Floor Statements

No more than 10 minutes, or less.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I, too, wish to thank the Budget Committee chairman and express my appreciation for his hard work and that of the ranking member for their diligence throughout this budget process.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for the many ways that he affects the lives of Americans all across this great Nation in support of a multitude of things but without a doubt in terms of higher education and in making that opportunity available to young adults across this country who want to reach their potential, who want to give back to their country, and through reaching that potential are able to add more of the gift they have to give this world and certainly to our Nation. His tireless work in those areas has been unbelievably important to students in Arkansas--I know myself, having gone to school with a student loan--but without a doubt realizing that potential, realizing that opportunity, and making it available for Americans all across this country. Senator Kennedy has done tremendous work, and we applaud that.

I also again want to applaud Chairman Conrad, who has done a phenomenal job in bringing together a budget that I believe truly reflects the values of this country and the values of the American people. The budget is a blueprint document. It is a place for us to really express our priorities as a Congress. We move forward with a budget that we hope reflects the things we hear from our constituencies and the ways they want to see their Nation, their Government, investing in this country.

They want to see us investing in the education, the human capital that is going to continue to make this country great. They want to see us investing in infrastructure and in children, in health care and in opportunity, where we can improve on all of these many

things; investments in rural America as well as the needs that exist in our urban areas.

It is a tough job to balance all of that and truly reflect our values as Americans, because we are diverse. It is one of the greatest things about being a part of this Nation, to know that region upon region is different, and individuals in those regions are different. But the fact is, we are all under one common denominator--Americans. As a country and as a government, we want to see that investment in who we all are. I think the chairman has painstakingly looked at how we combine in this budget the values, the morals, and the issues of who we are and the investments we want to make and setting those as priorities as we move forward in the process we have.

My purpose for rising today is a simple one, and that is to better ensure that the men and women who have courageously served our Nation in uniform receive the benefits to which they are entitled in a more timely manner.

Last year, we came before the Budget Committee and set forth our priorities. One was very similar to what Senator Kennedy was just visiting about, and that was to ensure that our Guard and Reserve are going to get the educational benefits they deserve, the ones they had earned.

Our Guard and Reserve have been called to duty in a much different way in the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan than we have seen ever before, and making sure their rewards and their incentives for education are commensurate with the Active-Duty members they are fighting alongside is important. We were successful with that, we were successful in ensuring their ability to access those benefits in a timely way, because before they only had 1 year. Now we have given them more time to be able to access those benefits when they return home out of theater and out of Active Duty.

This, again, is another issue in terms of timeliness, in how we respond to our veterans and the courageous men and women who serve us. The amendment that will be offered on my behalf momentarily--and I will be offering it with my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Olympia Snowe--would do just that on timeliness. We are joined by Senators Biden, Clinton, Mikulski, and Pryor.

Mr. President, I would also like to ask unanimous consent that my colleague, Senator Lieberman, be added as a cosponsor as well.

I would also note that we had 25 Senators who joined us in a letter to the Budget Committee recently requesting this as a priority in the budget, and I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at this amendment and join us because it is truly the right thing to do. This amendment would provide an additional $50 million for the Veterans Benefits Administration.

In the scheme of things, and how we talk about things in Washington, $50 million is not a great deal. It is not a huge amount in the overall scheme of the dollars we talk about in our Nation's budget. But we believe it can truly make a difference in providing the Veterans Benefits Administration with the additional resources it desperately needs to more effectively meet its increasing workload and its unacceptability in terms of the large backlog of pending claims.

In recent years, Congress has taken the lead in tackling the claims backlog and improving the management of the VBA. In last year's budget, much needed resources were provided to increase the number of claims processing staff essential to reducing the pending claims backlog and improving the timeliness of that claims process.

There is not a Member in this body, I am sure, who has not dealt with, in their constituent services and their casework, the issues of veterans' benefits that have been backlogged, the time it takes to get these veterans the benefits they deserve. They have fought hard for this country and need and deserve those benefits.

The leadership and guidance of Chairman Akaka and Chairman Conrad and their staffs certainly made all of this possible. Today we seek to invest further in the commitment we already made in last year's budget and what we were pushing forward and were successful in, in terms of additional funding for the VBA dealing with that backlog of cases.

According to the Veterans Benefits Administration's Workload Report from March 8, 2008, the total number of pending compensation and pension claims was 666,710. That was up from 627,429 this time last year. So we are seeing an increase in our caseload while all the while we still have a backlog in those cases that are pending.

The amount that has been pending for more than 180 days is nearly 27 percent. Additionally, claims requiring a disability rating determination, which are the most time consuming and resource intensive to the process, have increased more than 50 percent since 2003.

This is inexcusable--veterans who return home from Iraq and Afghanistan, veterans who are out there with disability claims from other circumstances, who have been put into these backlogs. It is continuing to grow. We are only asking for $50 million to be able to improve upon that situation for these veterans.

Between the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2007, the number of filed claims increased 45 percent, from almost 579,000 to 838,000. For fiscal year 2009, the VA, which has consistently underestimated its workload in the past, projects the number to increase to approximately 872,000. These numbers are increasing and we have to get a handle on it so we can stop those overloads and certainly the workloads that are backlogged.

Further, the VA cautions that ongoing hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan could increase its workload even further. So we know unfortunately there is not going to be a lessening. There is only, more than likely, going to be an increase. We have to make sure we have the resources there.

In light of all these mounting challenges, this amendment would provide an additional $50 million to the VBA's general administration account so it would have the flexibility to explore pilot programs and invest more in training or technology initiatives to help tackle the claims backlog. This is not a process that is going to go away if we do not address it. It is simply not fair to our veterans.

It complements the recommendations that are provided in the Budget Views and Estimates from both the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs. As discussed in those documents----

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Gallery.)

Mr. President, there are many passionate pleas we hear across our country. Hopefully, the passionate pleas we make here on the floor of the Senate on behalf of our constituents can be seen as passionate as many we witness--some here today, and certainly others. I continue with my passionate plea on behalf of the soldiers, the brave American men and women who serve this great country. In what we have seen in the backlog, through the Veterans' Administration, certainly it is an indication that we can do a better job in providing those benefits to the service men and women who have done such a courageous job on behalf of this great Nation and all of us.

What I recommended in my amendment are recommendations that I think complement the recommendations provided in the Budget Views and Estimates from both the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs. Again, I thank Chairman Akaka for all of his hard work and Chairman Conrad for working with us on this issue.

Our veterans are a very passionate issue to many of us, coming from a

family where my dad was an infantryman in Korea. We talked earlier about the impression our families leave on us. Senator Conrad mentioned his grandmother who believed in education. I grew up in a household very much like that. My husband did as well. My husband's grandmother is going to be 111 this year and she is still preaching education. She is still on her own, still out there making sure that every child who got her Christmas letter this year knew the importance of education. Certainly, without a doubt, those of us who grew up in households that had tremendous respect for the patriots, the brave and courageous men and women who serve this country in the Armed Forces, deserve that same kind of passion.

We discussed in those documents, coming to a close here, that it is imperative for the Veterans Benefits Administration to make greater investments in the training programs to prepare new hires for the complicated process of compensation claims adjudication.

Additionally, workload production initiatives such as technological improvements offer the hope of reducing additionally the average time for a claims decision. The brave men and women who have served our Nation in uniform should be a priority for each one of us. As we hear all kinds of conversation and talk about people's positions on whether we should be in conflict, whether we should be engaged in war, there should be no debate, there should be no conflict, in whether those who are serving this country in uniform deserve to be sure that the benefits they have earned and they deserve are rightly in place for them, and something they can use, not set about waiting 180 days to hear back from somebody to tell them they have yet another 180 days to wait until they actually get those benefits. The number of veterans who contact my office for help grows each year, and I am sure it does in the offices of many of my colleagues. Unfortunately, the backlog is often denying them the benefits they desperately need for years; not just weeks or days, but years. It is simply unacceptable.

The lessons ingrained in me since childhood have taught me that after a person has served in the military, we should make absolutely every effort, not just priority but every effort, to fund and make real their benefits and to honor those individuals who have earned them and care for them and their families, those who have served this great country. It is the least we can do for those to whom we owe so much. It is the least we can do to reassure future generations, and those who are serving in the field today, that a grateful nation will not forget them when their military service is complete.

Mr. President, I thank the chairmen for working with us, hopefully, again, as passionately as the passion that has been displayed in this Chamber today about people's views on military service and certainly the conflict in Iraq. We can make good on the promise we made to our soldiers who have served so courageously and bravely.

I thank the Chair, and I yield back the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a nonprofit organization that has been making a difference in the lives of Mid- South and Delta small business men and women for the last 10 years, alt.Consulting. Founded in 1998, alt.Consulting has been providing small business owners and entrepreneurs with the tools and advice needed to build their businesses and provide jobs in a region of the country in need of a boost.

When one reads their mission statement, you quickly gets a sense of what makes alt.Consulting different. It reads as follows:

alt.Consulting works with local business owners and

entrepreneurs in rural Delta and minority communities to

examine, diagnose, start and rebuild businesses. We provide

tailored support, skill building, and access to capital to

enhance business performance leading to growth and self-

defined success.

We act on our ethical and social principles, empowering

entrepreneurs to overcome racial, gender, socioeconomic and

geographic barriers. We believe this leads to vibrant,

entrepreneur friendly and just communities.

Through its comprehensive, affordable assistance to small

businesses, alt.Consulting raises the standard of living by

enabling profitability for new and growing businesses and

preventing business failures. We demonstrate the

contributions of healthy small businesses to growing

communities with more jobs, wealth building opportunities and

a stronger tax base.

With offices in Pine Bluff, AR, and Memphis, TN, alt.Consulting has gone into some of the most impoverished communities in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee and provided the support and assistance needed to get businesses off the ground. The average poverty rate in their target market is a staggering 24 percent. Average unemployment is 8 percent. Even more daunting is that less than 13 percent of the population has a bachelor's degree in the areas they work.

Due to their methodology, though, alt.Consulting has been making a big difference in the Mid-South and the Delta since its inception. In 2006, 195 businesses received one-on-one assistance. As a result, alt.Consulting was responsible for 75 new jobs in a region of the country that had been experiencing negative growth. Moreover, 10 businesses on the verge of failure were saved which protected 700 existing jobs. The sales growth of companies they assisted resulted in $12.7 million in new economic activity. And their technical assistance resulted in $430,000 in SBA community express loans to 39 businesses. This gave those existing businesses the working capital to grow and reach new customers.

alt.Consulting is also working with selected communities to train business specialists to replicate their services at the local level. Thanks to support from U.S. Department of Agriculture, the rural community development initiative program, and the Enterprise Corporation of the Delta, they have launched new, nonprofit microenterprise programs to provide continuous resources to rural communities throughout the Mid-South.

One such effort, the Pine Bluff Entrepreneurship Collaborative, was started in June 2006 and was comprised of 47 community leaders. Their goals were to create an equity pool to start and expand businesses, identify local resources for small businesses, make health insurance affordable for small businesses, and develop marketing and training workshops.

Youth is also a major focus for alt.Consulting. Recognizing that youth entrepreneurship builds a lifetime of opportunities, alt.Consulting works with partners to help ``at-risk'' youth start and build their own small businesses. Through one-on-one mentoring and assistance, alt.Consulting has worked to turn their young ideas into a reality.

As a native of Helena, AR, who grew up in the heart of the Delta, I am proud of the impact that alt.Consulting is making in communities throughout my State. They serve as an example of what we can do when we focus on what

we can be, not what we don't have. This program, and others like it, allows us to build on our strengths, to enable our citizens to make a decent living, to encourage our young people to stay at home, and to ultimately build the tax base and enhance the quality of life for us all.

I commend alt.Consulting on their vision and hard work. I am honored to recognize them on 10 great years, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of their labor for years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize one of the most beloved heritages in my home State of Arkansas, our national forests. Arkansas is blessed with two National Forest Systems, the Ouachita National Forest and the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. Last year, we recognized the 100th Anniversary of the Ouachita National Forest which stretches from western Arkansas to southeastern Oklahoma. On March 6, 2008, the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests will take their turn and celebrate their centennial anniversary.

For the last 100 years, the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests have protected our Nation's timber resources while also providing Americans with numerous outdoor and recreational opportunities. What is unique is that they are two completely separate and distinct forests but are managed together.

In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt set aside lands that spanned the Ozark Mountains and named it the Ozark National Forest. His goal was to conserve and safeguard the hardwood

timberlands in our State, and it was one of the first efforts in our country's history to protect our Nation's valuable forests.

Today, the Ozark National Forest contains a little more than 1.2 million acres and runs across northern Arkansas to the Oklahoma border. It is a diverse forest that harbors more than 500 different types of trees and other woody plants. Moreover, it is home to the tallest mountain in the State of Arkansas, Mount Magazine, outside Paris, AR, and includes a living underground cave system, Blanchard Spring Caves, near Mountain View, AR.

A little more than 50 years after President Roosevelt created the Ozark National Forest, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a proclamation to set aside 22,000 additional acres in Arkansas. Named the St. Francis National Forest, it is one of the smallest forests in the National Forest System. The St. Francis Forest begins in the hilly Crowley's Ridge section of eastern Arkansas and runs along the St. Francis River to the Mississippi River in the delta flatlands.

Each forest has its own unique character, geography, and topography, but together, they form the Ozark-St. Francis National Forests.

The headquarters is located in Russellville, AR, at the Henry R. Koen Forest Service Office Building. The building is named for the man who supervised the Ozark National Forest from 1922-1939. The Henry R. Koen Building is a landmark in and of itself. Built by the Civilian Conservation Corps, a New Deal work relief program during the Great Depression, it was dedicated in 1939. In April 1979, the building was named in Mr. Koen's honor after legislation was introduced in Congress by my predecessor, Senator Dale Bumpers.

As we celebrate this milestone, I also want the forest supervisors in Arkansas to know that I am continuing to fight for them in the U.S. Senate. They oversee some of the largest national forests in the South. Traditionally, our forest management and conservation programs have been highly productive, efficient, and profitable, benefitting taxpayers, local economies, and the region. However, with limited resources, our forest supervisors face considerable challenges in accessing and managing all of the forests.

Earlier this year, I sent a letter with the entire Arkansas Congressional delegation to the Bush administration to express our support for greater resources for our State's national forests. Currently, our forest supervisors are only able to implement one half of their total forest management plan. Furthermore, damage from recent tornadoes has compounded the need for resources to access salvageable timber in the most efficient and timely manner possible.

It is my belief that additional investment in Arkansas's national forests will allow Arkansans to continue enjoying them for another 100 years and beyond.

Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that today I honor one of the true pioneers for women in Arkansas, Vada Webb Sheid, who passed away this past Monday. Mrs. Sheid was a remarkable woman who was an enterprising entrepreneur and built a business, Sheid's Furniture Company, with her husband Carl in Mountain Home.

But Mrs. Sheid is best remembered as a dedicated public servant who became the first woman in Arkansas to serve in both the Arkansas House of Representatives and Senate.

She began her public service at 19 years old when she became the Izard County welfare director. Soon after, she met Carl, and they opened the area's first self-serve food market in Mountain Home. During World War II, Carl was drafted in the Army, and Mrs. Sheid went to work as a payroll clerk for a company building the Norfork Dam. After the war, they opened up a grocery store before finally starting the Sheid's Furniture Company in 1957, which her family still runs today.

It was around this time that Mrs. Sheid began to consider furthering her career in public service. She served as Baxter Country treasurer from 1960 to 1964 before being elected to the Arkansas House. As a State legislator, she focused on issues affecting the elderly and was asked by then-Governor Dale Bumpers to serve as a representative to the White House Conference on Aging.

In 1976, Mrs. Sheid sought higher office and was elected to the Arkansas Senate. She served in that capacity until 1985. Shortly thereafter, then-Governor Bill Clinton appointed her to the Arkansas Police Commission, where she later served as chairman.

Mrs. Sheid had many great accomplishments in the Arkansas Legislature. She sponsored legislation creating Arkansas State University-Mountain Home and North Arkansas Community College in Harrison. She also authored legislation to construct the twin bridges over Lake Norfork, as well as numerous highway projects.

Mr. President, as a woman growing up in Arkansas, Vada Sheid was a true inspiration to me and many others. The example she set is one that I can only hope to follow. She will be missed by all Arkansans. At this time, my thoughts and prayers go out to her family.

Mr. President, I speak with great sadness as I remember the life of a great Arkansan who passed away on February 8, 2008: Michael Evans ``Mike'' Wilson.

For the last 20 years, Mike served as the chairman and CEO of Lee Wilson and Company, a business that began to transform and build the Arkansas Delta region more than 100 years ago. Growing up the daughter of a rice farmer in eastern Arkansas, I knew of the Wilson family and how their name was synonymous with the values of hard work and enterprise throughout our region.

Mike was not only the leader of his longtime family business; he was also a tireless servant for the city of Wilson and the State of Arkansas. He had served as mayor of Wilson since 1986 and was committed to economic development and advancing educational opportunity in Arkansas. He also lent his time to a considerable number of charitable organizations' boards and committees to further those goals.

A 1965 graduate of the Citadel, Mike also loved his country. He served our Nation in the U.S. Army upon graduation and achieved the rank of captain before his honorable discharge.

He was passionate about life, and I consider him a true friend. He will be missed by us all.

My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Pat, son Perry, daughter Natalie, and their entire family at this time.

Madam President, I say to those who have discussed this before me that we received a package, the Pelosi-Bush package that started in the House, and it was done very quickly. They bypassed their committees and they bypassed the consideration of the Senate until we got the package. So what we tried to do was to do our very best to improve upon that package in ways that we felt would not only stimulate the economy but do justice to the American people.

To the conversation that happened before me from the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from New York, I don't think what we are talking about here is whether we are going to take up whatever we can do; we owe it to the American people to do our very best, to do the very best we can to stimulate the economy and make sure we are including every American in a part of that stimulus package.

I think that is what we tried to do in the Senate Finance Committee under the tremendous and thoughtful leadership of Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley. We came up with a plan that, yes, not only looked at what we could do with those rebate checks and making sure we equitably distributed

those dollars--not only to those included in the Pelosi-Bush plan, but also to include seniors. The chairman and ranking member found a way to include seniors, qualifying their Social Security income for the rebate income threshold, but they also looked at the crisis epicenter: the home mortgage issue. They looked at the unemployed who are getting ready to fall off the rolls and who are working families trying to take care of their kids and their aging parents. They looked at new job creation, the renewable energy sources. What an incredible way for us to begin to reinvigorate the economy, to make a quick hit on jobs that were already in existence that were probably going to leave if we didn't do something about it.

I joined my colleague Senator Snowe, and I was very proud to join Senator Snowe, as I regularly am, to offer an amendment to add veterans' disability income as well. We wanted to add veterans' disability income to make sure our disabled veterans would also get a rebate check, because I know, looking out there, they need it as well.

That is unbelievably gracious from my neighbor in Tennessee.

Mr. President, as always, my neighbor from Tennessee is gracious and a gentleman.

Here in Washington, we often get into the business of debating specific policies and we lose sight of what it is all about. Before we finish this debate, I want to remind people what it is about.

There is a gentleman named James Free who lives in West Memphis, right across the border from the Senator from Tennessee. He served in the U.S. Army from 1972 to 1977. His service led him around the world two or three times, he said. But James' disability makes it hard for him to work and to get by day to day. He gets $314 in a disability check that he receives from the VA each month, which is his primary source of income. Now, because of the modifications we have made here in the Senate, James and other folks like him will qualify for the rebate. How could any of us argue that James Free, who has served our Nation very courageously and proudly, should not be included in this package today, that he would not appreciate the opportunity to receive a stimulus check, and that he would not put it back, right back, into the economy.

This is a good package. We had hoped we would do our very best, but it is a good package, and we want to make sure that as we take this step to stimulate the economy in this great Nation, we will prepare ourselves for the next piece of recovery we can offer, a recovery piece that will be more long term, more substantial in making sure that we deal with job creation and some of the other crises that exist. It is going to be good for our economy now. It is going to be good for our working families and good for seniors, good for our veterans, and due to some additions I think from the other side, also good for the widows of veterans. I appreciate the fact we are moving forward on behalf of the American people.

I want to say thanks to my colleague from Tennessee for yielding time so I could finish my comments.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, a special thanks to the chairman for all his hard work.

As we look across this great Nation, we all understand our economy needs some help, and that is why the Senate Finance Committee quickly took up the economic stimulus package which the House and the administration had put out there. I have to give an incredible compliment to our chairman and ranking member, Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, who went about this in such a thoughtful way, making sure there was no pride of authorship but recognizing what we had to do was to improve on this bill, to improve on what the House had done in such a hurried fashion, in order to be sure we didn't leave people out. This is very thoughtful with respect to the economy and the long-term debt issues out there, to keep a package that was small and reasonable, yet was comprehensive for the task that it had.

The package Speaker Pelosi and President Bush put together was a good start, but, unfortunately, there were some very important changes that needed to be made, and most notably some very hard-working and deserving Americans were disqualified from the stimulus rebate under their proposal: our seniors living on Social Security income and our disabled veterans. Why in the world would we want to leave behind this group of such important Americans--fabrics of our American family, people whose backs this country was built on and protected by--20 million seniors and at least a quarter of a million veterans who we know should qualify? The fact that there are disabled veterans who might qualify for that rebate is certainly reason enough to make sure we go back and get it right. I have no idea why the other side would not want to do that.

This is not the only thing we intend to do to stimulate the economy, but it is the jolt we need. The Senator from Oklahoma was worried it was the only thing. No. No one thinks this is the only thing we are going to do. We are going to follow with a farm bill, which will put an immediate stimulus into our rural areas. We will be looking at the energy tax package and a host of others--No Child Left Behind, which has been underfunded a tremendous amount.

The Senate Finance Committee took action quickly to address the inequities of the Pelosi-Bush package, and I am glad they did. The chairman and

ranking member did an excellent job, and I hope my colleagues will recognize we have a one-time shot at making sure the Americans understand what it is we are doing: stimulating and jolting the economy and making it fair.

Mr. President, yesterday the Finance Committee went to work. We marked up a stimulus package after the House had done their package on Tuesday, I believe. They sent a package to us because, quite frankly, as we look out across this great Nation, we understand that our economy needs a jolt. It needs a quick jolt. It needs something for hard-working Americans to participate in bringing this country back on line and getting our economy going and moving forward. That is exactly what we did in the Finance Committee. We took the bill the House had quickly done. They moved quickly with the administration to put something out there. That was a good thing to do, get us started and get us moving in the Congress. But, unfortunately, as we looked at that package they sent us, there were some very hard-working Americans, some justifiable Americans who needed to be a part of stimulating this economy who had been left out.

So what we did in the Finance Committee was to try to make some improvements in a timely way to the package the House had already produced and to get it over here so we could get to work on it here on the floor of the Senate and move it forward so that the people of this country could again reinvigorate themselves and their economies and get back to work. Our plan included two very key groups the House had left out. Those two groups are our seniors and disabled veterans.

I know the Presiding Officer, like myself and many others, has a tremendous respect for the seniors of this Nation. These are the individuals who have built this country. They have labored hard. They have given their all. The fact that their Social Security income does not count as income on their tax returns is no reason to leave them out of this equation. The other group is our disabled veterans. I know my colleagues can realize the importance of this group. These are courageous Americans who have fought, given to this country in order that we can live in this great land and enjoy the freedoms we do. There is no reason we should leave these two groups out in stimulating the economy.

At least 20 million seniors depend primarily on Social Security income for their retirement. These are individuals who are out there in their communities. They are working hard still to be an active part of the community. But more importantly, they are also those who need it the most. They are the ones who are deciding between whether they are going to purchase their prescription drugs, whether they are going to buy food, whether they are going to pay the utility bill, and whether they will be able to do that small something special for a grandchild or a neighbor. Those are the kinds of people they are.

I did a call-in show yesterday. There was the most delightful man, an elderly gentleman--I believe he was from South Carolina--who called in to the program.

He said: I am one of those seniors. I don't want to be forgotten. I want to be a part of stimulating this economy. I really need it. I am appreciative that you didn't forget our wounded warriors, our disabled veterans, those who have given of themselves that this country could be free and respected. But I have to tell you, if you leave us out, it will be OK because I still believe in this country, and I still believe in those who do need it, those folks who are working hard to take care of their families.

That is just the kind of person we need to help, somebody who has that kind of compassion, somebody who respects the fact that they need it, but they are going to continue to give back in whatever possible way they can.

There is no excuse for us not bringing up this Senate Finance Committee package and passing it, leaving those two groups of individuals out in this great opportunity to revitalize our economy, put faith back in the American people that we are going to act quickly, that we are going to target these resources to places where we know they will get back into the economy.

If you look at the facts from the AARP, older Americans spend about 92 percent of their income--a greater proportionate share than all other adults. They are going to spend those resources on putting it back into the economy. Food, for instance--more than 85 percent of the food we consume in this country is produced or processed in this country. Those are American jobs they are going to be supporting. It is an economy that supports us all which they will be supporting. It is critical that we make sure these two groups are not left out, and we did that in the Finance Committee. Those were two of our priorities.

I was so proud to join with my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, to offer the amendment for our wounded warriors. I was so proud of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley for working with us to make that happen, realizing a group had been left out that was essential and that should not lose the opportunity nor the belief we have in them that they are an integral part of this American fabric. They are the very reason we enjoy and maintain the freedoms we have.

Our disabled veterans are such an incredibly important group. We know there are approximately 3.2 million veterans who receive disability income from the Veterans' Administration who will be eligible for rebates under the Finance Committee plan; 3.2 million of them receive disability income they cannot count as income on their tax returns. We don't know that all 3.2 million will qualify, but we do know that, at the least, a quarter of a million of them will. We know for a fact that a quarter of a million of them will qualify for that rebate. It is certainly more than that that is possible. But the point is not how many of them qualify. The point is that we would attempt to leave out any of them in terms of being able to participate in this economic stimulus.

These Americans--our wounded warriors, our disabled veterans, just like our seniors and just like hard-working American families--are going to spend their rebate checks on a variety of needs. They are either going to be spending it on food or a new pair of shoes. They are going to be taking care of their needs, maybe pumping money back into the economy in a multitude of ways.

The Senate plan is a good plan. It is good for Americans. It is good for seniors. It is good for disabled veterans. It is good for our economy. We have worked in the committee in a timely way. We have targeted these dollars. We have kept a rein on the amount of money we are spending, having been advised by all kinds of economists, the Secretary of the Treasury, former Secretaries of the Treasury, who said to us: Do not make the plan too big. Keep it limited.

That is exactly what we did. But we did take the opportunity to not forget two very valuable parts of the American fabric and the American family; that is, our seniors and our disabled veterans.

If we take up this Finance Committee package and pass it quickly and get it to the President, then we will have achieved the goal of stimulating our economy and not leaving out any Americans who could be such a vital part in helping us do that.

So I encourage all of my colleagues, let's don't sit here and squabble over a whole lot of things. Let's move quickly, taking what the House has done, making the improvements we have

made, and move forward, get this done. Then we have an even greater opportunity to start in on the work that is the business of the U.S. Congress; that is, to make sure the investment we have made in these people and in this great stimulus package is not lost or squandered because we are going to follow it up with a multitude of other things that are on our plate that can continue to stimulate the economy.

The one that comes to mind, to me, is the farm bill. The farm bill, which we passed out of here with 78, 79 votes--it would have been more if all the Members had been here; we had never gotten that many votes for a farm bill, I don't think, in our history--is a great opportunity to infuse rural America with development dollars, conservation programs that need to be funded, and looking at nutrition programs, which are essential. I just mentioned that 85 percent-plus of the food we consume in this country is grown or processed here. Think of the good American jobs we stimulate when we make sure those nutrition programs are in place.

We have a host of opportunities before us. I hope--I hope--we will not drag our feet on this stimulus package; that we can come together in a bipartisan way, just as we did in the Finance Committee, and vote for this stimulus package that has come out of committee with the improvements that do not leave any of our American families behind.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee regarding the timber tax provisions that are commonly referred to as the ``TREE Act.'' These provisions were included in the tax title of the Energy bill, which, regrettably, was deleted from the bill that the Senate passed last week. On a brighter note, they have been included in the tax title of the farm bill, which passed the Senate last week.

As a matter of tax policy, enactment of the TREE Act is extremely important. It reforms the rules that apply to both corporations and individuals who own timber, thereby improving the international competitiveness of the U.S. timber industry.

Enactment of the TREE Act also is time-sensitive. timber companies that continue to be organized as corporations are under intensifying pressure to reorganize. In that case, a corporation that owns substantial manufacturing facilities would be forced to sell some of those facilities, and to make other structural changes, in order to comply with the relevant tax rules that it would newly become subject to. This would be likely to cause disruptions in some of the affected communities, and also would make it harder for U.S. companies to compete internationally. To forestall these adverse consequences, Congress must act quickly.

Accordingly, I am pleased that the Senate has enacted the TREE Act as part of the farm bill, and I believe that it is critical for Congress to enact a new farm bill, including the TREE Act, early next year. I would like to ask the chairman and ranking members of the Finance Committee whether they share this view.

Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleagues for the work we have done on this farm bill. I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to oppose the Klobuchar amendment.

Listening to my colleague from Minnesota, her description about directions being important does matter. That is why it is important for us to look at the direction we are going in this farm bill. This underlying farm bill that we brought together in the Senate Agriculture Committee has the most substantive reform in the history of a farm bill.

It stands for farmers, for family farmers. It stands for a safe food supply which is absolutely critical. It is a bill

that ensures that in future generations we will have a safe food supply. But we can also go too far in the one direction. I think that is important for us to take a look at.

The Senator from Georgia talked about the fact that these individuals have large operations. Well, if you are farming 1,000 acres of cotton, you are going to have to sign an operating loan at the beginning of your crop year to the tune of about $5 million. That is tremendous risk. How important would it be to have a brother or a son who is going to also cosign that note, who is also going to have access to the ability of allowing the Government to provide those two a safety net, of being able to provide that safe and affordable food supply.

If those individuals are farming and they are getting payments, it means they are getting those payments because prices are low. One year it may be good, the next year it may be bad. We do not need to go in the wrong direction.

The millionaire Senator Klobuchar references from Florida, he should not be out there. If he is worth $500 million, he should have been caught by the last farm bill's initiative. He would certainly be caught by the limits that are in the committee bill we bring to the floor.

I might suggest that from the GAO study we have seen, much of what gets underneath what actually exists is because the existing administration is not implementing the current law. The GAO study tells us that. Well, if they are not implementing the current law, why would we go further in that wrong direction? We have gone critically in the right direction. We have lowered by 70 percent the AGI means test. That is what it is, a means test.

As I stated on this floor so many times during the consideration of this legislation, the underlying bill already contains the most significant farm program reform in the history of a farm bill. We have already included the dramatic reform to this adjusted gross income means test that unanimously passed the Senate Ag Committee.

Prior to the 2003 farm bill, there was no means test that existed for farm programs. However, we knew it was important to eliminate loopholes that nonfarmers used to receive program payments. During the 2002 farm bill debate, we instituted a $2.5 million test. Well, I would ask my colleagues from Iowa and Minnesota, the gentleman who was referenced by the Senator from Georgia, he is not going to be caught if he were to reinvest.

We have not extended this means test to anybody else. The conservation programs are not--I hope the chairman will correct me--the conservation payments will not be corrected by this, they will still remain under the current law at $2.5 million. So they will not even be lowered to what we have lowered it in the committee bill, to 750.

So if we are going to do this, if we are genuine about wanting to put this strong means test and go down that severe direction, then why are we not doing it across the board? Why are we not making that difference? If what we want to do is to create all those savings, then why are we not being fair about it and making it across the board?

In the underlying bill, we have gone further and lowered the threshold to 750,000, and that is a 70-percent reduction, a 70-percent reduction in the AGI test. Before we go further, let's see if that does not work. We went to 2.5 in the last bill, we have gone consistently lower now. If the President is not going to implement the law as it exists, what good would even taking it more extremely down that road do?

I hope we will not forget we have also significantly reformed individual program payment limits on top of which we will sharply reduce benefits to producers who remain eligible under the AGI test.

This is already historic reform. There is no need to hit these farmers with a double whammy. It is also vitally important to remember the purpose of the AGI test we included in the committee bill is to keep rich nonfarmers, the ones my good friend from Minnesota and others continually cite, from receiving farm bill benefits.

But, unfortunately, the Klobuchar amendment would not just ratchet down the AGI limits to rich nonfarmers, it would also sharply ratchet down the support to family farmers, families who come together to farm because they want to share the risk, they want to be able to share the ability to sign that operating loan note or to share the cost of what it costs to purchase that equipment, that seed and that fertilizer, the enormous expenses that go into a capital intensive farm. They want to share those risks.

It would sharply ratchet down their ability to do it. That is not the purpose of an AGI test. That is not the purpose of means testing. Ironically, while the amendment before you would do this to farm families, it leaves wide open another loophole that lets rich nonfarmers continue to collect those huge conservation payments to the tune of $2.5 million, which is the existing law. We do not even correct that.

That is right. It is not across the board. The big elephant in the room no one wants to talk about, that while folks hammer away at farm families in this country trying to make ends meet, other wealthy nonfarmers, such as Scottie Pippen, who was mentioned earlier from my State, who often gets cited, will continue to collect conservation checks.

I do not know why we continue to talk about how we want to ratchet down on family farmers, but we do not want to talk about it across the board in other programs where we are seeing large payments going to very wealthy millionaire nonfarmers.

So I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, vote no on this amendment which hurts family farms while letting some of those rich nonfarmers completely off the hook. If the Senator from Minnesota wants to rid the country of all the sensational stories based on half-truths, I would advise her to apply her test in this proposal across the board to all the commodities and not just target Southern growers yet again.

I would advise caution, though, because I do not think we fully understand the ramifications of true means testing to that degree. On one hand, once we have set the precedent of implementing a means test on farmers, who is to say we will not begin tying a means test to other sectors of the economy that receive Government subsidies and tax breaks, perhaps those who deliver health care, maybe those who receive health care, capital investments, the list could go on and on.

If we are going shortly to means testing where the Government is going to investigate, I would suggest we stop for a moment and pay caution and remember these are the hard-working farm families who provide us a safe and abundant supply of food.

Senator Durbin continues to talk about unsafe foods coming in. What happens 10 years from now if we put farmers out of business and all of a sudden we are dependent on foreign food just as we have become dependent on foreign oil?

Second, we don't know what our neighbors make. I don't want to know what my neighbors make. If we start seeing our rice and cotton outsourced to foreign countries, we will see the full effect of this means test. The consequences of enacting a means test that is too stringent and disqualifies certain farmers' crops is very dangerous to our farm families. It is like playing with dynamite and seeing how close you can stand to the blast without getting hurt. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Klobuchar amendment.

I do know one thing. If we go too far in the wrong direction without being given the opportunity to better understand what we have done and why certain people are not coming under that test, as a country we are going to regret it. We are going to regret that we have put out of business southern growers who provide 85 percent of the rice we consume in this country. The American people are going to hold us accountable when we become dependent on foreign food that comes from countries that have no regulation on how it is grown, on what is used, no regulation on the water source that may be used, how they fertilize, no regulations such as our farmers adhere to, producing the safest, most abundant, and affordable food supply in the world.

One of the things you can definitely say of the underlying bill that passed the Senate Agriculture Committee unanimously is that millionaire nonfarmers need not apply where this bill is concerned. Going too far in the direction that Senator Klobuchar wants

to take us without understanding what we have already done and how it will have unintended consequences could be dangerous for this country and the families of this country who depend on these working farms for the safe and abundant supply of food they so desperately need.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, as we close this debate, I want to say thanks to so many Senators who have worked hard to come up with particularly what we brought out of the Agriculture Committee which was an enormously well-balanced bill. We eliminated loopholes that people had complained about. We eliminated the three-entity rule, the generic certificates. We put in transparency that people have been clamoring for in the direct attribution. I remind people that these are all things that apply to the basic commodity programs. Here we go again with going farther in something we have already reformed.

Senator Klobuchar wants to go one step farther in lowering that AGI. But you have to ask the question: Why is it we have to cherry-pick lowering that means testing and AGI just for the commodity programs, so it hits the capital-intensive crops that southern growers grow? Why does it not apply to the conservation payments that go out that are in large numbers? Why doesn't it apply to the sugar program or the MILC program or the ethanol tax credit? It simply cherry-picks those individuals whom they can cherry-pick. That is the commodities program.

My argument to my colleagues is, we have lowered the AGI means test from the 2002 farm bill by 70 percent. Some of the people who were used as examples should be caught. I am not sure why they are not. Maybe it is the reason the GAO study tells us this administration doesn't implement the existing law. But we should make sure that what we are doing in this bill is working before we begin to take a further step and suffer the unintended consequences of putting out of business those farmers who use these programs when prices are low, cherry-picking those commodities that are capital intensive and will suffer the most from this, and not extending this across the board so that everybody feels the pain, so everybody understands what it means when you start putting means testing on programs, when you are dealing with circumstances that are beyond our farmers' control, when you are dealing with weather, trade, global competition?

I ask my colleagues to think twice before they support this amendment and remember that we have done 70 percent in terms of lowering the AGI test. I hope they will oppose the Klobuchar amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember a great Arkansan, SFC James D. Doster, of White Hall, AR, who was killed on September 29, 2007, in Baghdad, Iraq. A soldier in the B Company, 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division based in Fort Riley, KS, Sergeant First Class Doster died from injuries sustained when an improvised explosive device, IED, detonated near his vehicle. He was 38 years old at the time of his death.

Sergeant First Class Doster graduated from White Hall High School and attended Hendrix College in Conway for 1 year before joining the Army. He served for nearly 17 years, including a tour during Operation Desert Storm in Iraq. When that conflict ended, he continued to serve, mostly as a recruiter.

A devoted husband and father, Sergeant First Class Doster is survived by his wife Amanda and two young girls, Kathryn and Grace. He is also survived by his mother, Billie K. Doster of White Hall, and brother, Robert Doster of Albuquerque, NM. His father, the late Charles C. Doster, Jr., passed away last year.

Mr. President, it is truly a sad day that our Nation has lost another great patriot. Sergeant First Class Doster served our Nation proudly for so many years, and his loss will be felt throughout the Jefferson County community. My thoughts and prayers are with his family during their time of grief.

Specialist Todd A. Motley

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to a citizen with family roots in Arkansas who served his country with honor, Specialist Todd A. Motley of Clare, MI. In support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Specialist Motley was one of four soldiers who lost their lives during combat operations outside Baghdad on September 14, 2007. Specialist Motley, along with SSG Terry Wagoner of Piedmont, SC, SPC Jonathan Rivandeneira of Jackson Heights, NY, and PVT Christopher McCloud of Malakoff, TX, suffered mortal wounds upon the detonation of an improvised explosive device near their vehicle. Each of the men was assigned to B Troop, 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX.

Motley joined the Army in March 2005 after graduating Clare Pioneer High School in 2003. ``Todd was one of your `once-in-a-lifetime' kids,'' says Pioneer principal Lori Enos. Enos described Motley as creative, loyal and ``outgoing but not obnoxious.''

As a testament to Motley's character, hundreds of residents and schoolchildren in and around the community of Harrison, MI, lined the streets and waved small American flags as the funeral procession drove past.

``He came in to talk about serving in the military, and about his experiences. He was promoting finishing school, hanging in there, and not giving up. If you have a goal, keep pushing to reach that goal,'' says Principal Enos about Motley's speech he gave at the Alternative High School in the Clare Public School District only 1 year earlier. ``He emphasized that.''

SPC Todd Motley is survived in Arkansas by his wife Karen, of Clare, his two daughters Hannah and Kaylee, also of Clare, his brothers Ian and Nickolas, his maternal grandmother Marcia Dolin, and his mother Renee, all of Hoxie, AR.

Specialist Tyler R. Seideman

Mr. President, the town of Lincoln, AR, in the northwest part of my State, lost its first casualty to the war in Iraq on August 22, 2007, when SPC Tyler R. Seideman was killed in a helicopter crash. He was only 20 years old.

Specialist Seideman joined the Army after his best friend, Logan Biswell, enlisted a few years ago. Although they were assigned to different units, both were sent to Iraq, and Specialist Seideman served with the 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division based in Schofield Barracks, HI.

Specialist Seideman was one of 14 other Americans killed aboard a Blackhawk helicopter that suffered mechanical problems and crashed in northern Iraq. There were no survivors.

Tyler was always a popular young man in his town of Lincoln. He was considered a good athlete and played both football and baseball for his hometown team, the Lincoln High School Wolves. His former coach remembered him as a leader known for his fighting spirit. In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, former Lincoln High coach Mike Guthrie said that he ``was a hard worker and a good kid. He stuck with it during lean times when we weren't very good, but he was a good athlete who played both ways and gave it everything he had.''

At his funeral, friends remembered him as the kind of guy who ``would give you the shirt off his back if you needed it.'' Others mentioned that he would always joke around or would be quick with a smile. Another high school friend called him ``a gentleman and a great role model.''

Specialist Seideman was given a full military funeral and was buried at the National Cemetery in Fayetteville. He is survived by his parents William and Lee Ann Seideman of Lincoln and his sisters Kiera and Kristen. Our thoughts and prayers will continue to be with the Seidemans and the community of Lincoln during this difficult time.

Private Nathan Z. Thacker

Mr. President, Arkansas lost another young man last week when 18- year-old Army PVT Nathan Thacker from Greenbrier was killed on October 13 by a roadside bomb in Kirkuk, Iraq. Three other soldiers were injured, one seriously.

He had been in Iraq less than 2 weeks and was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division out of Fort Drum, NY.

Private Thacker's parents, Stephen and Darlene, remembered him as a son who felt obligated to serve his country. ``He believed in doing his duty,'' his father said in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Although he was nervous about going to Iraq, his father noted that Nathan told him `` `It's my job now, and I need to do it.' He was very duty conscious, a good boy.''

Private Thacker attended Guy-Perkins High School in Guy, AR. Although he left school early, he received his general education development diploma last year. His former principal, David Westenhover, recalled that he was one of the first students he met when he became principal. ``He was just one you could count on to be in class and do his work. He was not disruptive. Citizenship was definitely a plus for him.''

One of his teachers, Stacy Ralls, taught Nate, as they called him, in science classes. She told a local TV station that Private Thacker ``liked to have fun, he always had a smile for you.'' She said that he was great at building friendships with a wide variety of other students. ``It's not every kid you encounter, seems to have these qualities, he had those qualities.'' She felt that he died a hero and will miss him greatly.

His father has said that he will receive a full military-honor funeral in Greenbrier. Private Thacker was the third youngest of seven children.

Specialist David L. Watson

Mr. President, Arkansas lost another great patriot when SPC David L. Watson of Newport, AR, died on September 22, 2007, in Baqubah, Iraq, from a noncombat accident in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specialist Watson was a combat medic assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, based out of Fort Lewis, WA. His brigade deployed to Iraq in April 2007.

``He was an excellent student. He never complained, and he was easy to get along with,'' recalls Ruth Jones, a retired Tuckerman High School teacher of Specialist Watson's past.

Cathy Platt, a friend of Watson's, said, ``Some go to Iraq because they have to, David went because he wanted to. [Watson's death] is a shock to the whole community.''

These quotes give us great insight about a man held in the highest standards by all those who knew him. ``He went to Iraq not to take lives, but to save them,'' said his wife Lisa. Pictures of Watson and his family reflect his shining light of care, love, and devotion not only to his family but to everyone he met. His wife Lisa recalls, ``David never met a stranger.''

SPC David Watson is survived in Arkansas by his mother Linda Watson, of Newport; his wife Lisa Watson and two children, Dayton, 4, and Caelan, 8, also of Newport; two brothers, Bryant and Derek, of Tuckerman and Newport; two sisters, Christal Hill and Nikki Moore, of Conway and Little Rock; grandmother Ernestine Watson, of Tuckerman; grandparents O.C. and Velma Bobo, of Tuckerman; and father- and mother- in-law Johnny and Brenda Powell, both of Newport.

Specialist Donovan D. Witham

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of SPC Donovan D. Witham of Malvern, AR. Specialist Witham was killed by an improvised explosive device that detonated near his vehicle outside Baghdad, Iraq. The blast killed a second soldier, SSG Sandy R. Britt of Apopka, FL. Both men were assigned to the 1st Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division based in Fort Bragg, NC.

Specialist Witham graduated from Glen Rose High School in Malvern where he excelled in football and track. He was also active in other activities such as student council, choir, and the Drama Club.

When Specialist Witham joined the Army in November 2005, he became a military police officer and was assigned to the 82nd Airborne in that role. However, he soon took on the additional role of a paratrooper. His troop commander, MAJ Mark Lastoria, described Specialist Witham as a soldier who ``represented everything good about our paratroopers. He was a volunteer amongst volunteers by not only becoming a military police officer, but also a paratrooper. He always strived to be the best at everything he did. He will be deeply missed and always remembered by those of us who had the honor to serve with him.''

He was a decorated solider who received the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the National Defense Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Combat Action Badge, and the Parachutist's Medal.

At this time of mourning, our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends. He is survived by his mother and stepfather, Martha and Richard Lanius of Malvern, and three sisters, Amber Sharp and husband Steve of Magnolia; Jamie Witham of Benton; and Virginia Bennett of Magnolia. He is also survived by Julie DeBoer of Michigan, to whom his mother said he planned to propose marriage in December. The loss of this young man will be felt by us all.

Sergeant Michael Yarbrough

Mr. President, I rise to honor a selfless soldier who gave his life in Iraq last month, Sgt Michael J. Yarbrough

of Malvern. On September 6, Sergeant Yarbrough was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq's Anbar Province. Also killed in the blast were SSgt John Stock, Cpl Bryan Scripsick, and Cpl Christopher Poole. The death of these four young men brought the total number of Marine deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq over 1,000. All four men were assigned to the 3rd Assault Amphibious Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force based at Camp Pendleton, CA.

Sergeant Yarbrough was also the second graduate of Glen Rose High School in Malvern killed in action within a month's time. Spc Donovan Witham, also of Malvern, died on August 21 from a roadside bomb near Baghdad. In an interview with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Glen Rose Middle School principal Tim Holicer somberly noted, ``We are still grieving the loss of one, and here we have another one of our young men to be killed in Iraq. That's as hard on everybody around here as anything.''

According to Sergeant Yarbrough's mother, Rhonda Fain-Yarbrough, her son wasn't scheduled to be in Iraq. He volunteered to return for a third tour after he heard that another soldier's wife was expecting a baby. ``Michael didn't want to see him go, so he took his place.'' He told her that ``as long as my men are there, I'm going to be there with them.''

As the Yarbrough family and Malvern community grieve, we grieve with them. He will be remembered by those who loved him as a young man who was destined to be a soldier. ``Ever since he was a little boy, he would march around with a stick on his shoulder, saying `I'm going to be in the Army, Mom, I'm going to be in the Army,''' Mrs. Fain- Yarbrough told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. True to his word, he enlisted after September 11, 2001.

For his efforts, Sergeant Yarbrough was awarded a Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, The National Defense Service Medal, and the Iraqi Campaign Medal, among others. He is survived by his wife Mary Ann Yarbrough; his mother Rhonda Fain-Yarbrough of Benton; and father Jerry Yarbrough of Gurdon. In addition, his grandmother Dolline Fain, and two sisters, Christy Smith of Arkadelphia and Misty Hutcheson of Traskwood, as well as their families will most certainly miss him. A grateful nation's thoughts and prayers go out to you at this difficult time.

M. President, it is no surprise why Arkansas is called the Natural State. That is because we have been blessed with a tremendous abundance of mountains, hills, streams, rivers, and lakes that contribute to the beauty of our great State. For generations, national parks and outdoor recreation have played a big part in the lives of Arkansans. They also have been the source of our large tourism industry, attracting tens of thousands of visitors to our State to enjoy all that nature offers.

One of the crown jewels of our National Forest System is the Ouachita National Forest. Encompassing 1.8 million acres and stretching from western Arkansas to southeastern Oklahoma, the Ouachita National Forest is the largest and oldest national forest in the South. In fact, on December 18, 2007, the Ouachita National Forest will celebrate its 100th anniversary.

Originally named the Arkansas National Forest, the Ouachita National Forest was created from public lands south of the Arkansas River by President Theodore Roosevelt on December 18, 1907. In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge renamed the forest the Ouachita National Forest to reflect the name of the mountains and river that run primarily through it.

Home to breathtaking mountain views and picturesque streams and lakes, outdoor enthusiasts enjoy recreational activities like camping, boating, biking, and hiking on some of the 37 trails that run throughout the national forest. Its thriving wilderness areas provide ample grounds for fisherman and hunters, including nine different turkey hunting areas throughout the park. The forest also supplies ample timber resources to meet the needs of our Nation.

As the 100th anniversary of the Ouachita National Forest approaches, I wish to express my appreciation for the lasting impact that the national forest has made for the people of Arkansas, Oklahoma, and our great Nation. Ouachita Forest supervisor Norman Wagoner has encouraged citizens to join the park staff in celebrating this historic anniversary at any of the forest's 11 district offices on December 18. The meet and greet will be a wonderful time to reflect on the past contributions of the park and the tremendous role it has played in Arkansas' heritage.

Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the Dorgan-Grassley amendment before us. But before I explain why, I do want to say I have tremendous respect for my colleagues from North Dakota and Iowa. They are hard-working men who are interested in working hard to get things done. I very much appreciate that. I hope they can see the success they have already had from the hard work they have put in since 2001 and what has come to fruition--the underlying bill that came out of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

We worked very hard on that bill in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We came out with a very balanced bill. It is a bill that, frankly, has more reform, more substantive reform than any farm bill we have ever done. I hope those two Senators--as I said, I have tremendous respect for them and the hard work they bring to this body--I hope they do recognize the success they have had since 2001 in moving forward in reform.

I also come to the floor here to oppose this amendment because, unfortunately, it is going to probably have some very dire unintended consequences from the remaining part of this amendment that is not included in the underlying bill.

I just have to answer a couple of the questions my colleagues have brought forward.

The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, mentioned land values. I have approached almost every Member in this body to discuss the farm bill. It is critically important to a small rural agricultural State such as the one I represent, Arkansas. Agriculture is the basis of our economy. In my discussions with Senator Grassley, he mentioned his concern about land values. I went back to do my research, and I found a study done by Iowa State University that gives us six reasons why those land values are out of whack, and not one of those top six reasons is farm payments. So I have a little concern in terms of blaming land values on farm payments. There are multiple things there that we can see that would cause concern.

I also would like to touch on a few of the realities for the hard- working men and women who produce our food in this country, to respond to some of the other criticisms I have heard and dispel a few of those misrepresentations of farming that are out there.

The most often used--and it was used by my colleague here today--the most used misrepresentation I encounter is the argument that a disproportionate share of farm payments go to the top 10 percent of farms in terms of size. I have heard it reported at 75 percent of the payment, 80 percent--sometimes they even use the number 90 percent. Honestly, it seems to change depending on the day or the source, and that is why I thought I would bring a few charts of my own to clarify the issue and set the record straight.

My first chart includes excerpts from a speech by the famed agricultural economist from Kansas State University, Barry Flinchbaug. Here is what he has to say about the distribution of farm payments according to farm size: These programs are designed for the medium-size farmers. They have done what they were supposed to do. We have 2.1 million farms. Small farms make up 84 percent of that, ``small'' being defined as gross sales of less than $100,000. They produce 21 percent of the food supply, but they receive 30\1/2\ percent of the payments. Medium-sized farmers, on the other hand, make up 12.2 percent of the farms, and they produce 28 percent of the domestically grown food supply, and they receive 42.7 percent of the payments. Big farms with sales of more than $500,000 make up more than 3.8 percent of the farmers. They produce half of the food supply, and they receive 27 percent of the payments.

I think if we just look at this we will realize those that are producing 78 percent of the commodities are only getting 58 percent of the payments.

My second chart brings this point home a little bit more and certainly in living Technicolor. As you can see, my source here is the Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service. We are pleased to bring this. I know the pie chart Senator Grassley used probably uses the definition of a farmer which even Senator Lugar earlier--I think today or even yesterday, perhaps--agreed is completely out of whack. If we are going to include an FHA student who earns $1,000 or more selling a calf as a farmer, then we have a problem in terms of the definition of a farmer. Unfortunately, that puts us out of whack in some of the statistical dealings that we have to get a good, clear picture of what we are up against.

I am going to go into some details on this chart, but I will first point out that the chart shows farmers today receive a portion of farm bill benefits that closely matches their percentage of total production. As you can see here by the red line, which indicates the percentage of Government payment, and the green line, which represents the percentage of production, they are almost identical in many ways. In fact, you will see the only discrepancy that exists is that the farmer who produces 78 percent of the products, combining the nonfamily farmers and the large family farms, receives only 58 percent of the total farm program.

Now, remember, those are family farmers who are producing not just food source but a safe and abundant and affordable food supply and fiber, not to mention the fact that they are doing it in an environmentally responsible way, respectful to all of the different regulations that we impose. Other countries do not do that.

I will be the first to say I think that is a good deal. I think in this country, to be able to be reassured that we are going to get a safe food supply, that it is going to be done with respect to the environment, that it is going to be done with respect to water and water resources and clean water and clean air, all of those things, that is very reasonable. It is a good investment. It is a good return on that dollar.

When you see, in that blue line--and that represents the percentage of farmers in a certain category, the percentage of farmers that accounts for the 78 percent of that production in this country, who are, in fact, that mythical and demonized 10 percent of the farmers our critics like to refer to.

So if 10 percent are producing 78 percent of the food source that we take for granted so often, then why should we not want our program to follow the crops? As you can clearly see, 10 percent receive only 58 percent of the total farm program payment. I think all of these numbers and certainly the charts make this point very well.

The bottom line is, the payments follow production. That is what we want to see. We want to see an efficiency in that what we are striving to do--and that is to provide a domestically produced, safe, abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber--is done.

That is what the insurance of our farm program is there for. And this reflects the fact that is exactly what those dollars are doing. They are a good investment, and they are returning on that investment to the American people.

Now, the other issue that was brought up in terms of my colleagues about the marketing loan cap, I am still a little bit confused on what the Dorgan-Grassley proposal does in terms of doubling those payments. I am not sure if that means they are capped at $250,000 or if it is at $500,000 if your wife or spouse is considered actively engaged in farming. But I think many of us have asked those questions, and we are still a little bit confused.

But when we talk about the cap, I would simply remind my colleagues, the current law marketing loan is uncapped. The President's proposal is uncapped. And the reason is, because we understand that in some of our crops they cannot use the disaster assistance, which we have plussed up about $5 billion, the crop insurance program is not as detailed to their needs and concerns because, quite frankly, it is hard to find a reasonable crop insurance plan that will, at a reasonable cost, protect you against the kind of risks that you have.

So that marketing loan is key. It is key because it allows them to remain competitive. So when they hit those troubled shoals they can use that marketing loan to buy themselves time in the marketplace to be able to market their crops.

We have found in years past that when we tried to cap the marketing loan, what happens is particularly farmers in my area who do have difficult times with crop insurance and have a very difficult time being able to access disaster assistance end up forfeiting their crops. So it goes to Government forfeiture and then the Government gets left holding the bag. The taxpayer gets left holding the bag. That is not what we want to see happen. We want these farmers to use the market, and we want to provide them the kind of tools that allow them to use the market, and that is what the marketing loan does, particularly for growers of southern commodities.

So it is not capped in underlying or existing law. It is not capped in the President's proposal. I think that is because people realize that Government forfeiture of those crops is unreasonable.

I feel as if I have come down here and spoken so many times. I have addressed the issue, particularly, of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment and the overall farm bill numerous times recently because I believe so strongly that the reforms already incorporated in the underlying bill are more significant than any reform effort that we have ever undertaken in farm policy.

We have made huge strides. I think both of these gentlemen will recognize that. They certainly have to me in some circumstances. But as a consequence of enacting the provisions of the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, it is going to be devastating to some.

The amendments that are not already included in the underlying bill that are in this amendment would be devastating to the hard-working farm families, particularly in my State but in other Southern States where we grew those commodities that are grown in the controlled environment, which results most devastatingly in the outsourcing of a significant amount of America's agricultural production. Eighty-five percent of the rice that is consumed is grown in this country. Over half of that is grown in my State of Arkansas. If we outsource those jobs in rural America, if we outsource the production of that unbelievable staple commodity, it is not going to go somewhere else in this country. It is going go to our two biggest competitors more than likely. It is going to go to Vietnam and Thailand.

When you look at the lack of restriction and the techniques that are used in their growing processes, you are going to realize it is not something we want to do, to outsource what we already have, and that is, a safe production of a staple food source, not just for us but also in terms of what we do globally.

Let me reiterate what outsourcing would mean. It means importing rice from those places like I mentioned, where there is no environmental regulation between sewer water or regular water on crops that are grown there. Is that what American families want? Is that what American mothers want in terms of looking at what they are going to do when they serve that rice cereal to that new infant who is just learning to eat solid foods?

Are they going to want to be reassured that what they are dealing with is a domestic product that has been regulated in how it was grown by American standards? Are they going to want to give that up and just look to the consequences of what might happen in terms of imported commodities?

I would argue that is a price far too high for us to pay. I think the American people are very serious about wanting a safe and affordable food supply. We should be very grateful for the wonderful bounty that our farmers and ranchers provide this Nation. We should support them with a modest safety net so they can continue to provide this Nation and the world with this incredible safe, abundant, affordable supply of food and fiber on the globe.

It is disappointing to me that some in the Chamber and those in the media and special interest groups would take this for granted. You know, if we look at what this costs us, the investment it makes, 15 percent of this bill is in the commodity's title. One-half of 1 percent of the entire budget goes to this insurance policy of assuring America's families they are going to get a safe food supply.

It is also disappointing that some in this Chamber would speak about the dangers of poisoned food entering the country and jobs leaving the country and not make the connection to this vital piece of legislation providing this great country of ours with both safe food and jobs in rural America.

Now, I know agricultural policy is not the most glamorous issue to some Members. I know I probably bored some of my colleagues to tears discussing the intricacies of this farm bill, and the ramifications of this amendment particularly. So if my colleagues take nothing else away from my remarks today----

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

If the Senators take nothing else away from my remarks today, please hear this: We have included the most significant reform in farm program history in the underlying bill. In the great balance and the productive piece that we produced out of the Senate Agriculture Committee that was passed by unanimous consent, not one dissenting vote, and I challenge anyone to say that is not the case, that this is not the most significant reform that we have ever provided in a farm bill. It is.

We also were very cautious not to get so close to the line that we end up outsourcing our food supply. I think that is very important to America's families across this great country. No American wants our country to rely on foreign sources of food like we do foreign sources of oil. We did not get there overnight, but we are there.

We depend on foreign oil right now. And, unfortunately, if this happens, we are going to see 10 to 15 years from now that we are becoming dependent on foreign countries for our food source. If we do not have the courage to inform the American people of that fact, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.

I urge each of you and your staffs to take a moment and look at this bill and the reforms that we have made. They are significant, and they should be enough for critics of farm policy, who, I suggest to you, will never be satisfied. Those who condemn us, those who condemn us for not taking the extra amount in terms of the reform that Senators Grassley and Dorgan want to take, will never be happy with any amount of reform. They will only be happy when we eliminate the safety net that we provide farmers, but in a slightly different way.

A vote against the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is still a vote for the most significant farm program reform in the history of our country.

I would like to take a moment and walk through the reforms included in the bill. I will wait for a later moment to do that. I certainly want to encourage my colleagues to vote against the Dorgan-Grassley amendment.

First of all, I want to correct something. Senator Grassley had some concerns about my comments earlier, and they may have been misinterpreted. Senator Grassley is a champion for his farmers, no question about it. I have no doubt about that. I didn't say it would eliminate the subsidy program. What I said the amendment would do is eliminate our ability as farmers in southern States in terms of being able to mitigate our risks without that marketing loan, uncapped as it is in current law. I wanted to make sure he knows.

Madam President, I want to take a few minutes to walk through some of the reforms in this bill that people should be proud of. Over the past 5 years, I ever consistently heard press accounts unfairly characterizing farm programs. All too often, the accounts are very misleading--and that is a nice

way of saying it. However, as members of those States, we rely on a strong farm safety net. I paid close attention to that criticism. I have taken it personally because I believe it unfairly calls into question the character and integrity of my farmers, the hard-working farm families I am proud to represent in the Senate. Largely because they are hard working, they are salt-of-the-Earth people, and they go by the rules. The fact is, they may farm something different, and they may farm a little differently than others, but they are still the hard- working farm families of this country.

We have eliminated today in the underlying Senate Agriculture Committee bill some of the often cited loopholes, the so-called three- entity rule, and banned the use of generic certificates, which producers use to make their entire crop eligible for the marketing loan cap in less transparent ways. We have been asked to be transparent, and that is what we have done.

For reformers, the underlying bill also creates direct attribution of program benefits to a ``warm body'' by requiring the Secretary to track payments to a natural person regardless of the nature of the farming operation earning these payments.

Folks also wanted to dramatically lower the overall level that an individual farmer can receive. That is what we have done.

I thank you for the opportunity to be here and represent those great farmers. I want to say to all of my colleagues that a vote against the Dorgan-Grassley amendment is still a vote for the most significant reform in the history of our farm bill.

What is the present business of the Senate?

Mr. President, I am very proud to come to the floor again to discuss and debate and talk about something that is critically important to this country, the working families of this country, and to the well-being of the entire world, frankly, and that is the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007.

Much has already been said, and I know that as we progress through the rest of this week and next week, there will be much discussion about what is the best way to proceed with the Food and Energy Security Act.

Having looked back at what we did in 2002, we worked hard to be more focused on how we could do a better job in this country of providing the kinds of support and safety net that producers in our Nation needed, so they could be competitive in the global marketplace but also encouraging the appropriate and proper way of production in this country, as Americans would want to see; not only making sure there is an abundant source of food and fiber in this country but that it would be produced in a safe way to the environment, safer to the consumer, and that it would be affordable so our farmers would be the most efficient they could possibly be. We took a big step in 2002 in producing a bill that moved us very much in that direction.

As we look at what we have done in the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am very proud of the product that the committee has produced and brought to the floor in Senator Harkin's amendment. A lot of time and energy was put into that committee bill to ensure we maintain the enormous blessing in this country that is American agriculture, the hard work that goes into American agriculture from hard-working families, the farm families, the businesses that support them, the rural community that supports them, to be able to produce the most affordable, abundant, safest supply of food and fiber in the world. That is what our American farm families do. They do it very proudly, they do it very distinctly, and they do it very differently in each region of this great country.

My message today is the same as it has been for weeks and months and the years I have served in both this body and the other. That is, we have an opportunity to reinforce those farm families, to reinforce the values we feel as Americans, that not only do we want an affordable supply of food and fiber, we want it to be safe for our families and for those we share it with globally, and we want to make sure we are doing that with respect to the environment. Through the years, we have expanded this bill to make sure it is obvious we want to do that in the nutrition programs, in the conservation programs, in the rural development portions of the bill, and now in a new energy title we started in 2002, to show our commitment to American agriculture and what it does, not just for the farmers, not just for the farm community, not just for the children and the families whom we feed in this country but globally, in terms of what we do in feeding these who are hungry and also pushing the envelop a little bit each time with our competitors globally that they, too, will produce in a responsible way toward the environment.

Our message today is this is a good bill. This is a good bill that has been produced in the Senate Agriculture Committee, and we need to pass it.

The farm bill does so many good things that I have already discussed and about which many of us will continue to talk. Our investments in nutrition are tremendous, conservation, rural development, energy programs--they have all been dramatically increased and will benefit our country greatly.

Take nutrition as an example. I know how important nutrition is in our lives from looking at my own children and my own family but particularly in working families, the poorest among us whom we need to put first, and we need to make sure we are acting responsibly.

I was pleased to see in the committee bill that we provide an additional $5 billion in increases in programs targeted at reducing food insecurity. Can we do better? We are going to work hard each and every year to do better, but that is a great start toward where we can be.

With respect to conservation, Chairman Harkin and many other Members--I know my State is a huge user of the conservation programs-- the chairman has been a tireless advocate for conservation programs, and I am pleased that once again he has produced a bill that assures progress in this area. It ensures we are the best stewards of the land that anyone can be globally and that we will leave our children the environment they deserve, that we will try each time to do better, but in conservation dollars, the 4 billion-plus extra dollars we have put into conservation are meaningful in terms of what we have achieved in this bill.

With respect to rural development, broadband is such an incredible tool in rural America. Senator Stabenow and I have worked together and had a hearing not too long ago with telecommunication folks from all across the country as to how do we get rural America connected to the rest of the world, how do we ensure they are connected, whether it is for the educational benefit, whether it is the economic development they need but making sure they have access.

In this bill, through broadband and some of the other rural development programs--we find, unfortunately, that disproportionately people in rural areas are lower income, particularly our seniors-- nutrition programs that exist but also the delivery mechanism, the community programs that deliver those nutritious meals to our seniors, many of those are supported by community development that comes through the rural development section

of this bill, all very critically important, whether it is economic development, caring for individuals in rural America, health care and the advancement of health care, technologies--a whole host of things we do in rural development.

On energy, my colleague, Senator Craig, brought up the issue of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and how important it is. It is critical. It is critical we become more dependent on ourselves for the energy we need and we are responsible in how we do that--responsible to the environment, ensuring that the renewable fuels we can invest ourselves in are the fuels that will take us through the 21st century, not just through the next 5 years.

We begin in this energy title of this farm bill to see those renewable fuels that are going to make a difference in lessening our dependence on foreign oil and also cleaning up our environment. Look at what else they do. They provide a secondary market for our producers so we are not as hemmed in and dependent on the global marketplace but that we once again begin to depend on ourselves and that we give those secondary markets to our farmers so they can be competitive, continuing to provide a safe, abundant, and affordable source of food and fiber but also at the same time marketing their crops in a way they can also draw from that, whether it is the cellulosic value and others, but an energy source that will make us independent.

Most importantly to me as the mother of twin boys, the farm bill does something I think we should all be very proud of, and that is what I mentioned earlier. It ensures us of a safe domestic food supply that is the envy of the world. Yes, we want to share it with the rest of the world, but we also want to make sure our children, our families have the confidence that when they are able to get the products from this country, grown by the responsible farm families of this Nation, that they can be assured of the safety of those foods.

Many of my colleagues and most, if not all, of the media seem to take a lot of that for granted, unfortunately. One day they are reporting about the dangers our Nation is facing with unsafe foods that are entering the country or the atrocities of outsourcing jobs and what that means to working families, and then the next day they are on the floor or on the front page of the paper or in the news on the television criticizing farm programs, our agricultural programs that allow us to ensure that safe and affordable supply of food for our children and our families.

The overall farm bill budget is one-half of 1 percent of the whole budget. But if you look at the portion of this bill that provides the safety net to our producers so they can stay in business, so they can stay competitive with the growers all across the globe who don't meet those environmental regulations, who don't meet those safety regulations, who are not meeting the kind of regulations we put into place to make those safety assurances, 15 percent of this farm bill-- only 15 percent--is what we use in those safety net programs. That is a huge return on our money. That is a small investment to be assured that when our families go to the store, the grocery store shelves are not empty or, when we serve those foods at our table, that we are assured of the safety of our children and our families in what we are bringing to that table.

It is amazing to me as we see, again, all the confusion about the unsafe imported foods and what we have there and the same people who are worried about that who criticize these farm programs. Yet if we don't provide those safety net programs, there is no way we can keep that production at home unless we block our markets to the imports from other countries, which we have done in some commodities. But in the sustenance of life, if you go down to the Botanic Gardens, you will see a display that talks about rice and wheat and these types of grains that are the staple and the sustenance of life.

If we can't produce those competitively in this country, we will lose ourselves to other countries and their production, which again is not done in the safe and reliable way that we do.

The level of disparities, in terms of global agricultural trade U.S. farmers face abroad--I know from my standpoint as a region where rice is a big crop for us because we are suited to grow rice. It is an expensive crop to grow, but we are suited to do that and our farmers do it more efficiently and effectively than any farmers on the globe. Yet we are shut out from trade agreements and markets all across the globe. Yet our markets are open to them and to their commodities.

We are a very diverse nation. Our crops are different in each region of our country, and that is something we should be proud of, that our Nation is so large and so productive and so fruitful that we can produce all those diverse crops from across this land of ours. For that reason, we have several different programs to support individual commodity needs. I am very proud of that diversity and I am proud to support initiatives for farmers all around our country. I fight for the ones who are important to the farmers and producers in my region, but I also know farmers in other parts of the country are important, too, whether it is the production of milk or sugar or other types of crops that we don't grow as well in our region. But I don't just support those that are programs for me. I support those programs because I believe that as a team, as one country we must support the programs that produce all of these incredible commodities that we enjoy in this country.

I have also fought hard to ensure that American agriculture gets the respect it deserves in the world marketplace because, as the Budget chairman has pointed out with his now very famous charts, the world market for our farmers isn't free or fair.

My message is simple: We should meet our global competition and we should not unilaterally disarm our farmers in the global marketplace. We have worked hard in this bill to bring about reforms people have clamored for, but if we want to go in the direction of my colleague from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, and to unilaterally begin to disarm some of our growers, it is not to say we don't want reform--there is tremendous reform in this bill--but to say we are not going to look at the diversity of production and how commodities are produced in this country and we are not going to understand that each of those has to be a little bit different.

She talked about how important it is for these reforms and the reforms we have in the bill. That is good. She wants to go one step further. But we need to stop and think how dangerous is that next step and does it throw out hard-working families who have made huge investments.

To farm 1,000 acres of cotton, you have to take out a $5 million operating loan. That is a big chunk to sign your name to. If you are a hard-working farm family and you don't know what is going to happen this year, you may have lost a good bit last year, you may lose some more next year, you may have a profit this year, but to sign your name on a $5 million operating loan for a 1,000-acre farm which is not that much if you are going to try to recoup and make a little money that year is a tough decision to make. Oftentimes, it means sharing your risk with other people. Maybe it is family members. But that is critically important for us to remember in terms of the diversity of this country.

You know, it is an unfortunate reality that our global agricultural competition is heavily subsidized--more subsidized, certainly, than we are--and their markets are closed to the agricultural goods that my State produces particularly. Certainly, we have to negotiate those in trade agreements. But when my commodities are completely shut out of the markets in other countries and yet our markets are open to their goods, I have a huge disadvantage from the very get-go, not to mention the subsidies that might be provided or are provided particularly to the developed countries across the globe.

As a result, we have grown our operations in our States because we don't have a lot of those protections in trade to create an economy of scale that allows us to be competitive. If we are not careful, with the tighter payment limits that are being talked about and certainly the AGI limits that the Senator from Minnesota mentions, we are going to make our producers of staple commodities, such as rice, less competitive internationally. When we put them out of business, they are not going to go to another area of our country. They are not going to go grow their rice in Indiana because the environment is not

suited for that. They are probably not even going to go to Maryland to grow their rice. What we are going to do is end up with our markets open, importing that staple commodity from countries that don't regulate how it is grown or don't care what types of fertilizers or water sources they use in farming that commodity.

Mr. President, I didn't invent global subsidies in agriculture, but I am committed--I am very committed--to ensuring that the Senate helps our farmers meet the kind of global competition they see. To not do so will simply result in an outsourcing of our food supply and our jobs in rural America.

Within the WTO negotiations, we have asked our trading partners to reduce subsidies and their tariff levels on U.S. agricultural products we are shipping. What we have said is we will come down further and we will come down faster in our subsidies. But the response from the rest of the world has been abundantly clear. They have continued to say to us: No, thank you, America. We want you to bring yours down, but we are not going to bring ours down. We have to maintain a domestic supply of food. You go right ahead and lower your subsidies, and we are going to hang on to ours because it is really important to us.

Well, for the first time in the history of this country, a trade deficit in agriculture is being predicted for the next couple of years. We need to stand up and say what those other countries are saying, and that is that it is very important to us as well.

Here at home, I have heard some of my colleagues and most media outlets say that we need to lower the caps on programs. And we went around to talk to folks, after seeing what the 2002 farm bill did, how productive it was in terms of the savings that were realized, which Senator Chambliss mentioned. We did what we heard people were looking to see happen, and the committee bill lowers the overall caps from $360,000 to $100,000 for individuals--$100,000, Mr. President.

We also heard that we needed to address the loopholes that allow producers to avoid the caps, and the committee bill eliminates both loopholes most frequently cited; that is, the three-entity rule and the generic certificates--two things people have tried to abuse in the past. They were very necessary tools, in many instances, for hard- working farm families who used them correctly, but there was room for abuse, and so we eliminated them. We eliminated them because people wanted good reform in this bill.

I heard we needed transparency, so the committee bill added direct attribution, which will track payments directly to an individual farmer, direct attribution so you can follow that payment. But remember that this is only applicable to the commodity programs, the three commodity programs that are most used--obviously, the direct payment, the countercyclical, and the marketing loan. This doesn't include some of the other specialized programs we have developed for specialized commodities, such as the Milk Program or the Sugar Program or the ethanol tax programs and conservation programs, for instance. So we haven't done this across the board; we are just focusing on a few of our growers--not a few, probably the majority in terms of grains, but the commodity programs that are the most traditional.

We also heard that we needed to disqualify millionaire nonfarmers walking around Fifth Avenue or Hollywood, and again my colleague from Minnesota continues to bring those up. So in the committee bill, we moved the adjusted gross income means test from its current level of $2.5 million to $750,000 despite the fact that a recent GAO report brings to us the information that this administration isn't policing the current payment limit regulations effectively. I would be willing to bet that the millionaire real estate individual whom Senator Klobuchar continues to bring up in her debate probably is certainly covered under the existing committee bill but more than likely under the existing law, quite frankly. The problem is we are not seeing those payment limits that exist being implemented by this administration. Well, what good is it to go ahead and implement even stricter rules if we don't even implement the ones that are existing? And if it is not something that he is already breaking the law on and the rule should be implemented on--it is probably the Tax Code, for some reason. But the fact is, we all want to ensure that hard-working farm families across this country are going to get the support they need, that they are going to get the safety net they need in whatever the particular crop is they grow in a sound way.

It is interesting as well that when we talk about the GAO study and the implementation of these restrictions that exist, so many of the stories we hear are about individuals, maybe celebrities or what have you, who are maybe getting a conservation payment. Well, they are not going to be corrected by this amendment because we don't extend this AGI test to everybody. They are just targeting it to one specific group. I would beg to differ that there are a lot of things. Does that mean we are going to say to large medical practices: We are going to give you an AGI means test before we are going to allow you to accept Medicare payments. If you are over the AGI means test, you are ineligible for Medicare. I don't think we are going to do that, and we are talking about sustenance of life. We are talking about keeping our farmers competitive in the global marketplace.

My sincere hope is that the committee bill will be seen as what it is--a tremendous good-faith effort on my part and a host of other members in the Senate Agriculture Committee to address concerns and to recognize that this is the most significant reform in the history of farm programs. We have done a tremendous job in dealing with both what Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley wanted to do as well as what Senator Klobuchar wants to do in reining in some of those things. You can safely say to anybody that there is more reform in this bill than we have ever seen.

Mr. President, I am enormously appreciative of this time we have now to debate what the farm bill does for this country and what it does for farm families all across the Nation. I know it is not particularly glamorous. I know for a lot of Members it is not a lot of fun to talk about the farm bill. It is not a glamorous something that is intricate and detailed in terms of what they can take home and talk about, and yet it is intricate and detailed. It is very complicated.

The programs we have designed to provide the support for our growers, the safety nets that still meet the kind of guidelines in our trade agreements and a whole host of other things are very difficult to understand. A lot of times, Members don't want to take the time to understand them. They do not want to understand the differences that are affected to all the different regions and all the different growers, but it is critical. We have come to a critical time in our Nation's history that we have to recognize how important this bill is.

I think many of us on the Agriculture Committee are not there necessarily just because somebody put us there, but we are there because we asked to be there. We asked to be there because we know how important it is to our States and we know how important it is to this country.

We, as a country, are fortunate. We are very fortunate to have this bounty, and I am not going to let anyone in this Senate Chamber forget that. I may drone on and on, but it is critically important, whether it comes from me as a Senator who represents an agricultural State, whether it is me, a daughter who grew up on a farm in an agricultural operation and saw all of the unbelievable dilemmas, whether it was weather or trade or farm programs or whatever, all of the things that agricultural farm families are up against and that they have no control over, or whether it is me as a mother looking into the 21st century and knowing how critically important it is not just that our children of today will have the opportunity to farm or to carry on that legacy but that the children of all American families will have a safe and abundant and affordable supply of food.

There are multiple reasons for every one of us to get excited about this bill, and I hope we will. So I am hoping that no one in this body will again take for granted this enormous bounty we have, what it does for us, and what it does for foreign lands as well, the peoples all across this globe.

I appreciate the time now, and I look forward, as we move ahead, to reminding my colleagues that we have done tremendous reform in this bill. We have done tremendous reform. Most of it is levied on farmers who come from my region. A lot of that reform is not extended to other regions of the country. And that is okay because my farmers are strong, and they are proud of who they are and what they do, and they are going to be willing to lead the charge in terms of reforms. But I do say that as we look at the bill we have produced, it is a good, balanced bill. We have made huge investments in things that are important to us and the values we hold as Americans, and we have made a huge step in terms of the reforms that make a difference to many Americans, and we are doing it as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this Friday, on December 7 in Murfreesboro, AR, the citizens of Pike County will gather together to honor Dr. Hiram Ward as the ``2007 Country Doctor of the Year.'' He is receiving the award for coming out of retirement and saving the Pike County Memorial Hospital from closure. The award is sponsored by Staff Care, a medical staffing firm in Irving, TX, and is presented annually ``to physicians who best exemplify the spirit, skill, and dedication of America's medical practitioners.''

Since 1953, Dr. Ward has served the citizens of Murfreesboro and Pike County as a devoted physician and caregiver. Nearly 9 years ago, Dr. Ward, who just recently turned 82, went into ``semi-retirement,'' only seeing patients occasionally.

However, when Pike County Memorial Hospital faced closure due to the loss of its staff physicians, Dr. Ward came out of retirement and resumed work full time to keep the hospital open. For the last 11 months, Dr. Ward has served as the chief of staff for Pike County Memorial and has been on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. His work has kept the hospital, which is the second largest employer in town employing 55 people, from permanent closure.

For the people of southwest Arkansas, Dr. Ward has been a constant both at birth and death. He has delivered babies for most of the families in the area and also sat at the bedsides of many people's parents and grandparents at the hour of their passing. His handiwork as a physician is visible on the countless individuals that he ``stitched up'' over the course of his career. He has set limbs, removed gall stones, and simply improved the condition of his patients by just talking to them. He has also saved many lives in Pike County.

He has been the family doctor for my State director, Donna Kay Yeargan, nearly all of her life. She told me that Dr. Ward saved the life of her father, Jetty Steel, many times over beginning in 1963 when Mr. Steel suffered injuries from a serious car accident. Dr. Ward treated him in the emergency room before he was transported to another area hospital in Texarkana, AR. Years later, he discovered a heart problem in Mr. Steel and insisted that he receive a new heart valve.

In the years after Donna Kay's mother died, Dr. Ward would travel 20 miles down an old country road to Nashville, AR, every Saturday night to visit with Jetty and give him a quick medical check. But it was at the end of Mr. Steel's life that Dr. Ward showed how much he cared about his patients. During the 3 weeks Mr. Steel was in the hospital before his death in March 2006, Dr. Ward came to the hospital at least twice a day to just sit and visit with him.

He is a quiet and thoughtful man of few words, but he maintains a commonsense approach to health and medicine that has made him among the most trusted men in the region. His patients are not just patients, they are his neighbors, his friends, his extended family. It is obvious that he does more than attend to their medical needs; he cares for them and loves them like family.

Dr. Ward's life is medicine and keeping people healthy and active. He has always understood the value of treating the whole person. He gives each patient his undivided attention no matter how busy he is. There is a big difference between ``medical attention'' and ``medical care.'' Perhaps the key to Dr. Ward's long and valuable service is that he understands that difference and that he really does care.

Most people would say that Dr. Ward has gone above and beyond the call of duty, but his friends doubt that he believes that.

Already this year, he has been featured in the July 2007 edition of ``Reader's Digest'' in the Grassroots column for his dedication to the people of Pike County and for coming out of retirement to keep the hospital open.

So, Mr. President, I congratulate Dr. Ward. The State of Arkansas is very proud of his achievements and happy that Dr. Ward is receiving this well-deserved recognition. Although Dr. Ward will take this in stride and quietly accept the accolades, his true reward comes from the work he has done and continues to do for his community.