S10728 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 20, 2008 

Greens and turned into soup. Along with 

40,000 pounds of squash and pumpkin, Pete’s 

bought 2,000 pounds of High Mowing’s cucumbers this year and turned them into 

pickles. 

For the past two years, many of these 

farmers and businessmen have met informally once a month to share experiences for 

business planning and marketing or pass on 

information about, say, a graphic designer 

who did good work on promotional materials 

or government officials who’ve been particularly helpful. They promote one another’s 

products at trade fairs and buy equipment at 

auctions that they know their colleagues 

need. 

More important, they share capital. 

They’ve lent each other about $300,000 in 

short-term loans. When investors visited Mr. 

Stearns over the summer, he took them on a 

tour of his neighbors’ farms and businesses. 

To expand these enterprises further, the 

Center for an Agricultural Economy recently 

bought a 15-acre property to start a center 

for agricultural education. There will also be 

a year-round farmers’ market (from what 

began about 20 years ago as one farmer selling from the trunk of his car on Main Street) 

and a community garden, which started with 

one plot and now has 22, with a greenhouse 

and a paid gardening specialist. 

Last month the center signed an agreement with the University of Vermont for faculty and students to work with farmers and 

food producers on marketing, research, even 

transportation problems. Already, Mr. Meyer 

has licensed a university patent to make his 

Vermont Natural Coatings, an environmentally friendly wood finish, from whey, a 

byproduct of cheesemaking. 

These entrepreneurs, mostly well educated 

children of baby boomers who have added 

business acumen to the idealism of the area’s 

long established hippies and homesteaders, 

are in the right place at the right time. The 

growing local-food movement, with its concerns about energy usage, food safety and 

support for neighbors, was already strong in 

Vermont, a state that the National Organic 

Farmers’ Association said had more certified 

organic acreage per capita than any other. 

Mr. Meyer grew up on a dairy farm in 

Hardwick and worked in Washington as an 

agricultural aide to former Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont. ‘‘From my time in Washington,’’ Mr. Meyer said, ‘‘I recognize that if 

Vermont is going to have a future in agriculture we need to look at what works in 

Vermont, and that is not commodity agriculture.’’ 

The brothers Mateo and Andy Kehler have 

found something that works quite well at 

their Jasper Hill Farm in nearby Greensboro. 

At first they aged their award-winning 

cheeses in a basement. Then they began 

aging for other cheesemakers. Earlier this 

month they opened their new caves, with 

space for 2 million pounds of cheese, which 

they buy young from other producers. 

The Vermont Institute for Artisan Cheese 

at the University of Vermont is helping producers develop safety and quality programs, 

with costs split by Jasper Hill and the producers. ‘‘Suddenly being a cheesemaker in 

Vermont becomes viable,’’ Mateo Kehler 

said. 

Pete Johnson began a garden when he was 

a boy on his family’s land. Now his company, 

Pete’s Greens, grows organic crops on 50 

acres in Craftsbury, about 10 miles north of 

here. He has four moveable greenhouses, extending the growing season to nine months, 

and he has installed a commercial kitchen 

that can make everything from frozen prepared foods and soup stocks to baked goods 

and sausages. In addition he has enlarged the 

concept of the C.S.A. by including 30 farmers 

and food producers rather than just a single 

farm. 

‘‘We have 200 C.S.A. participants so we’ve 

become a fairly substantial customer of 

some of these businesses,’’ he said. ‘‘The 

local beef supplier got an order for $700 this 

week; that’s pretty significant around here. 

We’ve encouraged the apple producer who 

makes apple pies to use local flour, local 

butter, local eggs, maple sugar as well as the 

apples so now we have a locavore apple pie.’’ 

‘‘Twelve years ago the market for local 

food was lukewarm,’’ Mr. Johnson added. 

‘‘Now this state is primed for anything that 

is local. It’s a way to preserve our villages 

and rebuild them.’’ 

Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Stearns of High 

Mowing Organic Seeds in Wolcott, who is 

president of the Center, knew he wanted to 

get into agriculture when he was a boy. His 

company, which grew from his hobby of collecting seeds, began in 2000 with a two-page 

catalog that generated $36,000 in sales. Today 

he has a million-dollar business, selling 

seeds all over the United States. 

Woody Tasch, chairman of Investors Circle, a nonprofit network of investors and 

foundations dedicated to sustainability, said: 

‘‘What the Hardwick guys are doing is the 

first wave of what could be a major social 

transformation, the swinging back of the 

pendulum from industrialization and 

globalization.’’ 

Mr. Tasch is having a meeting in nearby 

Grafton next month with investors, entrepreneurs, nonprofit groups, philanthropists 

and officials to discuss investing in Vermont 

agriculture. 

Here in Hardwick, Claire’s restaurant, sort 

of a clubhouse for farmers, began with investments from its neighbors. It is a Community Supported Restaurant. Fifty investors 

who put in $1,000 each will have the money 

repaid through discounted meals at the restaurant over four years. 

‘‘Local ingredients, open to the world,’’ is 

the motto on restaurant’s floor-to-ceiling 

windows. ‘‘There’s Charlie who made the 

bread tonight,’’ Kristina Michelsen, one of 

four partners, said in a running commentary 

one night, identifying farmers and producers 

at various tables. ‘‘That’s Pete from Pete’s 

Greens. You’re eating his tomatoes.’’ 

Rosy as it all seems, some worry that as 

businesses grow larger the owners will be 

tempted to sell out to companies that would 

not have Hardwick’s best interests at heart. 

But the participants have reason to be optimistic: Mr. Stearns said that within one 

week six businesses wanted to meet with him 

to talk about moving to the Hardwick area. 

‘‘Things that seemed totally impossible 

not so long ago are now going to happen,’’ 

said Mr. Kehler. ‘‘In the next few years a new 

wave of businesses will come in behind us. So 

many things are possible with collaboration.’’ 

f 

TRIBUTE TO PETER CHERNIN 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to 

no one in my support of the freedoms 

set out in the first amendment to the 

Constitution, and I have devoted considerable time and energy to their protection and preservation. On October 

21, 2008, I enjoyed a very special 

evening honoring Peter Chernin, the 

CEO of Fox News, and a man who 

shares my belief in the need to vigorously defend the first amendment. 

That night, I congratulated Peter on 

receiving the Media Institute’s First 

Amendment Award, an award that he 

richly deserved for his stand against 

rigid and unyielding application of socalled indecency rules at the Federal 

Communications Commission. I believe 

that his words in defense of the first 

amendment should be heard and heeded 

by all Americans, not just by those 

who were fortunate enough to attend 

that event. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

statement of Peter Chernin from October 21, 2008, be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

POLITICS, INDECENCY, AND THE FIRST

AMENDMENT

Thank you so much for that introduction, 

Senator Leahy. Your strong and unambiguous support for the First Amendment is legendary on Capitol Hill, and I could not be 

more pleased to have you, a former recipient 

of this award, as my presenter tonight. And 

thank you to the Media Institute for bestowing this honor on me. As the head of a media 

company, I am at times painfully aware of 

how important the First Amendment is to 

our ability to create thought-provoking and 

controversial content. And as a citizen of 

this country, I am thankful every day for the 

freedoms that we too often take for granted: 

the freedom to speak freely, the freedom to 

pursue our religious beliefs without persecution, and the freedom of the press to criticize 

our government. 

We live in a pluralistic society. One where 

diversity rules, where disagreement is a constant, and where there is more than one 

right answer for every question. It’s messy. 

And for creators of content, if we’re doing 

our jobs right, we sometimes offend people. 

It’s that simple. And, believe me, we wrestle 

with that fact. We struggle with complex 

issues every day. Are we guilty of contributing to the vulgarization of our society or 

simply of mirroring it? Is it our responsibility to be the arbiters of good taste, or is 

it our duty to push boundaries? Is it even 

possible to create innovative programming 

for a mass audience that is diverse on every 

level—from age, to religious affiliation, to 

ethnicity? 

We don’t take these issues lightly. We are 

constantly thinking about the important 

role we play in shaping our culture. Whether 

we’re creating television shows, making 

films, or working at a newspaper or publishing house. Certainly, we must entertain, 

we must inform and we must provoke. But, 

at the same time, we must take very seriously the power we have to affect millions 

through our work. That’s why we stress the 

importance of individual editorial responsibility across all of our businesses. But, yes, 

sometimes we do make mistakes. Everyone 

does. The alternative? Well, it’s chilling. If 

the media is ruled by fear of crossing an ambiguous line, our product will be less vital 

and more homogenous. Our ability to create 

news and entertainment that is thoughtful, 

provocative, and accurately reflects our society will be compromised. And Americans 

will have far fewer choices. That’s why it’s 

so critical that we don’t chip away at the 

First Amendment until it becomes toothless. 

It must remain absolute in its protections. 

Two weeks from today the U.S. Supreme 

Court is hearing arguments in FCC v. Fox 

Television Stations, the first indecency case 

it has heard since the ‘‘7 Dirty Words’’ case 

was decided in 1978. At issue is whether Fox 

violated the indecency law when it aired two 

live award programs in which actresses 

blurted out one or two so-called ‘‘fleeting 

expletives.’’ While a case with Cher and Nicole Richie at its center is probably not one 

we would have chosen to argue before the 

Supreme Court, the truth is, we don’t get to 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
November 20, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S10729 

pick our cases. In fact, if anyone had told me 

that my company would be before the U.S. 

Supreme Court defending inane comments 

by Cher and Nicole Ritchie, I would have 

said you’re crazy. But I would contend that 

the nature of this speech, and who said it, 

makes absolutely no difference. Because at 

the core of this case is an absolute threat to 

the First Amendment. It hinges on utterances that were unscripted on live television. 

If we are found in violation, just think about 

the radical ramifications for live programming—from news, to politics, to sports. In 

fact, to every live broadcast television event. 

The effect would be appalling. 

There is a certain symmetry to the fact 

that the oral argument in this case and the 

election of the 44th President of the United 

States are taking place on the same day: The 

Fox case, if successful, is an affirmation of 

the First Amendment. The election is an affirmation of our democratic process. And the 

two are inextricably intertwined. The First 

Amendment is central to our democratic 

process because it ensures a full and open 

dialogue about the candidates for office. 

Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not be sustained. 

But the truth is, people don’t think about 

defending broadcasters’ right to utter 

expletives in the same way they think about 

defending one’s right to speak critically of 

our government. But they should. The First 

Amendment is at stake in both cases. As a 

media company, we have not just a right but 

a responsibility to stand up to the government when it crosses that First Amendment 

line in the sand—even if the content we are 

defending is in bad taste. And in the indecency context, that line has not only been 

crossed, it has been obliterated. That is why 

Fox is fighting the FCC in this and several 

other indecency cases. 

I’ll admit: some of the content we are defending is not particularly tasteful: the 

expletives, the brief nudity, the carefully 

placed whipped cream and, of course, the 

pixels. I would not have allowed my own 

children, when they were younger, to watch 

some of these shows. But, I vow to fight to 

the end for our ability to put occasionally 

controversial, offensive, and even tasteless 

content on the air. 

Why? Because, if the government gets its 

foot in the censorship door with respect to 

unpopular entertainment content, it is the 

beginning of the steep slide toward censoring 

unpopular political content. And we have 

seen the beginnings of this downward slide in 

a recent case where the FCC initially found 

indecent content in a news program. If we 

allow our government to intrude into the 

creative process to censor the ‘‘bad words’’ 

at issue in the Fox case, I am afraid we will 

soon reach the bottom of the slide—to America’s detriment. 

Groups that claim to be interested in ‘‘protecting children’’ are helping the government along in its attempts to censor television. While I don’t agree with these groups, 

I do fully support their right to criticize 

what’s on television. But the job of protecting children is far too important to leave 

to government bureaucrats or so-called public interest groups. The job of protecting 

children lies with parents. The job of the 

government is to resist the views of interest 

groups with particular agendas and instead 

to enforce the law in a way that is consistent, fair, and constitutional. So I don’t 

blame these groups for the degradation of 

the First Amendment. I blame our government, which has succumbed to the views of a 

particularly vocal minority. 

Look, I am not insensitive to the fact that 

young children need to be protected. And 

that’s difficult in an era of single parent, or 

two working parent households. But the protection of children must be considered in a 

Twenty-First Century light. Nearly every 

TV set sold today includes a V-Chip, which 

allows parents to block content they think 

may be inappropriate for their children. 

Cable, satellite, and telco video providers 

have finely-tuned, comprehensive parental 

controls. And let’s not forget the most powerful technology available to parents: the onoff switch. These tools allow adults to protect their kids while still being able to access shows they love. 

We as media companies also have a responsibility: to rate shows accurately and consistently so the V-Chip works as it should. 

And, as I said earlier, we need to be responsible with our creative output. This is something we do on a daily basis through our 

Standards and Practices departments, not 

only by exercising editorial judgment but by 

constantly fine-tuning and improving our internal controls. 

Let’s step back for a minute and get some 

perspective on this issue. The indecency law 

applies only to broadcast TV: that’s a handful of channels. Over 85 percent of the country receives their broadcast channels 

through a cable, telco line, or satellite signal. Sitting right next to the broadcast 

channels on these multichannel systems are 

hundreds of other channels that are not subject to the indecency law. 

And those other channels are just a click 

away on the remote control. Nor does the indecency law apply to video-on-demand, pay 

per view, DVDs, or the mother of all content 

providers: the Internet. Does it really make 

sense to continue government censorship of 

the occasional bad word, brief nudity, or sexual innuendo on a handful of broadcast channels when we live in an environment of infinitely unregulated choices? In the mediarich world we live in, singling out a few 

channels for indecency enforcement is not 

legally sustainable. 

Quite simply, it is time for the government 

to get out of the business of regulating ‘‘indecent’’ speech on broadcast TV. The threat 

it poses to core First Amendment values 

cannot be justified in our technologically diverse world. Parents have the tools to decide 

what is appropriate for their children. Let’s 

let parents do their job and fire the government from the job of censoring speech. The 

First Amendment is too important to our 

democratic society—in this and future elections—to allow any encroachments to 

threaten our country’s critical freedoms. 

Thank you. 

f 

IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH 

ENERGY PRICES 

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in midJune, I asked Idahoans to share with 

me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by 

the hundreds. The stories, numbering 

well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and 

touching. While energy prices have 

dropped in recent weeks, the concerns 

expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the 

opportunity to share their thoughts, I 

am submitting every e-mail sent to me 

through an address set up specifically 

for this purpose to the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD. This is not an issue that will 

be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. 

Their stories not only detail their 

struggles to meet everyday expenses, 

but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can 

do now to tackle this problem and find 

solutions that last beyond today. I ask 

unanimous consent to have today’s letters printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

We are glad to hear that at least one of our 

politicians is concerned about how the gasoline prices are affecting the middle class. 

Most of us feel that our government is extremely out of touch with the majority of 

the country. 

We are retired on a fixed income and we 

worked hard all our lives and saved to get a 

motor home for vacations, but unfortunately 

we now cannot use it because of the price of 

gasoline and it just sits there. We try to go 

out shopping for groceries and any other necessities just once a week, making a list of 

items and stores, color coding so we do not 

forget anything. The cost of energy also has 

increased the price of groceries tremendously, so basic foods and produce are the 

norm—doing away with any treats. We have 

never seen the price of gasoline increase day 

by day and a nickel to a dime at a time. 

We desperately need to have alternate 

sources of energy, such as coal, windmills, 

solar and nuclear. We should have been 

building new refineries and recovering oil off 

all of our coasts since the 1970s when this 

same problem came up at that time, but, to 

our shame, we did not. 

Automobiles should get a lot more than 

the 35 mpg that we have heard mentioned for 

future vehicles. It should be at the very least 

60 mpg, and there is no reason in this world 

with our technology that this could not be a 

reality. Something should be done to increase the mileage on all of the vehicles that 

are already on the road. This is never mentioned. We cannot just go out and buy a hybrid or other fuel efficient vehicle at the 

drop of a hat to help the situation. We drive 

our 2002 Honda 4 cylinder between 55 and 60 

mph on the highway to increase our fuel efficiency and you should see the bad looks we 

get. Highway mileage should be lowered to 55 

mph like in the 70s to help conserve. 

We do hope that our government does 

something quickly to improve this situation 

and that it is not handled like it was in the 

70s—all talk and no action. We need to be dependent on no one but ourselves for our energy needs. No one is going to take care of 

the USA and its citizens but the USA itself. 

We need some action now—Please. 

ROBERT AND ROBERTA, Idaho Falls. 

Thanks for the opportunity to respond to 

your e-letter regarding energy costs and gasoline prices. I agree that we in the US are far 

too dependent on petroleum for energy. But 

I think it is a selfish and short-sighted view 

to defeat the climate change legislation. Our 

focus should be, as you mentioned, on using 

less petroleum, not searching for petroleum 

everywhere we can, no matter the ecological 

cost. It is true; we do not have good mass 

transit in Idaho and especially in the more 

densely populated Treasure Valley. I think 

tax dollars would be well spent to improve 

the mass transit situation in the Valley. 

We need to give tax incentives to clean, renewable energy sources and rescind the tax 

breaks given to the huge oil companies who 

have been reaping record profits at the expense of all Americans. The answer is in conservation which includes improved mass 

transit and in alternative transportation 

where there would be improved avenues for 

bicycling and walking. 

It is true. I will not be driving as far for vacation this year, though I would like to explore areas in Idaho I have not yet seen. It 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE