A bill to amend the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 to prohibit the labeling of cloned livestock and products derived from cloned livestock as organic.

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 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. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Ensign, Stevens, Kyl, Craig, Crapo, and Inhofe, in introducing the Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2007.

Our legislation will create a new Twelfth Circuit comprised of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Arizona and will go far in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the current Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

One need only look at the sheer geographic size of the Ninth Circuit to find reasons for reorganization. The Ninth Circuit extends from the Arctic Circle to the Mexican border, spans the tropics of Hawaii and crosses the International Dateline to Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Encompassing nine States and some 1.4 million square miles, the Ninth Circuit, by any means of measure, is the largest of all U.S. circuit courts of appeal. In fact, it is larger than the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits combined.

The Ninth Circuit serves a population of nearly 60 million, almost twice as many as the next largest Circuit. It contains the States that experience the fastest growth rate in the Nation. By 2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population will be more than 63 million--an increase which will inevitably create an even more daunting caseload.

The only factor more disturbing than the geographic magnitude of the circuit is the magnitude of its ever-expanding docket. The Ninth Circuit has more cases than any other circuit. Based on figures from March, 2006, the Ninth Circuit had 71 percent more cases than the next largest circuit--that is equivalent to the caseload of the Third, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits combined.

Moreover, because of the sheer magnitude of cases brought before the courts, citizens within the court's jurisdiction face intolerable delays in getting their cases heard. The median time to get a final disposition of an appellate case in the Ninth Circuit takes nearly 4 months longer than the national average. Former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger called the Ninth Circuit's docket an ``unmanageable administrative monstrosity.''

The massive size and daunting caseload of the Ninth Circuit result in a decrease in the ability of judges to keep abreast of legal developments within the circuit. The large number of judges scattered over the 1.4 million square miles of the circuit inevitably results in difficulty in reaching consistent circuit decisions. This lack of judicial consistency discourages settlements and leads to unnecessary litigation. Reversal rates by the Supreme Court remain astonishingly high. In 2005, 87.5 percent of the Ninth Circuit cases brought before the Supreme Court were reversed or vacated. In 2006, 96 percent were reversed or vacated.

Another problem with the Ninth Circuit is that it is never able to speak with one voice. Because of its size, the Ninth Circuit is the only circuit where all judges do not sit in en banc, or full court, review of panel decisions. Rather than splitting the Ninth Circuit at the time the Fifth Circuit was split, Congress decided to permit the Ninth Circuit to test a ``limited'' en banc procedure. The limited en banc allows a full court to be comprised of 11 members, rather than 28. Therefore, 6 members of the 28 are all that is necessary for a majority opinion.

Former Chief Justice Burger strongly opposed the limited en banc procedure:

Six judges can now bind more than 100 Article III and

Article I judges, and this is simply contrary to how a court

should function I strongly believe the Ninth Circuit should

be divided.

The legislation that I and my colleagues introduce today is the sensible reorganization of the Ninth Circuit. No one court can effectively exercise its power in an area that extends from the Arctic Circle to the tropics. Our legislation creates a circuit which is more geographically manageable, thereby significantly reducing wasted time and money spent on judicial travel.

Additionally, caseloads will be much more manageable. Whatever circuit that contains California will always be the giant of the circuits, but as you can see from this chart, caseloads before the new Ninth Circuit and the new Twelfth Circuit are much more in line with other circuits. Such reductions in caseload will clearly improve uniformity, consistency and dependency in legal decisions.

Additionally, this legislation is not novel. Since the day the circuit was established, over a century ago, there have been discussions to divide it. Over the last several decades, Congress has held hearings and debated a split and even mandated two congressional commissions to study the issue each of which recommended dividing the circuit. In fact, the scholarly White Commission, which reported to Congress in 1998, concluded that restructuring the Ninth Circuit would ``increase the consistency and coherence of the law, maximize the likelihood of genuine collegiality, establish an effective procedure for maintaining uniform decisional law within the circuit, and relate the appellate forum more closely to the region it serves.''

Furthermore, splitting a circuit to respond to caseload and population

growth is by no means unprecedented. Congress divided the original Eighth Circuit to create the Tenth Circuit in 1929 and divided the former Fifth Circuit to create the Eleventh Circuit in 1980.

We have waited long enough. The 60 million residents of the Ninth Circuit are the persons who suffer. Many wait years before cases are heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire appellate process. In brief, the Ninth Circuit has become a circuit where justice is not swift and not always served.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing an important bill on a subject that was not resolved last year, and which continues to be an outstanding issue for those of us who are dependent on healthy and productive natural populations of ocean fish and shellfish.

Simply put, this bill prohibits further movement toward the development of aquaculture facilities in Federal waters until Congress has had an opportunity to review all of the serious implications, and make decisions on how such development should proceed.

For years, some members of the Federal bureaucracy have advocated going forward with offshore aquaculture development without that debate. While the administration has entertained some level of public input, the role of Congress must not be undermined. Doing so, would be an extraordinarily bad idea.

The Administration is in the final stages of preparing a bill to allow offshore aquaculture development to occur, and it plans to send the bill to Congress in the very near future. In the last Congress, the Administration proposed legislation to provide a regulatory framework for the development of off-shore aquaculture. While their draft bill is an improvement, it still does not establish clear mandatory environmental standards for the aquaculture industry.

I remain steadfast that any proposal should meet the standards of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Jones Act. Why should this industry be exempt from the same laws that our commercial fisheries are subject to? Why should this industry not go through the same rigorous environmental review as any other activity that will have impacts on the environment?

Scientists, the media and the public are awakening to the serious disadvantages of fish raised in fish farming operations compared to naturally healthy wild fish species such as Alaska salmon, halibut, sablefish, crab and many other species.

It has become common to see news reports that cite not only the general health advantages of eating fish at least once or twice a week, but the specific advantages of fish such as wild salmon, which contains essential Omega-3 fatty acids that may help reduce the risk of heart disease and possibly have similar beneficial effects on other diseases.

Educated and watchful consumers have also seen recent stories citing research that not only demonstrates that farmed salmon fed vegetable- based food does not have the same beneficial impact on cardio-vascular health, but also that the demand for other fish that we use as feed in those fish farms may lead to the decimation of those stocks. Yet the Administration's bill does not address feed in a meaningful way.

Those same alert consumers may also have seen stories indicating that fish farms may create serious pollution problems from the concentration of fish feces and uneaten food, that fish farms may harbor diseases that can be transmitted to previously healthy wild fish stocks, and that fish farming has had a devastating effect on communities that depend on traditional fisheries.

It is by no means certain that all those problems would be duplicated if we begin to develop fish farms that are farther offshore, but neither is there any evidence that they would not be . . . I certainly don't believe it is prudent to extend the site permits to 20 years, as in the draft bill, given all of the questions and uncertainties of the environmental risks.

Not only do the proponents want to encourage such development, they also want to change the way decisions are made so that all the authority rests in the hands of just one Federal agency. I believe that would be a serious mistake. There are simply too many factors that should be evaluated--from hydraulic engineering, to environmental impacts, transportation and shipping issues, fish biology, management of disease, to the nutritional character of farmed fish, and so on--for any existing agency.

We cannot afford a rush to judgment on this issue--it is far too dangerous if we make a mistake. In my view, such a serious matter deserves the same level of scrutiny by Congress as the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy for other sweeping changes in ocean governance.

The ``Natural Stock Conservation Act'' I am introducing today lays down a marker for where the debate on offshore aquaculture needs to go. It would prohibit the development of new offshore aquaculture operations until Congress has acted to ensure that every Federal agency involved does the necessary analyses in areas such as disease control, engineering, pollution prevention, biological and genetic impacts, economic and social effects, and other critical issues, none of which are specifically required under existing law.

I strongly urge my colleagues to understand that this is not a parochial issue, but a very real threat to the literal viability of natural fish and shellfish stocks, as well as the economic viability of many coastal communities. We must retain the oversight necessary to ensure that if we move forward on the development of off-shore aquaculture.

I sincerely hope that Congress will give this issue the attention it deserves. We all want to make sure we enjoy abundant supplies of healthy foods in the future, but not if it means unnecessary and avoidable damage to wild species, to the environment generally, and to the economies of America's coastal fishing communities.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an investment program in lifelong education for our service members and veterans. The Montgomery GI Bill is consistently cited as an important reason people join the military and continues to be one of the most important benefits provided for military service today. There is no reason why 100 percent of our active duty, selected reserve, and veteran servicemembers should not have the

opportunity to take advantage of their earned education benefits.

That is why I'm reintroducing the Montgomery GI Bill for Life Act of 2007, which would allow Montgomery GI Bill participants an unlimited amount of time to use their earned benefits.

I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, is again joining me in sponsoring this legislation and that Senator Sherrod Brown has also signed on to further extend MGIB benefits.

The MGIB is a program that provides up to 36 months of education benefits for educational opportunities ranging from college to apprenticeship and job training, and even flight training. Upon enlistment, the GI Bill also requires service members to contribute $100 per month for their first 12 months of services.

Basically, the MGIB is divided into two programs. One program targets active duty and veteran members, paying over $1,000 per month to qualified students. That's more than $36,000 for school. The other is directed at the Selected Reserve. This program provides educational benefits of $288 per month, for a total of $10,368.

If recruits are overwhelmingly declaring that education opportunity under the GI Bill is the key incentive for them to join the military, then it makes sense that most--if not all--of our troops, who signed up for the program, would also be cashing in on their benefits. But reports show that the majority, 40 to 60 percent, do not actually use the benefits they have earned.

Currently, MGIB participants have up to 10 years from their release date from the military to use their earned education benefits. Members of the Selected Reserve are able to use their MGIB benefit for 14 years. However, that means your earned education benefits expire if you don't use the within the required timeframe, closing your window of opportunity to go to school or finish your college education. Plus, you lose the $1,200 dedicated for your GI Bill during your first year of enlistment.

Originally, the intent of 1944 GI Bill of Rights was to help veterans successfully transition back into civilian life as education is the key to employment opportunities. Looking back now, we know that the GI Bill opened the door to higher education, helping millions of service members and veterans who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance to pay for college. That is, servicemembers benefited from the GI Bill because they used the payments within the 10 and 14 year limitation.

But there are many others who did not use their earned education benefits within that timeframe. For example, after leaving the military, some servicemembers postponed going to school because they had to go straight to work in order to support their family. Others unfortunately, were either homeless or incarcerated for long periods of time due to disability associated with military service, but are now ready to move forward in their lives, and going back to school is their first step. In some cases, due to random life circumstances, some people just lost track of time. Additionally, because of misinformation and bureaucratic language, the GI Bill is known as a complicated program to navigate.

A constituent of mine, Ruben Ruelas--who is a Local Veterans Employment Representative, LVER, for the WorkSource in Wenatchee, Washington, wrote to me saying, ``It's been my experience that most people don't know what they want to do in life or are placed in situations where, due to changing economic times, they are displaced and need further education and training to compete for jobs. But most don't have access to training resources to do so.''

In terms of Vietnam Era veterans, Mr. Ruelas goes on to say, ``many 50 year olds are unemployed, untrained and uneducated and could use their educational benefits to improve their skills to compete for better jobs. Many have come to realize, too late, that they need college or retraining and don't have the resources to do so.''

While times have changed remarkably, one thing remains constant: education is critical to employment opportunity. In the 21st Century global labor market, enhancing skills through education and job training is now more important than ever. The need for retraining is even more underscored for our military service members and veterans.

My legislation, the Montgomery GI Bill for Life, would ensure that educational opportunities are lifelong, allowing service members and veterans the flexibility to seek education and job training opportunities when it is the right time for them to do so.

Higher education not only serves as an individual benefit, but positive externalities have transpired: the GI Bill was instrumental in building our country's middle class and continues to help close the college education gap.

Today, employers are requiring higher qualifications from the workforce. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of postsecondary education. While a highly skilled workforce is one characteristic of the new economy, working for one employer throughout a lifetime is no longer routine, but rather an evanescent feature. According to findings by Brigham Young University, the average person changes jobs or careers eight times in his or her lifetime. To keep up with these trends, expanding access to education and training is a must do in the 21st Century global marketplace.

A 1999 report by the Congressional Commission on Service members and Veterans Transition Assistance stated that the GI Bill of the future must include the following: Provide veterans with access to post- secondary education that they use; assist the Armed forces in recruiting the high quality high school graduates needed; enhance the Nation's competitiveness by further educating American veterans, a population that is already self-disciplined, goal oriented, and steadfast; and attract the kind of service members who will go on to occupy leadership positions in government and the private sector.

Eliminating the GI Bill 10 and 14 year limitation for service members, veterans, and Selected Reserve moves one step toward improving the MGIB. The Montgomery GI Bill for Life would allow MGIB members, including qualified Vietnam Era Veterans, the flexibility to access their earned education benefits at any time.

As the nation's economy continues to recover and grow stronger, the GI Bill will continue to be the primary vehicle keeping our active duty service members and veterans of military service on track, helping to ensure our country's prosperity.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce bipartisan legislation that I believe is the breakthrough we have been searching for to bring House voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia, who have historically been denied this fundamental birthright.

I am proud to join with, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis, and the many others from both parties and both houses who have worked without rest to remedy the disenfranchisement of District residents since the capital was established in Washington in 1800. I especially want to thank my friend Senator Hatch for his influential support of this voting rights proposal, which would bring to an end a gross inconsistency with the founding principles of our Nation.

Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to finally bestow upon the citizens of the District of Columbia the civic entitlement every other tax-paying American citizen enjoys no matter where he or she resides, democracy's most essential right, voting representation in Congress.

The bill is simple. It would increase the number of voting representatives in the House from 435 to 437 by providing the District with a voting representative and by adding another congressional seat for Utah, the next State in line to increase its representation based on the 2000 Census.

Working cooperatively in the spirit of service to the people of Washington, DC, and Utah, Congresswoman Norton and Congressman Davis shepherded a similar proposal through the House Government Reform Committee on March 13 by a vote of 24-5. The full House approved the measure April 20 by a vote of 241-177, a historic day unlike any other since 1978 when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give District residents voting rights in the House and Senate. Of course, that amendment came to naught when too few States ratified it.

The people of this city have waited far too long for this right. They have been the direct target of terrorist attacks, and yet they have no representative to vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security. Citizens of Washington, DC, pay income taxes just like everyone else. In fact, they pay more: Per capita, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no voice in how high those taxes will be or how they will be spent. The District is also the only jurisdiction in the country that must seek congressional approval, through the appropriations process, before spending locally-generated tax dollars. When Congress fails to pass appropriations bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, the District's budget is essentially frozen. And yet DC has no say in that appropriations process.

DC residents fight and die for our democracy but they cannot participate fully in it. I ask you, how can we effectively promote democracy abroad while denying it to hundreds of thousands of citizens in our Nation's Capital?

There is no good reason why DC residents have been denied congressional representation. In 1800, when the nation's capital was established as the District of Columbia, an oversight left the area's residents without congressional representation. Maryland and Virginia ceded land for the capitol in 1788 and 1789, respectively, but it took another 10 years for Congress to establish the District of Columbia. In the interim, residents continued to vote either in Maryland or Virginia, but Congress withdrew those voting rights once the District was founded. Unfortunately, apparently by omission, Congress neglected to establish new voting rights for the citizens of the new district.

The right to be counted, to have your voice heard by your government is central to a functioning democracy and fundamental to a free society. If we are willing to sacrifice our young men and women in the name of freedom, we must be willing to protect their freedoms as well. This legislation would do just that.

In 2002, 10 cosponsors and I introduced the No Taxation without Representation Act. I held a hearing on the bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then chaired. It was the first hearing in Congress on DC voting rights since 1994. We reported the bill out of committee, but the Senate never took action on it.

Today, the tide has changed. Members from both parties have come together to find a solution to break the stalemates of the past that have denied DC residents equal representation in Congress. The State of Utah has united in favor of a fourth congressional seat, and Senator Hatch has lent his considerable support to this effort. Mr. President, this legislation represents an uncommon victory for fairness and a rare but hopefully increasingly more common example of what we can do if we work together to accomplish our mutual goals.

The essence of our work in the legislative branch is compromise, and the compromise reached by Senator Hatch

and I will bring partial voting representation to the District while ensuring Utah receives the additional representation it is due.

I know there are those who believe this bill is unconstitutional. But the District clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to legislate ``in all cases whatsoever'' pertaining to the District, provides ample authority for the legislative branch to give DC residents voting rights.

Mr. President, this is our moment to do right here at home, just as we have done throughout our history for our democratic allies abroad. By giving the citizens of the District of Columbia a vote in the House, we will ensure not only that their voices will finally be heard. We will be following the imperative of our history and moral values. The Framers of our Constitution in effect placed with Congress the solemn responsibility of assuring that the rights of DC citizens would be protected in the future, just as it is our responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens throughout this great country. Congress has failed to meet this obligation for more than 200 years, and I am not prepared to make DC citizens wait another 200 years.

Mr. President, the tax-paying citizens of the District of Columbia have been without congressional voting representation for too long. The House has acted. Now it is time for the Senate to act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hatch and me in support of this essential legislation.

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