend is to increase the amount of this annual appropriation by $500,000 to $2 million and to make this funding source available to assist the families of victims in coping with the loss of a loved one through counseling and other support services, financial and otherwise. Such assistance must be available to the victim's families because in many cases the testimony of a family member may be indispensable to government investigators and prosecutors. I am particularly mindful that the witnesses testifying before the Judiciary Committee hearing affirmed their belief that the government's ability successfully to investigate and solve criminal civil rights violations would be greatly enhanced were assistance and support available to the victims' families.

Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago, Medgar Evers was murdered in Jackson, Mississippi; justice would not be done in his case for more than twenty years. But that day was foretold because the evening before the death of Medgar Evers, on June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy addressed the Nation from the Oval Office on the state of race relations and civil rights in America. In his historic speech to the nation President Kennedy said:

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as

old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American

Constitution.

One hundred years of delay have passed since President

Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons,

are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of

injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic

oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its

boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are

free.

H.R. 923 is intended to help bring justice to those whom justice has been delayed for more than two generations. In doing so, this legislation will help this Nation fulfill its hopes and justify its boast that in America all persons live in freedom.

Mr. Speaker. I strongly support this historic legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. President, I thank the Senators for the cooperative way in which they have worked with us. I also wish to comment on Senator Landrieu's amendment that was accepted, which eliminated a copay for a matching portion for the COPS Program in areas that don't have the money to match. It is a smart thing that we are doing. It is right. It will come to an end at some time, but until they get back on their feet, we ought to do it.

I wished to spend a few minutes talking about the bill overall. I think even though the chairwoman and ranking member have done a great job with the bill in terms of priorities, I am concerned at the overall spending level, and I think the administration probably will be too. Inflation, last year, was less than 3 percent. In title I, the Commerce portion of the bill, it grows by 13.88 percent, which is 4\1/2\ times the rate of inflation. In title II, the Justice portion, it grows 6.1 percent, which is over two times the rate of inflation. In title III of the bill, in the Science portion, it grows by 8.1 percent over last year's actual appropriation, which is almost three times what the rate of inflation was.

That probably would not be a problem if we didn't borrow $454 billion from our kids last year. It would not be a problem if everybody else had an 18-percent or 13-percent or a 10-percent increase. But the fact that this bill has grown this much says we are going to go down the road again of borrowing additional money.

This is a rationalization, and I admit it. What we are doing is funding this increase this year on the backs of our grandchildren, because if it goes through this way and coming out of conference, and if the President signs it, the increase in spending for the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments will come on the back of future payments of debt for our kids.

The contrast I wish to show is that the average family's income rose less than 4 percent last year. Their taxes aren't going to rise much more than 4 percent, but the taxes on their grandkids are going to rise disproportionately more than that, probably 12 or 13 percent, because we cannot get hold of this Government. That is no reflection on the leaders of this committee. They are given a number, and they have requests out the kazoo from individual members. They have programs that need to be funded, which is very different than the administration. I didn't compare it to the administration's request. I compared it to what we approved last year.

I think it behooves us to look at the overall growth in this bill, and if you applied it to the rest of Government, we grew the Government by about $700 billion this year. We cannot do that. We cannot do it. So I have asked for a recorded vote on the bill because I want to be recorded as voting against this appropriations bill--not because it is not important to fund these items but because we cannot continue to have these kinds of increases in funding when we have grown the Government by 62 percent over the last 7\1/2\ years. That does not count Medicare and Medicaid spending. So I wanted to make that point.

I have a couple of amendments, again, which are directed at directed spending--what we call earmarks. The programs are not bad programs--the very things I am going to outline that I think we ought to transfer money from to something else. But I think people will have a tough time justifying spending on these programs, these directed earmarks, when we should not be spending as much as we are and could be spending it on something that would give us better value for the dollars we spend.

I ask unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 3243 and make it pending.

I am absolutely fine with that. I will take no more than probably 25 minutes on both of these amendments. I ask unanimous consent that I be given 25 minutes to cover both of the amendments, reserving the remainder of the time if I don't use it, and allowing any opposition the same amount of time, and I will probably not consume that amount of time.

Yes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 3243.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is straightforward. There is a bill in the Senate that I am presently blocking from a unanimous consent request, which means I am not necessarily opposed to it; but I don't think the bill ought to come to the floor without being voted on or amended. It is the Emmett Till civil rights bill. This bill is designed to increase the emphasis on unsolved civil rights cases.

A year and a half ago, the Department of Justice initiated a new program for that exact purpose. They put staff on it, funded it, and have since gotten 100 referrals from 42 different offices on unsolved civil rights cases that are 50 years old and older. It is something we should be doing and the Justice Department is doing. I don't think we need another piece of legislation and another law to make us do that. The Justice Department has actually shown they didn't need a law. They were actually doing it.

What this amendment does is transfers from six directed spending items--earmarks--to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division $1.680 million to augment that process. What it will do is allow them to hire additional people to further define and further investigate these older civil rights cases.

This bill has 600 earmarks in it. This relates to only six earmarks. The total for the earmarks is $458 million. Many of the earmarks in this bill don't do anything to advance the priorities or the mission statements of the three agencies we are funding. What are they? A maritime museum in Mobile, AL; Eye on the Sky Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium in St. Johnsbury, VT; Adler Planetarium in Chicago, IL; U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. I have been there; it is a tremendous place. Lastly, the installation of buoys marking the John Smith National Water Trail on the Chesapeake; undersea vehicle for the Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration in Connecticut.

Let's start with the first one. There is $500,000 in this to construct a maritime museum in Mobile, AL. It is probably a great idea, although there are two other maritime museums right now in Mobile. Should we spend $500,000 now, when we are borrowing the kind of money that we are borrowing from our grandchildren, when we are fighting a war we are not paying for and charging to our grandchildren? Should we spend that money now or should we spend the money upholding the law and going after people who violated other people's civil rights? Which is a better value? Which is a better purpose? Which is a better core principle?

I will not go into the details, although I am prepared to do it in rebuttal. There are now 35 maritime museums in the gulf coast region, including two in Mobile. There are funds for this earmark through the competitive grant system. So it is not that this may not even get funded, because it might have to compete with the rest of the museums in the country. Instead, we have directed it.

Earmark offset 2 is for the Fairbanks Museum and Planetarium in Vermont for the Eye on the Sky Program. It is a $300,000 earmark. It is probably a great idea. But is it a priority when we are borrowing money from our grandchildren? Again, this is another program. There is grant money out there for museums. You would have to compete based on the priorities. There is oversight on the grants. On these earmarks, there is no oversight. It can still be funded, on a competitive basis, without an earmark.

The Adler Planetarium in Chicago has net assets right now in excess of $34 million, and we are going to send them $300,000. They have revenues every year in excess of $11 million. There is no reason for us to send that money there now if we are borrowing it from our grandkids. I will limit my debate on that.

One of the things I will tell you--and I will put up a chart. Here is what the Administrator of NASA said about directed spending for earmarks:

The growth of these Congressional directives is eroding

NASA's ability to carry out its mission of space exploration

and peer-reviewed scientific discovery.

We are taking away the core mission of one of our premier scientific inquiries in this country when we send money. The redirections as a result of congressional earmarks included half of NASA's education budget, one-twentieth of the exploration budget, and one-twenty-fourth of their science budget. So it is not a small amount with which we are impacting NASA.

The fourth earmark: Spies and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. We should know that the State of Alabama is going to have in excess of a $2 billion surplus this year. Let me say that again. The State of Alabama is going to have in excess of a $2 billion surplus this year. They had a $1.7 billion surplus last year. I would think that maybe they ought to fund this instead of our grandchildren.

This is a $500,000 earmark for the Space and Rocket Museum. I have been there. It is a great thing. You ought to go see it. It is well worth your time. But it is something I believe should not be in the priority when we are borrowing the money.

There is $500,000 for an interpretive buoy system. It is a great idea with great historical significance but probably not right now. Should we be spending this money if we are borrowing it against our grandkids? Should we be spending this money when we are growing the budget, this appropriations bill by 11 percent? I don't think so.

Finally, $450,000 for an undersea vehicle in Mystic, CT. This is part of the Mystic Aquarium in Mystic, CT. They could apply for a competitive grant with all the rest of the States and probably get it. It is not a bad idea. It is probably a good idea. It probably promotes tourism, probably enhances the experience at that museum. But, again, is it a priority when we are not funding the war and we are not paying for our excesses and, in fact, probably the greatest moral issue of our day is stealing the future from our grandkids? It is not any of the other social issues. They wane in comparison to taking opportunities from our next generation.

I also advise that the State of Connecticut, according to Connecticut's Comptroller, Nancy Wyman, has a $350 million surplus. So they are not running a deficit; they have a surplus. They could easily grant $500,000 for this museum.

The point of this amendment is let's put dollars where they ought to go and let's stop spending money on lower priorities. It is about priorities. It is not about what is a good program and what is a bad program. It is about what is the greatest priority.

The greatest priority is to ensure people of their civil rights. It has to be greater than these. There cannot be a greater priority than securing the future for the next generations, except we are not going to do that with this bill.

I reserve the remainder of the time I have under the agreement.

Mr. President, first of all, I would concede the value of what Dr. Ballard has done. But the question isn't whether this should get funded; the question is, Who should fund it?

National Geographic made $15 million last year. They are a nonprofit organization. They had revenues of over $1 billion. The State of Connecticut is going to have over a $300 million surplus. I don't doubt that this is a very worthy cause. The question is and what the American people are asking this body to do is to start making priorities out of priorities.

I think this is a very valid project. He is one of 11 resident scholars for National Geographic. I have studied the issue. It is not about whether it is a priority for them. The question is, Who ought to be paying for it? In a time when we don't have any money, when the dollar is sinking, when we are spending more and we are already funding a war and charging the war to our kids, what we are setting up is we are going to continue to do things that don't have to be done by us when somebody else could do it. Consequently, we are going to borrow the money.

There is half a billion dollars worth of earmarks in here, I would say to my friend from Connecticut, and all of them have some merit. The question is, Who should be paying for some of these? There are competitive grants on museums that are run well by this Government. They are very competitive. They can get the $450,000 through a competitive grant. They can apply for that. There is oversight on that. There is a competition among priorities when we do that and run it. When we put it in directly, we, No. 1, consign our kids to paying for it, and No. 2, we don't put the responsibility on anybody else.

Now, if this is really necessary, National Geographic will stand up and put the $450,000 into it, or if it is important to the education and instruction in the State of Connecticut, with a $300 million surplus, they can put in the $450,000. But our choice here today is, we are just going to charge it to our grandkids.

We don't have this money. This bill has grown by almost 10 percent over what we funded last year. If you took all the directed earmarks out of it, we would be growing by about 4\1/2\ percent. So it is important for the American public to see the impact when we direct spending.

The purpose of this exercise--and I will continue to do this as long as I am in the Senate--is to try to force us into making the hard choices we really don't want to have to make. I believe this committee did a good job of setting the parameters and trying, but there is a new standard, and the standard has to be, would you put in your own money? That is the standard we ought to go by because what we are really doing is transferring the cost of all these things to two generations, and it goes completely opposite of the heritage of this country.

D-day starts January 1, 2008. You know what D-day is? It is the first year of the baby boomers. It is the first year we start going down the tubes on Medicare and Social Security. And we can't even bring a bill to the floor that constrains spending to 4 percent or 5 percent--1\1/2\ times inflation. The American public doesn't have that option with their budgets because they do not have an unlimited credit card. We just increased the debt limit on this country by $950 billion. Five times since 1997 have we done that. When a child is born today, not counting that debt, which is $30,000 per man, woman, and child, there is $400,000 worth of unfunded liabilities lying on each of those children.

My point is, and I will quit talking about it--and I am not going to offer the second amendment--we need to wake up and see that we can't do everything we would like to do. We ought to be doing what is absolutely necessary and we ought to be paying for this war. We ought to be making the hard choices and paying for the war.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I will be on the next airplane with you.