[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Page 31867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me conclude on the farm bill itself. 
This farm bill is fiscally responsible. It is a 5-year reauthorization. 
It is fully paid for. It complies with pay-go. It cuts commodity title 
payments by $7.5 billion over 5 years. That is a fact. In fact, the 
share of the total Federal budget going to commodity programs is 
reduced from the previous farm bill, from three-quarters of 1 percent 
of total Federal spending to one-quarter of 1 percent. That is a fact.
  This bill tightens payment limitations and eliminates loopholes. It 
adopts the elimination of the three-entity rule that allowed people to 
hide behind paper entities to get farm program payments. It eliminates 
that abuse. It requires direct attribution of farm program payments so 
a living, breathing human being has to be the recipient of these 
payments--again, instead of being able to hide behind a mask of phony 
corporate entities.
  This bill is fiscally responsible. When my colleague says this bill 
has tax increases in it--$15 billion he asserted of tax increases--
wrong again. Is there more revenue in this bill? Yes. How can it be 
there is more revenue but not tax increases? Well, let's look.
  Let's look at where the revenue comes from--$15 billion over 5 years. 
Where does it come from? It comes from codifying the ``economic 
substance'' doctrine that prohibits businesses from using certain tax-
avoidance schemes. Is that a tax increase? No, I do not think that is a 
tax increase. I think that is shutting down a bunch of tax scams that 
are going on around the country. In fact, you heard the Republican 
ranking member of the Finance Committee out here on the floor 
vigorously defending that pay-for, and that came out of the Finance 
Committee on a vote of 17 to 4--overwhelming bipartisan support.
  The second pay-for is to revoke tax benefits for leasing foreign 
subways and sewer systems. Now they are going to say that is a tax 
increase? Let's understand what is happening. We have certain 
corporations and wealthy individuals who are buying--get this--buying 
foreign sewer systems, and depreciating them on the books for U.S. tax 
purposes--leasing those sewer systems back to the European cities that 
bought them in the first place.
  Did they do this because they are in the sewer business? No. They are 
not in the sewer business. They are in monkey business. They are buying 
foreign sewer systems to depreciate them on the books in the United 
States to reduce their taxes in the United States. They have nothing to 
do with being in the sewer business in European cities. They want to 
call that a tax increase? Again, that provision came out of the Senate 
Finance Committee on a vote of 17 to 4--a very strong bipartisan vote.
  Where is the other revenue coming from?
  Increasing penalties for failure to file correct information returns. 
That is not a tax increase. That is a penalty for people who are trying 
to cheat.
  Finally, denying deductions for certain fines and penalties. That is, 
again, an additional inducement for people to play fair.
  In addition, much of the money--in fact, two-thirds of the money--
that has come from this additional revenue has been turned around and 
put right back out in tax cuts. You did not hear that from the other 
side, did you? They never mention that fact.
  Well, what are the tax cuts that are in this bill? There is $7.3 
billion for conservation, including a tax credit for farmland in the 
Conservation Reserve Program--a program that affects over 10 million 
acres across the United States.
  There is $2.5 billion for energy, including a tax credit for small 
producers of cellulosic fuel and $800 million for agriculture and rural 
areas.
  Those are the tax reduction elements which are a part of this bill.
  The final point I want to make is this Democratic-led Congress has 
rejected the failed fiscal policies of the last 2 years. We have put in 
place a strong pay-go rule. It is working by any standard--by any 
objective standard. While it would not single-handedly solve all of our 
problems, it is making a meaningful contribution. The fact is, the pay-
go scorecard, as of this moment, shows a positive balance. That means 
the legislation that has been advanced has been paid for. That is a 
significant departure from what has gone on in the previous 6 years 
under the control of our colleagues on the other side.
  So it is going to be a long, tough slog for us to get done what needs 
to be done and get America back on track, at least in the fiscal arena. 
While the Senator from New Hampshire and I have sharp disagreement on 
these matters, we are working together on a plan to bring together a 
bipartisan task force--16 Members; 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans--with the 
responsibility to come up with a plan, a long-term plan to get America 
back on track. In that, he and I are joined at the hip, and we are 
prepared to ask our colleagues to come together in a bipartisan way to 
develop a plan to deal with these long-term imbalances. So while we 
have sharp disagreement on the question of pay-go and on the question 
of their fiscal record versus ours, one place we are in complete 
agreement is on the need to face up to these long-term fiscal 
imbalances. That is in the interests of our country. That is in the 
interests of every citizen of America.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, just very briefly if I could, I say to my 
colleague, I am just going to take 30 seconds.

                          ____________________