Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I honor the Rapid City, SD, MEALS program as they celebrate 26 years of dedicated service to the Black Hills community.

For more than a quarter century, the Rapid City MEALS program has provided our seniors with quality nutrition, education, community, and support services so they can live in their own homes and maintain their independence.

The MEALS program would not be able to perform its invaluable mission without the hard work and dedication of the many volunteers who put in countless hours serving the needs of others. These compassionate individuals are truly the backbone of the Rapid City community and I hope that their service will inspire others to lend a helping hand.

It gives me great pleasure, with the State of South Dakota, to congratulate the MEALS Program of Rapid City on this important anniversary and wish them continued success in the years to come.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, we are still, as I understand, on the 2007 farm bill. I wanted to speak to one particular title of that bill, if I might, today.

As I have noted before, I support the Food Security and Energy Security Act of 2007, which is currently before the Senate. My hope is that in the not too distant future, we will be able to reach an agreement with regard to amendments so that we can move this process forward.

My fear is, if we do not reach any resolution this week and this gets pushed back until after the Thanksgiving break, that we run a very serious risk that we are not going to be able to get a bill through the Senate, conferenced with the House, before the end of the year.

In my judgment it is incredibly important to farmers and ranchers across this country that we come to some conclusions with this farm bill to give them some certainty, as they approach the 2008 planting season, about what the rules are going to be, what the programs are going to be, how it has perhaps changed from what we currently have in place.

But, in any event, it is, from a timing standpoint, of great importance that we act as soon as we can on the 2007 farm bill. So my hope would be, again, that we reach some resolution between the leadership on both sides as it pertains to amendments, and, of course, I have an amendment dealing with renewable fuel standards that I hope will be able to be included in that list of amendments that we get to debate and ultimately vote on.

But I do want to speak this evening with regard to one particular aspect of this farm bill, and it is an important one. It is one that perhaps has not been emphasized as much in this debate, although the Senator from Iowa, I heard earlier this evening, speaking to the conservation title of the farm bill. But my colleagues and I have spent the better part of the last 2 years listening to our constituents and translating those concerns and suggestions into the farm

bill that we have before the Senate today. We have also listened to multiple criticisms, mostly coming from those who are not directly involved in agriculture, telling us what is wrong with this farm bill.

But today I would like to talk about the conservation title because I believe it is just as critical to production agriculture in many respects as the commodity title.

The conservation title of the farm bill comprises only about 9 percent of its total cost. Yet it potentially affects more than 350 million acres of land in the United States.

When I say 9 percent, if you look at total spending in the 2007 farm bill, about 14 percent of the money in the bill is in the commodity title. Those are the programs that support production agriculture. About 9 percent is in this conservation title to which I address my remarks. The balance--about 67 percent or about two-thirds--of the funding in the farm bill actually goes toward nutrition, those aspects of the farm bill that really are very much unrelated to production agriculture. That is where the predominant share of the money is spent. A lot of times when those who criticize farm bills attack the funding that goes toward production agriculture, it is important to realize that most of the money in this bill isn't going to production agriculture. It is not going to the commodity title. It is going, two- thirds of it, to the nutrition title. That is in contrast to the last farm bill, the farm bill we operate under today, where about 28 percent of the funding in the bill goes to the commodity title, production agriculture, and about 54 percent of the funding, under the 2002 farm bill which is currently in effect and which we are hopefully reauthorizing with the 2007 version, goes toward nutrition. Under the new farm bill, the one before us today, about 67 percent of the money would go toward the nutrition title of the bill. I don't think it is fair in many respects when those who would like to criticize this attack it for the money going to the commodity title. That is certainly not the case.

The 9 percent that goes into conservation is important. There probably isn't anything that we do in terms of conservation or environmental stewardship that actually does more to achieve the objectives we all want than this conservation title in the farm bill achieves.

This picture, taken in 2007, is an example of the role played by the farm bill conservation title. What you see in the picture is CRP on the farm. You see also an example of crop production, working literally hand in hand. If you look in the bottom part of the picture, you see Conservation Reserve Program, the land that has been put into native grasses that is in abundance. You see in the center of the photograph a wetland area, some water in the background. Across the way, you see the cornfields that have been planted. The balance that has been struck on this property is seen between conservation, between native grasses, a wetland area that has been managed, and it all being complemented with a corn crop as well. That sort of describes what all of us would like to see when it comes to the way we manage our lands and the way farmers go about incorporating conservation practices into their crop production as well.

The CRP on this farm, the 1.5 million acres enrolled in CRP in South Dakota added 10 million pheasants and $153 million to South Dakota's economy. This year's record corn crop in South Dakota at 556 million bushels is worth an additional $1.8 billion to South Dakota farmers-- again, those two working hand in hand in South Dakota achieving record corn crops at the same time that we have a record pheasant crop because of the good conservation practices that have been employed by many of the farmers in our State and which have been in response to, their practices, many of the incentives that were put in place in previous farm bills.

The second picture we have this evening is a picture taken not too long ago in South Dakota, a few months back, in the year 2007, and it tells another story. A lot of people would look at this picture and say: That must be the Great Depression, because when you look at it, that certainly is what it would appear to be. But it is not a scene from the 1930s; it is a scene from last March in 2007. It is an example and a result of what happened when native sod was cropped, because crop insurance provided an unintended incentive to convert marginal pastureland or native sod into cropland. This picture sends a stronger message than any words could about the inherent need to take care of our land. The topsoil you see in the fence line and ditch along this South Dakota field took literally millions of years to create and one dust storm to remove. The damage you see here cannot be undone.

There is a sod saver provision in the farm bill we are considering. It won't prohibit anyone from converting native sod into cropland, but what it does do, what the sod saver provision in this bill does is eliminate the incentives found in current Federal farm policy that encourage unwise farming practices which result in the consequences shown here.

Again, it is not a scene from the 1930s, which at first glance one might expect, but it is a scene literally from last March, calendar year 2007, in South Dakota. It is an example of what can happen when bad practices are undertaken.

The next picture is an example of some of the native sod that is being converted to cropland in South Dakota. For the past 100 years, billions of acres of prairie have been converted to productive farmland. Most native sod that can be productively farmed in South Dakota and other prairie States has already been converted to cropland. We faced a shortage of money to write this farm bill. I don't believe it is a wise use of Federal funds to pay for crop insurance and disaster programs on this type of land. If the farmer who owns this land wants to farm it under this farm bill, he or she is free to do so. But let's not subsidize it. That is an example of land that should not be brought under the plow, and this farm bill prevents crop insurance or disaster program payments from going to a farmer who would convert native prairie ground such as this into cropland.

This is an example of a dust storm that was not limited to the 1930s. This picture was taken in 2005 in South Dakota. Once again, we see the consequences of unwise land stewardship practices disturbingly evident in this picture.

During the 1930s, South Dakota received billions of tons of Kansas and Oklahoma topsoil, much of it still in place in fence lines and fields. The programs we drafted in the conservation title of this farm bill, if funded adequately, will ensure that Kansas and Oklahoma farmers no longer see their topsoil blow to South Dakota and that South Dakota farmers will keep their topsoil in their fields and not in the ditches and fence lines as we saw in the previous picture.

I have stated many times before and I will emphasize once more that production agriculture and conservation should not compete; rather, they should complement each other.

This is another picture of a South Dakota cornfield in CRP. CRP is native grasses in the foreground and then, of course, a cornfield planted toward the background of the picture. Every agricultural area in the country is blessed with productive land and also land that needs help to keep from polluting the water we drink and the air we breathe.

I ask those who are so critical of this farm bill to take a close look at the conservation title and what it offers. In spite of the budget cuts made in drafting this farm bill, which made it more difficult than writing any other farm bill that has ever been written, I am pleased that my colleagues and I have been able to write a farm bill with a sound conservation title.

I will point out once more examples of the benefits of the conservation title in this farm bill: First, protecting and enhancing our soil and our land; secondly, providing an economic alternative to placing costly fertilizer, seed, and chemicals on unproductive cropland; third, enhancing recreation and boosting local economies, which, as I noted earlier, created in our State of South Dakota an abundance of pheasants, 10 million pheasants this year, which is the highest number of pheasants we have seen at any time since the 1960s-- they say about 1962 was the last time we had this kind of pheasant numbers in South Dakota--and $153 million to the economy of my State as a result of the recreation value that

comes from good, sound conservation practices.

I believe it is very important to take a breather from the controversy surrounding this farm bill and to take a few minutes to focus on the farm bill's proven capabilities to enhance rural America and to improve our Nation's water and soil. The conservation title will do just that. This is one of many reasons this farm bill deserves the support of our colleagues.

I leave my colleagues with the following information regarding the conservation title in the 2002 farm bill. Nationwide, without a conservation title, we would have 13.5 million fewer pheasants, 450 million tons of topsoil disappearing every single year, 2.2 million fewer ducks, an additional 170,000 miles of unprotected streams, and 40 million fewer acres of wildlife habitat. That is the value of a conservation title in the farm bill which accomplishes multiple objectives--protecting and enhancing our soil and land, providing an economic alternative to placing costly fertilizer, seed, and chemicals on unproductive cropland, and enhancing recreation and boosting local economies. Nine percent of the funding in this farm bill goes toward that end. That, when put in a total perspective of what this farm bill spends, is not that much relative to the benefit we accomplish and to the bad things we avoid happening by having a good conservation title.

As this farm bill is debated, we will have amendments at some point when we get an agreement. The amendments will focus on a lot of other areas of the farm bill. Some will focus on the commodity title and trying to move money around within the farm bill.

I am interested in the energy title. I have an amendment to the energy title, and we worked very hard in crafting the energy title in this farm bill to provide the necessary economic incentives for further investment in cellulosic ethanol production. The renewable fuels standard amendment I hope to be able to offer along with Senators Domenici and Nelson of Nebraska and others on a bipartisan basis will make that energy title stronger. It will improve it.

It will give us some headroom to work within the area of renewable energy. The renewable fuels standard put in place back in 2005 called for 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 2012. We are going to hit 7.5 billion gallons by the end of this year if we don't act to increase the renewable fuels standard. We have a terrible crunch that is coming ahead of us. I hope we can get this amendment adopted that raises the renewable fuels standard, moves it to 8.5 billion gallons in the year 2008. It will give us the necessary headroom to keep this wonderful example of renewable energy in this country and a remarkable story going forward.

If we don't do something to address the renewable fuels standard, my fear is we will run into a wall. That would not be good. It would not be good for those who have already invested in ethanol facilities. It would not be good, clearly, for the economy in rural areas and all the jobs that have been created as a result of renewable energy. As importantly, if not more importantly, it will do nothing to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, which at the end of the day is so important in terms of our policy objectives.

This farm bill, by encouraging more energy production, if we can get the renewable fuels standard added to it, will take us a long way toward lessening our dependence on foreign energy. I would hope before this debate is concluded we will be able to have the amendments adopted and voted on, if not adopted, but certainly a chance to debate these things which we think will make the farm bill stronger. Some of those amendments may deal with the conservation title, but I think this particular title is one that often gets overlooked in the discussion that is held about the farm bill because of the focus on production agriculture and because of the focus on the nutrition title of the bill which really comprises about two-thirds of the total funding of the bill.

But 9 percent of the money that is spent in this farm bill, the conservation value we get from that and the difference it is making in areas all across this country in protecting our critical soil and water resources, in adding to our economy, providing recreational opportunities such as pheasant hunting in South Dakota--this is a very important title of this bill, one that there was great deliberation and consideration given toward coming up with.

I hope at the end of the day we will get the farm bill passed before the end of the year and get this conservation title, along with the other policy changes that are included in the farm bill, implemented into law so our farmers and our ranchers and those who will benefit from the great recreational opportunities that will result from this conservation title will know what the rules are going to be as we approach this next year.

So, again, I have heard many of my colleagues come down and speak on the floor today about different aspects of this bill. My biggest hope and greatest fear at this point is--my biggest hope is we get this thing moving this week. My greatest fear is if we do not, we are not going to get a farm bill this year. So I hope before we leave this week we will come to a resolution about amendments and the way forward and the process we are going to use to get a farm bill adopted.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

No, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I have been listening with interest to my colleagues from New Hampshire and Illinois talk about tax cuts and pay- go and all those issues we deal with on a daily basis. It strikes me that the thing that seems to get lost by our colleagues on the other side when it comes to reducing taxes is that when you reduce taxes, you actually get not less government revenue but more. History has proven that. It has proven it time and time again, going back in the 1920s under Harding, the 1960s under Kennedy, the 1980s under Reagan, and currently. If you look at what has happened, when you reduce the marginal income tax rate and the capital gains tax rate, you actually not only see the job growth we have seen--as my colleague from New Hampshire noted, 8.7 million new jobs--22 consecutive quarters of economic growth, lowest unemployment numbers in a generation, but you also see a dramatic increase in Government revenues.

It was predicted, at the time of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, that all this money was going to be lost because somehow the Government wasn't going to have enough money to do things because we were going to reduce the tax burden on the American people. What has happened is the exact opposite, which has been a historical fact, that when you reduce taxes on hard-working people, they take the realization of paying less taxes, they reinvest that, create more jobs, and you get more Government revenue.

If we look at the last several years, we have seen Government revenues coming into the Treasury increasing 12 percent, 13 percent, this year 9 percent, at least the last numbers I had. But the fact is, revenues have been going up. We reduced the tax burden on the American people. Everybody says: But it just helped those on the wealthy end of the income spectrum. Again, I submit that when you reduce marginal income tax rates, as we did, everyone on the income scale benefits. People on the lowest income scale went from a 15-percent marginal income tax rate down to 10. They benefited directly as a result of the tax relief enacted by the Republican majority.

Frankly, this is a philosophical debate that goes on in the Congress year after year after year, but we happen to believe that when you allow the American people to keep more of what they earn, allow them to invest that in their family and their community, you get a much better outcome than when you send your dollars to Washington, DC, and allow the Government to spend it for them. When you allow the American people to put their dollars to work, you create more jobs, grow the economy, and you see the dramatic expansion in Government revenues that we have seen over the past 3 years.

When it comes to the capital gains tax rate, that again has led not to less Government revenues but to about a 65-percent, somewhere in that neighborhood, increase in capital gains tax revenues coming into the Federal Treasury over the period since 2004, when the 2003 tax cuts were enacted. Since that period, we have seen a dramatic increase in capital gains tax revenues.

Everybody can put up their charts and talk statistics, and we have a lot of that in Washington, but you cannot create facts. You are entitled to your opinions but not your own set of facts. In this case, the facts are clear. That is, when you reduce marginal income tax rates and capital gains tax rates, the American people respond. We have seen more Government revenue as a result.

Mr. President, the clock is ticking on calendar year 2007. There is not a lot of time left. We have a pileup of legislation that has yet to be enacted. If you look at the accomplishments so far in this first year of the Democratic majority, there has been very little accomplishment and very little in terms of milestones. In fact, if you look at the milestones, they are not milestones you would be very proud of. It seems to me much of the agenda in the Congress in this last year has been about embarrassing the President or creating showdowns with the President or satisfying some liberal special interest group, rather than doing the work of the people. That is the cause of the low approval ratings the American people have of the Congress.

Part of the agenda has been, we have a President whose approval ratings are not that good. Let's see if we can create showdowns with him and try to embarrass the President. The reality is, the President's approval ratings are about three times that of the Congress. One of the reasons the American people have a low opinion of the Congress is because of all the partisan fights and a lack of a record of accomplishment and not focusing on the problems they want to see solved. Those are the challenges and the problems that face this country going forward.

When Congress has an 11-percent approval rating, our colleague, Senator John McCain, says: When you get to that low a level of approval rating, you are talking about paid staff and blood relatives. Regrettably, that is probably the case. But nevertheless, we can change that by focusing on the important work of the American people and actually moving the agenda forward.

By way of example, because I do think numbers are important, I am a big believer in facts and numbers. President Reagan used to quote John Adams who said: Facts are stubborn things. If you look at fiscal year 2008, we have zero spending bills signed into law. In fact, it has been 20 years since we reached this time on the calendar without a single spending bill having been sent to the President for signature. It has been 20 years since it took

this long to confirm an Attorney General. SCHIP is a good example. They knew that was going to be vetoed. It was vetoed. They had the veto override vote and it was sustained. So they came up with a new SCHIP bill which actually spent more money but covered fewer children than the original bill sent to the President.

My point is, many of these initiatives that are being undertaken by our colleagues on the Democratic side are designed to prove a political point, not to solve problems. The American people want us to solve problems, which is precisely why the approval ratings of the Congress are so low.

The Labor-HHS appropriations bill which was passed by this body yesterday is $9 billion over budget. There are 33 States with operating budgets that are lower than the $9 billion in overspending contained in the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill that passed the Senate yesterday.

These are some pretty staggering numbers when we think about it. We have $3 gasoline, oil at $93 a barrel, and no Energy bill. Again, it is bogged down in the Congress, languishing because of the political bickering going on back and forth.

We have the alternative minimum tax that is going to kick in this year. Only 54 days until 2008, and we still don't have a solution to that. On the other hand, in terms of numbers, we have had 57 votes in the Congress, the House and the Senate, on Iraq. I have to say, because I serve on the Armed Services Committee, what is going on in Iraq and our national security, there is nothing more important when it comes to the role of Government than to protect the American people. But there has been a lot of political debate about Iraq over the course of the past 10 months, much of which was designed to promote showdowns with the President, to create political opportunity for Members on the other side to earn points with liberal interest groups. That is 57 votes on Iraq in the last 10 months at the same time that we don't have an Energy bill, at the same time that we haven't passed a single appropriations bill, that we haven't confirmed an Attorney General, that we have FISA legislation, the lack of passage of which is inhibiting our ability to catch bad people and terrorists trying to do harm to the American people.

These are all numbers and facts that I believe the American people want to see this Congress address, rather than engaging in political arguments that are designed for no other reason than to prove a political point or to embarrass the administration or to satisfy a liberal special interest group.

I submit we still have time. We don't have a lot of time, but it would behoove the Congress and the Democratic leadership in the Senate and House to work together to try to solve the problems the American people care about, rather than engaging in more political arguments, rather than sending the President bills the Congress knows he is going to veto.

Let's get after some of these more important issues, such as the high cost of energy, passing appropriations bills that control Federal spending and I think adhere to the American people's sense of fiscal responsibility and a belief that the American Congress ought to be responsive to the American people by being responsible in the use of their tax dollars.

So I see our time is winding up in terms of morning business, and I know the WRDA bill is pending before the Senate. We are going to take that up. But I simply hope in the remaining days of this calendar year, 2007, we can actually do something that will create a record of accomplishment for the American people rather than continuing to have the Democrat majority in the Senate trying to make political statements and score political points.

With that, Mr. President, I yield my time.

Mr. President, I appreciate first off the bill that came out of the Ag Committee. It was a consensus product. There was a lot of bipartisanship support for it. I think it is important we move it forward.

What is happening here now is delaying something that is of critical timing to the producers in this country; they need to know what the rules are before they go into planting season next year.

By running out the clock, which essentially we have done this week, and unless we come to some agreement on amendments, we are going to lose next week. Then we are into December, and it is going to be awfully difficult to get a bill conferenced and on the President's desk before the end of the year.

I, for one, have an amendment, along with Senator Domenici and Senator Nelson, that has been filed. So I would say to my friend from Iowa that we are more than happy, if the leadership on the majority side would be agreeable, to us calling up amendments.

But as was noted by my colleague from Georgia, the current state of play is they have filled the amendment tree, thereby making it impossible for us to get amendments called up, pending, under consideration, debated, and voted upon.

But I have one that I think is very important, it is very relevant. You talk

about amendments that are relevant to the farm bill that would expand the renewable fuel standard. That was something that was supported by the Senate in the Energy bill. I have my doubts about whether we are going to get an energy bill this year. But I cannot think of anything that is more important to farm country right now than making sure we have a higher renewable fuel standard, particularly in the short term.

2008 is critical. We are already at 7\1/2\ billion gallons. Where the current renewable fuels standard sits that was passed in 2005, we are going to, and have, eclipsed that. If we do not raise this renewable fuel standard in 2008 in the short term, we are going to have a terrible crunch out there.

We are already seeing ethanol plants that are stopping construction, those that are under construction that have stopped it. We have some, I know of one in North Dakota that ceased operations for a while because the margins are not there.

This is a very relevant amendment to the underlying farm bill, one that would strengthen the energy title in the bill and one which is critically important, from a timing standpoint, to producers across this country and those who would invest in the renewable energy industry. I would add, because I think this is a very important point not just for farm country, not just for our farmers and those in rural areas of this country who have benefited from ethanol production economically, but also it is important for our energy security.

We have got a very serious problem. Oil is approaching $100 a barrel. We need to be increasing the amount of renewable energy we produce, homegrown energy in this country, so we can lessen that dependence upon foreign energy. We have an opportunity to do that. The ethanol industry in this country has done remarkably well, thanks, in large part, to the renewable fuels standard enacted in 2005. But we have been overtaken by events. We are passing, we are blowing by that 7\1/2\ half billion gallons. We need to get the new renewable fuel standard in place.

The amendment we have offered--it is a bipartisan amendment--would do that. It would get us to 8\1/2\ billion gallons in 2008, which is critically important. We are running into a wall out there. It is dramatically affecting the ability of this industry to compete and to make sure that it continues to operate profitably and move us in a direction that lessons our dependence upon foreign energy.

So I would simply say to my colleagues, to the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, the ranking Republican, Senator Chambliss, that it would be very advisable, and I think advantageous, for us to be able to come to some agreement on amendments because delay, in the end, is not an option.

We cannot afford to go into next year without a farm bill. I would like to see this amendment considered. I hope the majority would make way for us to be able to offer amendments. This whole notion of filling the tree, I am not sure exactly what that accomplishes, other than to shut us down, at least in the short term.

So I would simply say we have an amendment, we are ready to do business as soon as the other side decides they want to open this bill for amendment. I hope we can do that and do it soon.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his comments, and the Presiding Officer, also members of the Agriculture Committee. We all worked together as has been mentioned. This was a bipartisan effort, and the product, I believe, has broad bipartisan support not only in the Agriculture Committee, but I think in the entire Senate.

It is important we get this bill under consideration. We are currently being blocked from considering amendments to it, and I hope the majority leader and the leadership on our side can come to some agreement about how we are going to proceed with regard to amendments because we don't have a lot of time left on the clock this year. It is critical that we get a farm bill passed so our producers across this country who are already beginning to make decisions about next year when it comes to planting, and lenders who are going to finance them, have some certainty about what the programs are going to be, what the rules are going to be as they begin to engage in making those decisions.

So I hope we can get this bill moving. It has been on the floor now for the past few days. ``On the floor,'' I use that term loosely because for all intents and purposes, action on it has been stalled. It is important that we come to an agreement about how we are going to proceed and what amendments we are going to debate and vote upon. But we need to get a bill through the Senate and into conference with the House and, hopefully, eventually on the President's desk before the end of the year.

I do want to express my appreciation to the leadership on the committee: Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, for their efforts and leadership on the bill; also, my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, who is chairman of the Budget Committee, and Senators Baucus and Grassley, who are chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Finance Committee for their efforts in helping us craft funding that would allow the Agriculture Committee to draft a workable and what I believe is an effective farm bill which will move agriculture forward for the next 5 years.

As was noted by my colleague from Colorado, writing farm policy is more regional than it is political. I commend my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee who represent literally every geographic region in the United States for their tenacity in representing the interests of their State as we drafted the farm bill. Most of all, I commend them for the respect they have exhibited throughout this farm bill drafting process to the various needs of each Member's State.

Also, together the committee has drafted a bill I believe is something we can go home and talk proudly about not only in South Dakota to my farmers and ranchers, but also to our Native American tribes and to every man, woman, and child in South Dakota and across this country who enjoy the safest, most affordable food supply in the world.

The 2002 farm bill, which I helped draft as a member of the House Agriculture Committee, very successfully provided economic support to America's farmers and ranchers when prices dropped below the cost of production. Yet this same farm bill--this same farm bill saved American taxpayers $20 billion over 5 years when prices improved and its economic safety net components were not triggered, which is good policy, and precisely the way it was intended to work.

Thanks to the success of the 2002 farm bill, we had $22 billion less in the Commodity Credit Corporation baseline to write the 5-year, 2007 farm bill than CBO had estimated in 2002.

This farm bill addresses three of my highest priorities for the 2007 farm bill, and I would like to speak briefly, if I might, to each of those. As I said earlier, first, it must provide an economic safety net for American agriculture.

Today's farmers and ranchers face multiple uncertainties thanks mostly to the weather. Yet our Nation's farmers and ranchers not only feed every American, they help feed billions of others across the globe. They are expected to provide this food economically--and have done so--often at prices lower than their production costs. Thankfully, commodity and livestock prices are higher now than they have been for most of the past decade, but so are input costs such as fuel, fertilizer, and chemicals. Those things have all gone up as well. The 2007 farm bill needs to continue with safety net provisions that support agriculture when commodity prices drop because input prices will not drop accordingly.

The provision in this farm bill which extends the current farm bill countercyclical program accomplishes this price protection. Yet as I stated earlier, it is of no cost to taxpayers when commodity prices reach the levels we are experiencing now.

Permanent disaster coverage is another farm bill essential I have been fighting for over the past several years, and I am pleased it is also included in the 2007 farm bill.

In agriculture's uncertain economic future, direct and countercyclical payments, a permanent disaster program, and a healthy crop insurance industry are all important to a sound economic future for South Dakota agriculture.

So the economic safety net for American agriculture is a critically important priority in this farm bill. It is addressed. It maintains the basic framework that has worked so well from the 2002 farm bill which, as I said earlier, actually has saved the taxpayers billions of dollars over what was projected at the time because as prices went up, commodity prices went up, subsidy payments went down, which is precisely the way the farm bill was designed to work. We build upon that in the safety net of the 2007 farm bill.

The second priority we need to have in this bill is this farm bill needs to include alternative energy development and expansion. Alternative energy; namely, corn-based ethanol, has already changed the American agricultural landscape and has given many farmers and local economies renewed hope for the future. However, we recognize the limitations placed on corn-based ethanol, simply due to the number of acres that can be devoted each year in this country to producing corn. Thanks to the groundwork that was laid by corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol is positioned to complement corn ethanol.

The energy title in this farm bill contains the sustainable cellulosic ethanol production incentives that were laid out in my Biofuels Innovation Program legislation, which I introduced earlier this year along with Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska. Cellulosic ethanol produced competitively will not occur on its own. It is imperative these incentives are included in the 2007 farm

bill to kick-start the cellulosic ethanol industry.

The energy title in this bill also includes $25 million in mandatory spending for the Sun Grant Initiative, which is already established in land grant universities across the United States and which has made great strides in research and development of cellulosic ethanol.

I want to come back to that point in just a minute, but I also want to address what I think is the third important priority in this particular farm bill and that is a sound conservation title.

Conservation should not compete with production agriculture; rather, it should complement it.

Along with uncertain weather conditions, our Nation's agricultural landscape with its fertile and productive farmland is also peppered with millions of acres of marginal and fragile lands. The conservation title of this farm bill includes an assortment of conservation programs that include tools for farmers and ranchers to exercise sound land stewardship in unison with maximizing crop production.

My home State of South Dakota is unique in that along with its high ranking as an agricultural State, wildlife and outdoor recreation contribute mightily to its economy as well. I believe the conservation title included in this farm bill will assist South Dakota farmers and ranchers in their efforts to maximize agricultural output, protect and enhance its fragile lands, and help keep our State's recreational industry vibrant and healthy.

Additionally, $20 million is provided per year to fund the Open Fields Initiative. Open fields underwrites State programs, such as the 1 million-acre program in South Dakota that offers incentives to farmers and ranchers who voluntarily open their land to hunting and fishing.

I believe this farm bill targets a higher percentage of Federal farm program payments to family-sized farming operations. Several modifications to payment caps and the elimination of the three entity rule included in this bill are a step in the right direction to providing assistance where it is most needed: to family farmers and ranchers across America.

However, those who criticize farm policy must be careful in their characterizations of ``large-scale'' farmers. A family farming operation consisting of a father and one or more offspring in today's agricultural scale can easily gross several million dollars, while providing a modest living to the family members. We don't want to shut the door of these family operations by taking away economic safety net programs or the conservation tools they need to productively farm.

Americans' health and nutrition is a major consideration in this farm bill as well. For example, of the total budget outlays in this farm bill, 67 percent of the amount falls under the nutrition title, compared to less than 15 percent for the commodity title, and 9 percent for the conservation title. In the Senate farm bill, the Fruit and Vegetable Program, a part of the School Lunch Act which was previously restricted to a number of States, would be expanded to operate in every State in the country. Additional funding would be made available to each State based upon the proportion of the population of a State to the population of the United States.

Additionally, a provision I offered, which is included in the farm bill, expands the fresh fruits and vegetables School Lunch Program to over 100 Indian reservations nationwide.

Mr. President, one of the problems we encounter when drafting farm legislation, when commodity and livestock prices are higher, is the perception that these high prices will last. A farm bill lasts only 5 years. We have no guarantee current prices will remain steady for the next 5 years. Anybody who has been associated with production agriculture for any period of time will tell you these prices we are experiencing currently are not going to last permanently.

The 1996 farm bill was written during a higher commodity price cycle, with not enough thought given to how the policy would work when prices dropped. During the last 2 years of that farm cycle, billions of dollars in market loss assistance payments were issued because of an inadequate ``safety net.''

The current direct payments structure included in this farm bill is a fixed payment based upon historical planting, not current crops, yields, or prices. This decoupling keeps the United States more compliant with international trade agreements.

Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this farm bill. I ask them to carefully consider the countless hours of discussion and negotiations, the numerous field hearings held by the Agriculture Committee across the country, and the voices of the American people that have been heeded by the Agriculture Committee in writing this bill.

As noted earlier, this is not a perfect bill. There has been no perfect farm bill in my experience, and I have been associated with several as a former staffer, and now as a Member of the Senate, and prior to that, as a Member of the House of Representatives.

This is a balanced farm bill that will make America a better place for all of us and will make rural America stronger. It includes the important components I talked about: A strong safety net that includes the disaster title of the bill, which is something we fought long and hard for; a strong energy policy that will help encourage and provide financial incentives for the development of cellulosic ethanol production in this country; and a strong conservation title and, as I said earlier, a tremendous investment in the nutrition title of the bill. It is all done in a way the CBO says is paid for.

I think it is important, as we move the bill forward, we help people across this country understand what is at stake in a farm bill. I think a lot of people across the country sometimes fail to grasp the importance of making sure we have a safe and reliable and affordable food supply in this country. If you look at other countries in the world--such as in Europe--they know what it is like to go hungry.

One of the reasons we have had farm policies in place for some time is because Americans learned during the Great Depression we have to have a strong farm economy that meets the food needs of people in this country.

The other thing I will mention--and I will come back to it because I said I would--is that this traditionally has been a farm bill that deals with food and fiber for the American people. I believe we are making a transition as well. In this particular farm bill, it is not just about food and fiber, it is also about fuel. I believe we have a responsibility as Members of Congress to do everything we can to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. I am deeply concerned about the future of this country when oil prices are approaching $100 a barrel and gas is over $3 a gallon, with no end in sight. We have little or no control over that because 65 percent of our petroleum comes from outside the United States from foreign cartels.

I happen to believe, as a matter of principle and practice, it is better for us, as a country, when it comes to buying our energy, to buy it from an American farmer where we are adding jobs and growing the economy in this country than giving our money to some foreign cartel that might use it to fund a terrorist organization that will turn around and attack the United States. That is why the energy policy of this particular farm bill is so important.

I have an amendment that has been filed, along with Senators Domenici, Dorgan, Johnson, and Nelson--I believe the Presiding Officer is on it as well--which would expand the renewable fuels standard beyond where it is today. The standard we adopted in the 2005 farm bill calls for 7.5 billion gallons of renewable energy by 2012.

Mr. President, we are going to hit 7.5 billion gallons by the end of this year. It is important for those who are investing in the ethanol industry, for our farmers and for those making decisions about whether to build another plant--and a lot are planned and under construction. We have 13 ethanol plants in South Dakota, and four are under construction. We have ethanol plants all across the country in some phase of construction that have been stopped cold because of the uncertainty about the future of the industry. When we blow by 7.5 billion gallons of production of ethanol, we need to know what the future holds.

The Energy bill contained a provision that expanded the renewable fuels

standard to 36 billion gallons by 2022. We have said we hope the Energy bill passes, but in the event it doesn't--and that looks to be uncertain--we ought to try to get that renewable fuels standard passed as part of this farm bill. It improves and strengthens the energy title in the farm bill by guaranteeing there is a market not only 10 years from now, or in 2022, when it calls for 36 billion gallons, but next year, in 2008, when we have already gone by the 7.5 billion-gallon cap called for in the 2005 bill.

This amendment would get us to 8.5 billion gallons by next year. So there would be another billion gallons of ethanol production called for in the renewable fuels standard. That is of immediate concern to this industry. We need to grow the industry. If you look at the statistics, in 2006, the production and use of ethanol in the United States reduced oil imports by 170 million barrels, saving $11 billion from being sent to foreign and sometimes hostile countries.

This is an industry we need to continue to support. When we get 65 percent of our petroleum needs outside of the United States, it is critical we continue to develop home-grown energy we can make from renewable sources in the United States, which is not only good for the economy and the environment, but for our energy security. I hope during the course of the farm bill debate, when decisions are being made about which amendments to allow to be considered and debated and voted upon, the renewable fuels standard amendment is on that list. I think it is that important. I don't think there is anything, frankly, more important that we can be doing, with the exception of ensuring there is a good, strong safety net in the bill that will help secure American agriculture for the future, help keep this growing renewable fuels industry prospering and expanding and doing what they do best, and that is reducing our dependence upon foreign energy, having a renewable fuels standard in place that expands dramatically beyond where we are today.

As I said before, there are great incentives in this bill for cellulosic ethanol production. People say we are running out of room or ceiling when it comes to corn-based ethanol. That may be true. We believe it is about 15 billion gallons that we can get from corn, and then we have to figure out how to make it out of some other form of biomass. But there is investment going on in R&D and technologies that, I believe, is going to be commercialized in the near future that will allow us to use switchgrass, wood chips, and other types of biomass. There is a project in South Dakota right now to make cellulosic ethanol from corncobs on a commercial scale. According to POET Energy, using more of the corn crop for ethanol production, such as corncobs, will be able to produce 11 percent more ethanol from a bushel of corn and 27 percent more from an acre of corn.

So we are already beginning to make a transition from the kernel of corn to the cob and dramatically increase the amount we can produce. Couple that with the research going into producing ethanol from switchgrass, blue stem grass, wood chips, and other types of biomass, the sky is the limit.

It is important we keep this going. We are facing a serious crisis, in my view, if we don't expand the renewable fuels standard. Frankly, I hope we increase the blends that are allowed of ethanol, blended with a gallon of gasoline, from the current 10 percent to a higher level--I hope to 20 percent--which would act in a dramatic way to double the market for ethanol. These are steps we need to be taking as a country, as a Congress, if we are serious--and we need to be serious--about this problem we have today of nearly $100 a barrel of oil, with no end in sight to where it is going, and us having no control of that because we are so dependent upon foreign sources of energy.

The amount of ethanol we produce in this country, it could be argued, maybe isn't all that significant to the amount of gasoline we use--7.5 billion gallons of ethanol, and we use about 140 billion gallons of gasoline every year. When you talk about displacing 170 million barrels of oil, saving $11 billion from being sent overseas to some foreign country, a foreign cartel, that is $11 billion that is staying right here on American soil, investing in American jobs and in the American economy.

This is an industry we need to keep going. I hope the renewable fuels standard amendment will be included in that list and, as the bill progresses through the process, I hope we can get a product through in the near future so that we can pass it, go to conference with the House and, hopefully, ultimately, get a bill on the President's desk. At that point, we will have the challenge of getting the President to sign the bill.

I think the bill is made stronger by these energy provisions being included because I think it is so important to America's future--not just to the future of agriculture in South Dakota or Colorado or places like that, but to America's future. This farm bill takes us in a great direction, and the renewable fuels standard amendment will make it that much stronger.

I hope we can get into the deliberations about this and that we can get working on amendments and voting on amendments and getting a bill passed, with a big bipartisan vote, that we can send to conference and on to the White House that will put in place a policy for the next 5 years that will make agriculture strong, make America competitive in the world marketplace, and make sure we have food, fiber, and fuel for America's future.

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

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico for his leadership on energy issues, generally, as a former chairman and now ranking member on the Energy Committee, and particularly regarding renewable fuels.

In 2005, the Senate, the Congress passed an energy bill that was signed into law by the President, which, for the first time ever as a matter of policy, put into place a renewable fuels standard. That was in no small part a tribute to the leadership of Chairman Domenici and his good work, working with many of us who care deeply about renewable fuels and making sure we are advancing that industry in this country so we can lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy. So I appreciate his leadership and am glad to be able to work with him again as we try to offer a renewable fuels standard to the farm bill, which has already been adopted, as he mentioned, by the Senate regarding the Energy bill. The Energy bill is currently tied up and, hopefully, we will produce an energy bill this year before Congress adjourns for the holidays. But if, in fact, we cannot get that done, it is important for this industry, and I believe for our country's interest, that we get an expanded renewable fuels standard put into law.

Mr. President, the bill before us today is entitled the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, commonly referred to as the 2007 Farm bill. The naming of this bill is not without meaning. It is abundantly clear that agriculture and energy production are inherently related, and together will move our Nation toward greater food and energy security.

The 2002 Farm bill was the first farm bill to include an energy title. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee during the 2002 Farm bill debate, I can attest that including an energy title in the farm bill was not easy, nor was it without controversy. However, Congress had the foresight to realize that renewable energy was an integral part to our agriculture economy and a comprehensive farm bill would be incomplete without including renewable energy incentives.

The Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 also includes an energy title that builds on the success of the 2002 bill. The incentives in this energy title will greatly benefit American consumers, our agriculture producers, and our Nation's energy independence.

As part of the 2007 Farm bill, the Senate Agriculture Committee worked with what little resources we had to meet the demands of a new generation of renewable fuel. In particular, the committee included a provision that Senator Ben Nelson and I helped draft that will provide incentives for farmers to grow energy dedicated crops in conjunction with the construction of a nearby biorefinery.

There is a chicken and egg dilemma with regard to cellulosic ethanol production. If you ask a farmer in South Dakota or Georgia or California to change his planting pattern to grow energy dedicated crops, the response will likely focus on a lack of market to sell these crops.

If you ask an ethanol producer about the prospects of cellulosic ethanol, they will likely highlight the lack of energy dedicated crop availability.

In reality, energy dedicated crops such as poplar trees, switchgrass, and miscanthus, take 2 to 3 years to establish. Likewise, a new generation cellulosic ethanol biorefinery will take several months or years to build. There is an obvious gap in the marketplace for cellulosic ethanol production, and this bill would fill this gap by providing first-of-its-kind incentives for producers who grow energy dedicated crops in conjunction with the construction of local biorefineries.

This provision represents significant progress in our agriculture policy as we look for ways to promote advanced biofuels.

The Food and Energy Security Act also authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide grants and loan guarantees for commercial scale biorefineries. Private sector investment in the renewable fuels will ultimately determine the success of this industry, and it is critical that funding mechanisms are in place that will move cellulosic ethanol from the laboratory to full scale production.

Additionally, it is important to note that these loan guarantees would also benefit existing plants that wish to repower their facilities or retrofit with new cellulosic technology.

By leveraging a small amount of tax dollars with hundreds of millions of dollars in private equity, federally backed loans for new plants are an effective policy that will help grow the production of advanced biofuels.

Although the Senate version of the 2007 farm bill includes several important energy provisions, it is missing one critical component that would increase the market demand for renewable fuels.

Just a few moments ago, Senators Domenici, Nelson, Grassley, and I introduced a bipartisan amendment to increase the renewable fuels standard from 7.5 billion gallons in 2012 to 36 billion gallons in 2022.

Last June, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner and passed an Energy bill that increases the role renewable fuels as a part of our energy policy.

This amendment reflects the Senate-passed RFS, and I hope my colleagues will once again support this policy as an amendment to the 2007 farm bill.

Some of my colleagues may ask, ``Why include a renewable fuels standard as part of the 2007 farm bill?'' The answer is simple, since the beginning of Federal farm programs, no single policy has had a greater impact on American's agriculture industry than the renewable fuels standard enacted by Congress in 2005.

The renewable fuels standard and the dramatic expansion of biofuels production has provided farmers with an alternative market for their crop and increased demand for corn production. The renewable fuels standard has created jobs in rural communities and spurred investment opportunities in rural America.

The expansion of the biofuels industry hasn't been perfect. The dramatic expansion of biofuels has led to concern among some livestock producers and food processors about inflationary trends in commodity prices. However, these concerns are being addressed by the marketplace. Producers have responded with record corn production and will continue to meet the demand for feed, food, ethanol, and exports.

Additionally, like the Senate-passed renewable fuels standard, this amendment would boost the production of advanced biofuels by requiring the production of 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022.

Crude oil is trading at over $90 per barrel. Many analysts are predicting oil will hit $100 per barrel in the near future. Typically, in the late fall, early winter, consumers are granted a reprieve from high gasoline prices as demand subsides from the summer driving season.

However, this fall, the retail price of gasoline has remained at high levels. Yesterday, the average price of gasoline reached $3 per gallon--an all time record for gasoline prices in November. Many are predicting even higher prices in the near future if the price of crude oil continues to climb.

When is enough, enough? When are we going to take a stand and stop sending American dollars overseas to countries that want harm to the United States when we have an untapped resource for clean renewable fuel here at home?

I believe I speak for the majority of U.S. Senators when I say we should purchase our fuel from America's agricultural producers rather than from overseas oil cartels.

In 2005, Congress as acted to enact the first ever renewable fuels standard of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. By the end of this year, our Nation's ethanol capacity will total almost 7.5 billion gallons, 4 years ahead of schedule. With planned and existing construction, our Nation's ethanol capacity will soon double.

Clearly, as our biofuels industry advances, so must our national policy. Now is the time to increase the renewable fuels standard and usher in a new generation of cellulosic ethanol production.

I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member, Chambliss for their support for a strong energy title.

Over the past several months, we have had a thoughtful and conscientious debate on farm and energy policy. Considering the limited resources presented to the Committee, we crafted a bill that will undoubtedly move production agriculture and renewable fuels forward in a sustainable and reliable manner.

Adding a strong renewable fuels standard to the Food and Energy Security Act would greatly enhance these efforts. The U.S. Senate is already on record for supporting provision by a wide bipartisan majority. I encourage my colleagues to once again support this amendment.

There are so many things we can do in this farm bill to help improve the agricultural economy in this country. I will speak at a later point about some of the other provisions in the bill that I think will do that. But I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the energy title to not only American agriculture but to America's position and place in the world relative to our need for energy and our ability to meet that need here at home.

I hope my colleagues in the Senate will move in an expeditious fashion to pass this farm bill. Before we do that, let's take a hard look at what we can do to make this energy title even stronger and create an even more robust market for renewable energy, so those great American farmers out there who are producing the food and fiber for this country can also continue to produce fuel to meet America's growing energy demand and lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

I, again, thank the Senator from New Mexico for his leadership on this issue and for his important role in 2005 in getting the renewable fuels standard put into law for the first time--the 7.5 billion gallon standard I mentioned--by 2012. But it is now important that we increase that standard--as proposed in this amendment and as passed earlier by the Senate in the Energy bill--to 36 billion gallons by 2022. If we do that, we will make a very strong and bold statement about our commitment to reducing our dependence upon foreign energy and making America energy independent.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize David Pigott, Tonya Denke, Russell Bruner, and Abbi Wells, all of whom received the Founder's Award for Outstanding Achievement from the Black Hills Workshop in Rapid City, SD. This is a prestigious award that reflects the recipients' hard work and dedication to achieving independent living. It also reflects the valuable role they have played in giving back to their local community. Also, I would like to recognize McKie Automotive group for receiving the Community Connection Award.

David Pigott is a hard-working stocker at the Ellsworth Air Force Base Commissary. He is an excellent member of their staff and has been recognized for his hard work by being named the Employee of the Month twice and Employee of the Year in 2006. Due to David's success at his job, he was chosen to travel to Washington, DC, to meet with Members of Congress to discuss employment for individuals with disabilities.

Tonya Denke is an enthusiastic food service attendant at Ellsworth Air Force Base's Bandit Inn. She is a dependable worker who is well liked by her fellow staff members and customers. Beyond her work, Tonya enjoys quilting, reading, playing the piano, and leads a very active lifestyle. Her accomplishments in the Special Olympics can be seen in her numerous gold and silver medals.

Russell Bruner stocks shelves and performs custodial work for the Ellsworth Air Force Base Commissary. He has been an excellent employee ever since he started the position in 2001 as is shown by his framed Employee of the Month award. Outside of work, Russell loves to read, especially about history, and to travel. His adventures have taken him to Seattle, Alaska, Florida and Washington, DC, just to name a few.

Abbi Wells works at the Black Hills Workshop on an assembly contract for Balanced Systems Incorporated of Sioux Falls. In 1994 she was an Easter Seals poster child. Abbi's brilliant smile and passion for life make her well liked by all the people she meets. In her spare time, she enjoys writing

short stories and volunteers at the United Blood Services, Rapid City Boys and Girls Club, National Federation of the Blind, and the Journey Museum.

McKie Automotive Group received the Community Connection Award from the Black Hills Workshop. This award is presented to an organization that has gone above and beyond in their support by providing job opportunities to people with disabilities. McKie Automotive Group currently employs five members of the Black Hills Workshop.

It gives me great pleasure to recognize David Pigott, Tonya Denke, Russell Bruner, Abbi Wells, and McKie Automotive Group and to congratulate them on receiving these well-earned awards and wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize the Campbell- Timmerman Legion Auxiliary, unit No. 115, of Platte, SD.

Each year the auxiliary participates in the Paralyzed Veterans of America pheasant hunt sponsored by the American Legion. The auxiliary provides food and accommodations for many of the veterans who come to hunt. Through their efforts, the auxiliary gives these veterans the opportunity to enjoy the fellowship of other veterans and appreciate the great outdoors.

Organizations like the Campbell-Timmerman Legion Auxiliary are the backbone of South Dakota's rural communities. It is my hope that their dedication to serving our State's veterans inspires others to lend a helping hand.

I would like to thank the Campbell-Timmerman Legion Auxiliary unit No. 115 for their service and wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I honor Steve Brimm of Spearfish, SD, for his nearly 40 years of service to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Brimm is retiring from his position as project leader to the D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery where he has served for the past 10 years.

The D.C. Booth Historic National Fish Hatchery is one of the oldest operating hatcheries in the country dedicated to fish culture and resource management. Under Steve Brimm's leadership, the fish hatchery has continued to thrive and benefit not only the Spearfish community but the entire Black Hills region. By forging partnerships and nurturing cooperation within the fish hatchery system, Steve has given the D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery a chance to become one of the most well- preserved fish hatcheries in the United States. The hatchery has become an archival site for the Fish and Wildlife Service's fishery materials, and a functioning fish rearing facility, as well as being a tourist and economic attraction for the city of Spearfish.

For his dedicated service, Steve has been honored on both a State and national level. He was named a 2007 Take Pride in America National Award winner by the United States Department of the Interior and the Hatchery Helpers Youth Volunteer Program that Mr. Booth helped to develop was awarded a 2003 Take Pride in America National Award.

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Steve Brimm on this special occasion and thank him for all his years of service to the D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery, the city of Spearfish, and the State of South Dakota.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a key institution in my State, the South Dakota Community Foundation, SDCF, which will celebrate its 20th anniversary on November 11, 2007. This statewide organization is a perfect example of how private funds are raised in communities to ensure future sustainability. The SDCF is a model for those who believe there is no better way to improve themselves and our great State than through working together to accomplish great things.

The SDCF was started two decades ago by a group of leaders with a vision for South Dakota. Their vision included capitalizing on the philanthropic nature of South Dakotans to help rural communities redevelop and serve the needs of their citizens. Strong leadership over 20 years has resulted in thousands of investors and partners that have assisted local communities and nonprofit organizations to achieve new levels of success. The original group of investors was especially critical, as they embraced a concept that has now exceeded the expectations of many. Over 70 communities and hundreds of nonprofit organizations across South Dakota now have direct partnerships with the

Mr. President, today I recognize the passing of Wynn Speece. Wynn passed away on October 22, at Avera Sacred Heart Hospital in Yankton, SD, at the age of 90.

Many will remember Wynn as the ``Neighbor Lady'' from her WNAX talk radio show. For 64 years her voice came into the homes of countless Midwestern families. Her household tips, recipes, and personal anecdotes will be missed not only by South Dakotans but also by her many listeners throughout the Midwestern region.

Wynn grew up in Marshalltown, IA, where she took a special interest in home economics and theater. Upon her graduation from high school, she continued her education at Drake University where she majored in speech with a broadcasting emphasis. After her graduation in 1939, she took a job writing commercials for WNAX in Yankton, SD. It took 2 years of writing before WNAX gave Wynn her very own show. From the first show she was an instant success, and that success would follow the ``Neighbor Lady'' for the next 64 years.

Wynn won several awards for outstanding radio work. She was presented with the prestigious Marconi Award for ``Best Small-Market Radio Personality'' and was named one of the top 10 Yankton citizens of the 20th century by the Yankton Press and Dakotan. Not only was Wynn a celebrated radio host, but she also worked hard to make a positive impact on the community of Yankton. Her local involvement and selfless giving earned Wynn the 1991 Yankton Community Citizen of the Year Award.

Wynn Speece was an extraordinary woman and a great South Dakotan who will be greatly missed by all who knew her.

Mr. President, today I recognize the passing of Carole Hillard, former Lieutenant Governor of South Dakota. Carole Hillard was a gracious woman with an authentic and deeply held passion for public service.

Ms. Hillard was born August 14, 1936, in Deadwood, SD. She attended the University of Arizona and received a degree in education in 1957. She received a master's degree in education from South Dakota State University in 1982 and a master's degree in political science from the University of South Dakota in 1984.

As the mother of five children, David, Sue Ellen, Todd, Eddie, and Lornell, she possessed the practical knowledge to connect with the needs of South Dakotans as she served on the South Dakota Board of Charities and Corrections, the Rapid City United Way Campaign, the South Dakota Children's Home Society, and as the first woman president of the Rapid City Council.

She was elected to the South Dakota House of Representatives in 1991 and served until 1994, at which point she became the first female Lieutenant Governor in South Dakota. From 1995 until 2003, Ms. Hillard graciously presided over the Senate and memorably seemed initially surprised when State Senators on the Senate floor formally referred to her as ``Madam President.'' Her career in public service and the impact she had did not go unnoticed, as she won many awards in her lifetime, including the 1987 Public Service Award, the 1988 Governor's Outstanding Citizen Award, the 1993 South Dakota Outstanding Women Award, and induction into the South Dakota Hall of Fame in 2007.

Not only has she accomplished much for the State of South Dakota but she has also accomplished much on the international level. In recent years, Carole Hillard was an international consultant traveling on behalf of the U.S. Department of State. Ms. Hillard completed assignments to 67 countries such as Panama, the Czech Republic, San Salvador, Bosnia, and Africa. Recently, she also helped bring to life a skill-building workshop for residents of Kabul, Afghanistan, and supervised the January 2007 elections in the West Bank.

Carole Hillard's life accomplishments are truly remarkable. Her positive outlook on life, her integrity, and her warm personality truly embodied a woman whose passion was the betterment of humankind. While Ms. Hillard is no longer with us, her legacy of service to the people of South Dakota and her diligent work on the promotion of democracy and economic development will not be forgotten.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3333.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to provide an increase in funding for the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth, under the Health Resources and Services Administration. I am pleased to say I am joined in this effort by Senators Stabenow, Crapo, and Conrad.

I have spent quite a lot of time over the last month debating how to increase access to affordable health care in this country. Opinions have ranged considerably on this topic, but for most of us the goal is the same--it is to find ways at the Federal level to make health care more affordable for our constituents back home. Many of us are also trying to bring more options to rural areas or even urban underserved areas where access to care can be challenging.

One thing that both sides of the aisle can agree on and have agreed on during my time here is on a very similar amendment, and that is increasing funding for proven technologies such as telehealth.

Telehealth is the most effective way to deliver many types of care to rural and other populations that have traditionally lacked adequate health care access. Many Americans do not live near certain specialists or they don't live near affordable specialists. This is certainly the case among many small towns in my State of South Dakota.

Telehealth bridges the gap between these patients and providers by enabling doctors and nurses to remotely care for patients, thereby raising the standards of care for underserved populations. Telehealth also increases patient and provider access to medical information and improves training of health care providers. Of course, with increased access to care and less need to travel great distances, patients and providers save money.

I wish to share with my colleagues part of a story from an article in the Platte Enterprise, a local South Dakota newspaper, and a subsequent letter to the editor back in September dealing with telehealth. There are many different medical services that can be provided over long distances through telehealth technology. The Platte Health Center in Platte, SD, already provides some medical specialties through telemedicine, including dermatology and infectious disease. Now they will also be able to provide mental health services.

According to the article: Patients can talk to and see a physician on the television screen who in turn can see and talk to them.

In a subsequent letter to the editor from a user of these types of telemedicine services, my constituent, Kris Kuipers, describes:

I recently experienced the use of telemedicine at Platte

Health Center Hospital. I thought it was wonderful. One of

our local nurses greeted me and explained the operating

equipment. It is great because I didn't have to do a thing.

I was able to talk with my physician in Sioux Falls who was

on the TV screen just like if I were talking to Dr. Jerome

Bentz. It was very personable and I didn't have to drive four

hours round trip.

I am very excited that we have this capability here in town

and I hope more physicians will catch on to the advantages of

using the telemedicine network equipment. I want to encourage

you to tell your out-of-town doctors about our tele-med

capabilities at the Platte Health Center Hospital. Maybe by

word of mouth, other physicians will be encouraged to use

this local alternative as a means of providing health care to

our rural communities.

I hear from local providers and patients such as Kris Kuipers very often about the benefits of telehealth to rural communities in my State. In South Dakota, telehealth technologies are utilized by our three major hospital networks: Avera, Sanford, and Rapid City Regional. Additionally, many of the rural health clinics who serve the health care needs of some of the smallest communities in our State also utilize these technologies. These organizations touch more than 40 different communities, large and small across the State.

The Office for the Advancement of Telehealth under HRSA is the primary tool of the Federal Government to develop telehealth resources and to help local providers to develop these resources.

My amendment will provide additional funding to support existing and new telehealth resource centers, including a resource center focused specifically on telehomecare; that is, telemonitoring technologies for patients who have to have their vital signs checked in the home. These resource centers currently help assist the telehealth community in breaking down barriers to the adoption of telehealth.

Additional funding will also support telehealth network grants, pilot projects for the development of telehomecare technologies and grants to help carry out programs where health licensing boards and States come together to reduce their statutory and regulatory barriers to telehealth.

My amendment is very modest. It proposes a $6.8 million increase for the Office of the Advancement of Telehealth, or OAT, to fulfill these activities which were authorized under the Health Care Safety Net Amendments Act of 2002. With this amendment, total funding for OAT would be increased to $13.8 million.

Additionally, this amount is fully offset by a prorated reduction in the departmental management accounts of the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education.

The $6.8 million provided by my amendment, while modest, will have a significant and positive impact on almost every health activity in this wide-reaching bill. Increasing the investment in telehealth is valuable and necessary and will help save money for patients and for the Federal Government.

This is a small but important investment in the future of our Nation's health care system. I hope the $6.8 million increase, when you take it away from all of the various departments that are funded under this bill--this is a multibillion dollar bill--is inconsequential in terms of the impact that can be had by putting that $6.8 million into the advancement of telehealth in this country, making sure that more patients and more providers are able to utilize technology to meet the health care needs of people in rural and underserved areas across this country.

So I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and help us advance this very important initiative.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask that the amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member to work with us on this amendment. I know of his interest in this particular area of technology of health care, and I appreciate the support. Hopefully, we can figure out a way to get more money into this very important account because it does they are doing some remarkable things, and particularly in the areas the Senator from Iowa and I represent, in the rural areas of the country, and the sky is the limit in terms of what I think can be accomplished. But we have to make sure it is appropriately funded. So I thank the Senator from Iowa for being willing to help out.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Rapid City Chapter of the Salvation Army as they celebrate 100 years of dedicated service to the local community.

For the last century, the Salvation Army of Rapid City has stood ready to assist South Dakotans of all ages through a variety of services including disaster relief, food and nutrition services, family counseling, health services, and many others. They own and operate the Black Hills Salvation Army Camp and the Rapid City Salvation Army Thrift Store. This ``church with its sleeves rolled up'' serves as a shining example of an organization that is meeting the needs of South Dakota's citizens both physically and spiritually.

The Salvation Army would not be able to perform its invaluable mission without the hard work and dedication of the many volunteers and officers who have put in countless hours serving the needs of others. These compassionate individuals are truly the backbone of the Rapid City community and I hope that their service will inspire others to lend a helping hand.

It gives me great pleasure to rise with the State of South Dakota in congratulating the Salvation Army of Rapid City on this important anniversary and wish them continued success in the years to come.