[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 33583-33592]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2419, which the clerk will report.

[[Page 33584]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
     agricultural programs for fiscal year 2012, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin amendment No. 3500, in the nature of a substitute.
       Harkin (for Dorgan-Grassley) amendment No. 3695 (to 
     amendment No. 3500), to strengthen payment limitations and 
     direct the savings to increase funding for certain programs.
       Brown amendment No. 3819 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     increase funding for critical farm bill programs and improve 
     crop insurance.
       Klobuchar amendment No. 3810 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     improve the adjusted gross income limitation and use the 
     savings to provide additional funding for certain programs 
     and reduce the Federal deficit.
       Chambliss (for Lugar) amendment No. 3711 (to amendment No. 
     3500), relative to traditional payments and loans.
       Chambliss (for Cornyn) amendment No. 3687 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to prevent duplicative payments for agricultural 
     disaster assistance already covered by the Agricultural 
     Disaster Relief Trust Fund.
       Chambliss (for Coburn) amendment No. 3807 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to ensure the priority of the farm bill remains 
     farmers by eliminating wasteful Department of Agriculture 
     spending on casinos, golf courses, junkets, cheese centers, 
     and aging barns.
       Chambliss (for Coburn) amendment No. 3530 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to limit the distribution to deceased individuals, and 
     estates of those individuals, of certain agricultural 
     payments.
       Chambliss (for Coburn) amendment No. 3632 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to modify a provision relating to the Environmental 
     Quality Incentive Program.
       Salazar amendment No. 3616 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives 
     for the production of all cellulosic biofuels.
       Thune (for McConnell) amendment No. 3821 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to promote the nutritional health of school children, 
     with an offset.
       Craig amendment No. 3640 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland and grazing 
     land by Federal, State, and local governments for parks, open 
     space, or similar purposes.
       Thune (for Roberts-Brownback) amendment No. 3549 (to 
     amendment No. 3500), to modify a provision relating to 
     regulations.
       Domenici amendment No. 3614 (to amendment No. 3500), to 
     reduce our Nation's dependency foreign oil by investing in 
     clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources.
       Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3674 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
     discharges of indebtedness on principal residences from gross 
     income.
       Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3673 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to improve women's access to health care services in 
     rural areas and provide improved medical care by reducing the 
     excessive burden the liability system places on the delivery 
     of obstetrical and gynecological services.
       Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3671 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to strike the section requiring the establishment of a 
     Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network.
       Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3672 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to strike a provision relating to market loss 
     assistance for asparagus producers.
       Thune (for Gregg) amendment No. 3822 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to provide nearly $1,000,000,000 in critical home 
     heating assistance to low-income families and senior citizens 
     for the 2007-2008 winter season, and reduce the Federal 
     deficit by eliminating wasteful farm subsidies.
       Thune (for Grassley/Kohl) amendment No. 3823 (to amendment 
     No. 3500), to provide for the review of agricultural mergers 
     and acquisitions by the Department of Justice.
       Thune (for Sessions) amendment No. 3596 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     establish a pilot program under which agricultural producers 
     may establish and contribute to tax-exempt farm savings 
     accounts in lieu of obtaining federally subsidized crop 
     insurance or noninsured crop assistance, to provide for 
     contributions to such accounts by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, to specify the situations in which amounts may 
     be paid to producers from such accounts, and to limit the 
     total amount of such distributions to a producer during a 
     taxable year.
       Thune (for Stevens) amendment No. 3569 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to make commercial fishermen eligible for certain 
     operating loans.
       Thune (for Alexander) amendment No. 3551 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to increase funding for the Initiative for Future 
     Agriculture and Food Systems, with an offset.
       Thune (for Alexander) amendment No. 3553 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to limit the tax credit for small wind energy property 
     expenditures to property placed in service in connection with 
     a farm or rural small business.
       Thune (for Bond) amendment No. 3771 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to amend title 7, United States Code, to include 
     provisions relating to rulemaking.
       Salazar (for Durbin) amendment No. 3539 (to amendment No. 
     3500), to provide a termination date for the conduct of 
     certain inspections and the issuance of certain regulations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as Senators are well aware, we are now 
back on the farm bill. I again thank both leaders, Senator Reid and 
Senator McConnell, for last week working together to reach an agreement 
whereby we will have 20 amendments, a maximum of 20 amendments. We 
don't have to have 20 amendments but a maximum of 20 amendments on each 
side. We now have a list, and we do have the amendments in order on the 
Republican side. There are 20 listed. I hope that maybe not all of them 
will require a vote. Maybe we can work some of those out so we will not 
require votes or much time on any of those amendments. Senator 
Chambliss and I are working together to try to get some hard-and-fast 
time agreements on these amendments so we can move ahead expeditiously.
  Right now we have seven amendments listed on the Democratic side, and 
I hope that might be the limit of those amendments. Republicans have 
about 20, and we have about 7 amendments that I know of right now.
  Also, we know yesterday the Senate entered into a unanimous consent 
agreement that beginning at 11 a.m., the Senate will begin 3 hours of 
debate on the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment No. 3711 and the time is to be 
equally divided, so an hour and a half on each side. Of course, we will 
break at 12:30 p.m. for our respective weekly party conferences. We 
will resume at 2:15 p.m. and will resume debate on amendment No. 3711, 
the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment, and that when all time is used or 
yielded back, we will vote on or in relation to that amendment.
  Senators should be aware the first vote that will occur on an 
amendment to the farm bill will be on the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment at 
some point this afternoon, and then hopefully we will move ahead after 
that on other amendments. I don't know exactly what the next amendment 
will be. We will work that out.
  Hopefully, we can work out some more votes today. I don't know how 
late the leader wants to keep us in tonight. I am prepared to stay here 
very late tonight--very late tonight--to move these amendments forward. 
We are reaching a point where I know everyone wants to get out of here 
for the holiday season, for Christmas and New Year. We are approaching 
the end of Hanukkah. I know people would like to leave and get together 
with their families. I think if we put in a couple long days, we can 
reach pretty good agreements on these amendments to the farm bill.
  I hope we will have a long day today and get some amendments offered 
and debated and disposed of, one way or another. I wished to lay that 
out. I see my colleague and good friend, the former chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar, is on the floor.
  So I will at this time yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           Amendment No. 3711

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment No. 3711 is pending 
under a 3-hour time limit.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, is it appropriate to commence the debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished chairman 
of the committee.
  Mr. President, let me start by thanking Senator Tom Harkin, the 
distinguished chairman of our committee, and the ranking Republican 
leader, Saxby Chambliss, for their leadership. It is not an easy task 
to be chairman or ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee 
during the farm bill. Having served in both capacities, I know well of 
the challenges that both have faced in putting together a bill.
  Let me point out, as I have during the debate in committee, some 
achievements have occurred. Both the

[[Page 33585]]

chairman and ranking member have outlined a number of these in the 
areas of conservation, rural development, research, nutrition, and 
energy.
  I am also pleased by the effort to provide interested farmers with 
the revenue-based program which should be an improvement over the 
status quo.
  However, the farm bill before us does not provide meaningful reform. 
Our current farm policies, sold to the American public as a safety net, 
actually hurt the family farmer. In the name of maintaining the family 
farm and preserving rural communities, today's farm programs have 
benefited a select few, while leaving the majority of farmers without 
support or a safety net.
  Let me review the history of these farm bills.
  The genesis of our current farm policy began during the Great 
Depression as an effort to help alleviate poverty among farmers and 
rural communities. At that time, one in four Americans lived on a farm 
and the rural economy's vitality was largely dependent upon farmers. 
Farm programs were instituted that stifled agricultural productivity in 
order to raise commodity prices through a federally administered 
supply-and-demand program. Supply-control programs cost U.S. taxpayers 
handsomely in higher food costs and job loss, and now about half of the 
Nation's farmers are essentially prevented from growing other crops, 
such as fruits and vegetables.
  To date, this same antiquated idea is promoted even though farm 
income is higher on average than other industries. Times have changed 
dramatically since then. Today, 1 in 75 Americans lives on a farm, and 
only 1 in 750 lives on a full-time commercial farm. Furthermore, nearly 
90 percent of total farm household income comes from off-farm sources--
90 percent.
  In response to these ongoing changes, in 1996, Congress finally 
recognized farmers, not the Government, could best ascertain what crops 
are profitable and granted roughly half our farmers flexibility in 
planting choices, the so-called Freedom to Farm bill, and began to 
transition away from federally controlled agriculture programs.
  But in 2002, Congress and the Bush administration reversed these 
reforms and created the so-called three-legged stool which, in addition 
to other farm programs, has helped to place us in violation of our WTO 
commitments.
  The Senate Agriculture Committee farm bill before us today 
perpetuates and even expands these defective policies without regard 
for the fact that the majority of farmers do not have a safety net.
  The first leg of this so-called three-legged stool is direct payment 
subsidies to specific farmers who grow certain crops. Direct payments 
are fixed annual taxpayer-funded subsidies that are based on a farm's 
historic production and a federally set payment rate. For the five 
major subsidized crops, the average payment rate is roughly $15 per 
acre for wheat, $24 per acre for corn, $33 per acre for cotton, $11 per 
acre for soybeans, and $94 per acre for rice.
  These subsidies were originally called transition payments. They were 
meant to be a temporary bridge from supply management-based subsidies 
to free market-based agriculture. They were never intended to be a 
continuing entitlement.
  Direct payment policies are particularly irresponsible because the 
taxpayer-funded subsidies go out to farmers regardless of whether cash 
is flowing in or out of their farms or whether they farm at all.
  Although many subsidized farmers are projected to receive record crop 
prices and earn record farm incomes over the next 5 years, the Senate 
farm bill, as agreed to by the Senate Agriculture Committee, doles out 
up to $26 billion in direct payments from taxpayers, much of which will 
go to some of the largest and wealthiest farming operations in America. 
In fact, over 50 percent of these subsidies will continue to go to 
farmers in seven States, for a grand total of $13.1 billion.
  Some may find these statistics surprising, but this is simply a 
continuation of ``business as usual'' when it comes to farm subsidies. 
Keep in mind, in the years 2000 to 2005, the farm sector received $112 
billion in taxpayer subsidies, but only 43 percent of all farms 
received payments. This is because the majority of the payments go to 
just five row crops--corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. The 
largest 8 percent of these farms receives 58 percent of these payments. 
In fact, the top 1 percent of the highest earning farmers claimed 17 
percent of the crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005.
  Smaller farms that qualify in the current system and that could 
benefit from additional support did not do as well. Two-thirds of 
recipient farms received less than $10,000, accounting for only 7 
percent of their gross cash farm income. Minority farmers fared even 
worse, with only 8 percent of minority farmers even receiving Federal 
farm subsidies. Furthermore, half of the Federal crop subsidies paid 
between 2003 and 2005 went to only 19 congressional districts out of 
435.
  Each one of these statistics illustrates that our direct payment 
system is inequitable and in conflict with claims we hear on the Senate 
floor that our current farm policies are a safety net for the family 
farmer.
  The second leg of the stool is ``countercyclical payments,'' or 
having the taxpayer pay farmers when prices fall below a 
congressionally set price. The third leg is a marketing loan program 
that allows farmers to put their crops up as collateral to receive 
operating capital. However, provisions allow farmers to go ahead and 
sell the crop and repay the Government at a lower rate, leaving 
taxpayers to make up the difference.
  Because these two programs do not appropriately correspond with 
market forces, they have the effect of creating artificial markets for 
crops, even when markets do not exist. Yet neither program provides any 
help to farmers when they arguably need it most--during disasters, such 
as drought. Of greater concern, these programs have been ruled to 
violate our trade agreements. But this new farm bill actually increases 
target prices for at least five crops, loan rates for seven crops, and 
adds a number of new subsidized crops.
  Now, some Senators may wonder why we should be concerned that we are 
in violation of our World Trade Organization--or WTO--commitments. They 
might think this situation is simply limited to agriculture, or 
specific crops, with little impact on our overall economy. Others might 
even suggest we are better off building more barriers to trade; that 
this farm bill is about American farmers and not farmers in Brazil or 
elsewhere. However, if Senators look further down the line, they will 
see that our WTO violations could cost the United States billions in 
revenue, intellectual property, and lost trade opportunities. And 
failure to move toward compliance will invite retaliatory tariffs that 
legally can be redirected at any U.S. industry.
  In fact, as is happening now, Brazil will soon have the authority to 
retaliate in kind against United States products, whether they be 
agricultural products or intellectual property, due to our 
unwillingness to fix our farm policies. It is unclear if Brazil will 
follow through with these threats, but what is clear is that the WTO 
has repeatedly found the United States cotton program to be in 
violation of our commitments. As a result, a host of challenges to 
other agricultural commodities has ensued, including a case brought 
forth by Brazil and Canada in November that targets all of our 
commodity programs.
  Upon the initial findings of the WTO, Congress did repeal some 
cotton-related programs found to violate these agreements, namely, the 
so-called Step 2 Program, which was a program that used taxpayer money 
to pay companies to use U.S. cotton. However, the farm bill we are 
currently considering makes virtually no attempt to bring the rest of 
the cotton program into compliance.
  The administration earlier this year put forth a number of policy 
changes that they argued would have fixed our trade problems with the 
WTO, including a revenue-based countercyclical program, marketing loans 
that respond to market prices, and eliminating

[[Page 33586]]

planting restrictions for fruits and vegetables. None of these 
proposals were incorporated into either the House bill or the Senate 
farm bill before us today. In fact, this farm bill significantly 
increases the likelihood that other programs will be further challenged 
by the World Trade Organization.
  Specifically, the WTO found that countercyclical payments and 
marketing loans are trade distorting, and the direct payments argued to 
be trade neutral are a trade violation as long as planting restrictions 
are retained. Astonishingly, the farm bill increases payments made 
under these trade-distorting programs almost across the board, further 
exacerbating our trade situation.
  In the midst of all of this, the chief economist for the Department 
of Agriculture projects that exports of agricultural products for this 
year are likely to reach $79 billion, nearly 30 percent of all farm 
cash receipts in 2007. Nearly 40 percent of soybeans, half of our 
wheat, and over 90 percent of our cotton produced in the United States 
this year will be exported.
  Clearly, trade and our trading partners are important to American 
farmers now and will continue to be in the future. U.S. action to 
comply with WTO rulings against cotton subsidies as well as U.S. policy 
regarding subsidies in general will be closely monitored by the world's 
exporters. Should the WTO determine that other United States farm 
subsidy programs, as challenged by Brazil and Canada, do not comply 
with WTO rules, the potential for retaliation by other countries is 
immeasurable.
  The farm bill before us today establishes a new permanent disaster 
trust fund at the Department of the Treasury to provide an additional 
$5 billion in spending for commodity crop farmers. Our amendment does 
not touch this provision nor any of the other provisions related to the 
Finance Committee package. Of this $5 billion, it is estimated that 
nearly half of the money will be given to farmers in counties 
designated as disaster counties by the President and the other half 
will go to crop insurance companies as a subsidy to administer higher 
levels of crop insurance coverage.
  The idea of a permanent disaster program may have merit, especially 
when you consider that Congress has passed legislation to fund ad hoc 
disaster payment assistance nearly every year for the last 20 years, 
but we should ask ourselves, if the current expensive farm bill is 
failing to provide a safety net to farmers when these devastating 
events do happen, then what is the purpose of the farm bill? Why do we 
need a new program administered by a separate Federal agency to fulfill 
what most Americans believe is the core purpose of the legislation 
before us? We should fix the root problem, namely that the current 
subsidy system does not work and wastes taxpayer dollars.
  If you are now a farmland owner in America, it is highly probable 
your land will increase in value. Why? Because a land-owning farmer or 
agricultural business can count upon receiving substantially more money 
through subsidies. As a result, you are able to leverage your land and 
crops to expand. If you are one of hundreds of thousands of farmers in 
this country who rents land as opposed to owning land, you face a very 
tough set of circumstances. Your rents are likely to go up each year as 
the value of the land goes up. Worse still, if you are a young farmer 
who hopes someday to own land, then your prospects diminish year by 
year.
  As a result, there are young members of farm families who are hopeful 
that with the reduction or repeal of Federal estate taxes that they 
might inherit the land. Other young people who are interested in 
farming are simply out of luck, as it is too difficult to get into the 
business. As a result, it is predictable that the average age of 
farmers in this country will continue to increase, as it has been 
increasing in recent decades. Consider the fact that 6 percent of 
farmers are younger than 35, while 26 percent are over 65 years of age.
  Furthermore, elderly farmers who may be land rich but cash poor will 
be more inclined to sell their farms as their retirement nest egg. The 
most likely buyer of that farm is an owner of a larger farm who is in a 
position to expand, thanks to Government subsidies.
  In spite of all the rhetoric and all of the attempts to talk about 
perpetuating the small family farm or even the medium-sized farm, the 
facts are that consolidation is increasing, and this bill will 
perpetuate that cycle. I want to emphasize this point because it 
reflects the inequity of this entire bill. Our farm policies transfer a 
great deal of money from ordinary taxpayers to a few farmers. If this 
transfer from the many to the few produced a stable farm economy, with 
prospects for greater trade success, perhaps one could argue this 
approach is more justified. Further, these policies could be justified 
if they truly did support the lower to middle-class farmer and reduce 
the number of farm consolidations. I am arguing that our policies 
promote the exact opposite.
  For all of these reasons, Senator Frank Lautenberg and I, along with 
Senators Hatch, Reed, Menendez, Cardin, Collins, Domenici, McCain, and 
Whitehouse are introducing an amendment today that would provide a true 
safety net for all farmers regardless of what they grow or where they 
live. For the first time, each farmer would receive, at no cost, either 
expanded county-based crop insurance policies that would cover 85 
percent of expected crop revenue, or 80 percent of a farm's 5-year 
average adjusted gross revenue.
  These subsidized insurance tools already exist, but our reforms would 
make them more effective and universally used while controlling 
administrative costs. Farmers would be able to purchase insurance to 
cover the remainder of their revenue and yields. The 85 percent county 
level-based policy simply looks at the expected revenue annually in 
each county in the United States for crops such as corn, soybeans, 
wheat, cotton, and rice, but it can be expanded under this bill to any 
commodity so long as adequate market information is available to 
satisfy actuarial concerns.
  The USDA uses prices from the futures market in late February and 
multiplies them by past county average crop yields collected by the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service, which keeps detailed data on 
virtually every agricultural product produced in the United States. 
This creates a target price that adjusts either up or down each year to 
market conditions and yield trends. Farmers receive a safety net 
payment when the actual county revenue for a crop they are growing 
falls below 85 percent of the target revenue.
  This program ensures that the only incentive to grow a crop is the 
market, not federally set prices under the farm policies before the 
Senate today.
  For example, in Marion County, IN, where my farm is located, expected 
yields for corn in 2006 were 146 bushels an acre; the future price for 
corn in late February 2006 was $2.59 a bushel. So target revenue for 
corn was $378 an acre. After the harvest, USDA found that actual corn 
yields in Marion County were 140 bushels an acre and that harvest 
prices were $3.03 a bushel, producing average revenue of $424 an acre. 
Actual revenue exceeded target revenue so that no additional subsidies 
were paid to corn farmers in Marion County in 2006.
  By contrast, corn farmers in Baca County, CO, experienced poor 
weather. Expected yields were 161 bushels an acre and the future price 
for corn was $2.59 a bushel, so expected revenue was $418 an acre. 
After the harvest, USDA found that actual yields were much lower at 116 
bushels an acre and even though the harvest prices of $3.03 a bushel 
were higher than expected, the actual average revenue was $350 an acre. 
Since actual revenue was 83 percent of target revenue, corn farmers in 
Baca County would have received $5.30 per acre under the safety net, or 
the difference between actual revenue in that county and the 85 percent 
guarantee.
  The other choice would allow farmers to protect against adverse 
change in their own historic average revenues. This program looks at 
the whole farm, recognizing the same risks exist for an

[[Page 33587]]

apple orchard as the soybean field on the same farm. A farm's 5-year 
average adjusted revenue is calculated using annual tax forms. The 
adjusted revenue is essentially a farm's overall revenue minus expenses 
as indicated on their tax forms. When a farm's adjusted revenue falls 
below 80 percent of that 5-year average, a safety-net payment makes up 
the difference. This program is currently operating as a pilot program 
in a number of States but has been limited to the amount of revenue 
that can be covered for some agricultural products such as livestock 
and forest products. Our bill expands the program nationwide and allows 
the USDA to include more agricultural products. It also requires the 
USDA to minimize double payments under situations where farmers may 
also have products covered by remaining farm support programs, namely 
the sugar program and the Milk Income Loss Program.
  In addition, this bill creates optional risk management accounts that 
would be available to every farmer and rancher and would work in 
concert with crop and revenue insurance. Producers who are eligible for 
direct payments would receive transition payments, phased out over the 
next 5 years, which would be deposited into their accounts. They would 
then be eligible to withdraw from their available balance to supplement 
their income in years when their gross revenue falls below 95 percent 
of their rolling 5-year average gross revenue. They could invest in a 
rural enterprise, purchase additional revenue or crop insurance, or 
upon retirement, utilize it as a farmer retirement account. These 
accounts provide farmers who are generally asset rich and cash poor 
greater incentive to save for the future, and will help maintain family 
farms by providing retirement benefits without forcing a liquidation of 
farm assets.
  The FRESH Act amendment is important because savings from these 
reforms will allow us to provide an additional $6.1 billion more than 
the underlying bill in new investments to assist farmers with 
conservation practices, encourage rural development, develop renewable 
energy, expand access to healthy foods for children and consumers, and 
assist more hungry Americans.
  Our amendment provides an additional $1 billion for important 
environmental and conservation programs. I am pleased that we were able 
to expand and improve USDA's voluntary conservation incentives 
programs, which provide financial and technical assistance to farmers, 
ranchers and forest landowners who offer to take steps to prevent soil 
erosion and improve water quality, air quality and wildlife habitat.
  Since 2003, roughly two-thirds of farmers seeking assistance through 
USDA conservation programs have been rejected due to insufficient 
funding. Most of these conservation programs are cost-share programs. 
That means that farmers are offering to put their own money into 
environmental improvements from which the public benefits. We are 
missing an opportunity to utilize private dollars to produce 
environmental benefits such as cleaner water and cleaner air when we 
underfund cost-share conservation programs.
  One of the most popular of these programs, the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, EQIP, has had an application backlog that has 
averaged $1.6 billion a year over the past 4 years. Yet the farm bill 
before us provides no increase in funding for this popular conservation 
program.
  The current farm bill also provides no increase in funding for the 
Farmland Protection Program. This program is critical because in many 
areas our working farms and ranches are under tremendous development 
pressures. From 1992 to 1997, this country lost more than 6 million 
acres of agricultural land--an area the size of Maryland--to 
development. And yet this bill doesn't provide the funding needed to 
assist State and local governments and private land trusts in the 
important work they do to conserve our Nation's farmland.
  Increasing funding for the farm bill's conservation programs also 
provides another way to make our farm policies more equitable. All 
producers can be eligible to participate in conservation programs, 
regardless of what they grow or where they grow it. By contrast, only 
producers of a handful of commodity crops can participate in commodity 
programs.
  While discussion of commodity policy dominates much of the farm bill 
debate and discretionary funding, production agriculture remains a 
comparatively small and shrinking part of the rural economy.
  Farm employment has fallen from just over 14 percent of total 
employment in 1969 to 6 percent in 2005. The number of counties with 
farm employment accounting for 20 percent or more of total employment 
has shrunk dramatically from 1,148 in 1969 to 348 in 2005. Furthermore, 
only 1 in 75 Americans lives on a farm today, and nearly 90 percent of 
total farm household income comes from off-farm sources.
  Despite this fundamental shift, the 2002 farm bill committed 69 
percent of total spending to commodity payments, plus another 13 
percent to conservation payments. In all, four-fifths of total funding 
went to a select few farmers, while only 0.7 percent went to rural 
development initiatives aimed at boosting rural economies.
  We now have evidence which suggests that direct payments to farmers 
have little positive impact on rural economies. A recent study revealed 
that most payment-dependent counties did not even match the national 
average in terms of job growth from 1992 to 2002. In fact, many 
experienced losses during that time.
  Furthermore, most of these payment-dependent counties experienced 
population losses during that same 10-year period. Such job and 
population loss figures suggest that our current system of support for 
rural communities, which relies on subsidies like direct payments, does 
not work.
  I am also pleased that the amendment we are offering expands 
agricultural markets and decreases oil dependency by dramatically 
increasing research and development efforts for cellulosic ethanol and 
other renewable fuels, and expanding clean renewable energy 
opportunities to all of our rural areas. This is an area of 
considerable interest to the chairman who has been a stalwart 
supporter.
  Today's growth in ethanol production is creating jobs and bringing 
new sources of revenue into our communities. Because of our energy 
demands, we are witness to a palpable sense of optimism in rural 
communities for economic growth in areas that have stagnated under the 
current farm bill. Failure to give clear and strong Government 
commitment in the farm bill to developing biofuels from diverse 
feedstocks has unnecessarily confined new markets to midwestern States 
rich in corn. Spreading the economic benefits of biofuels nationwide 
will require breakthroughs in technologies and agricultural techniques 
to make more fuels from farm, municipal, and industrial wastes 
available from coast to coast. Strong support in the farm bill will 
help galvanize private investment and bring jobs across the country.
  Yet the opportunity before us involves more than economic growth. 
Dramatic advancements in biofuels will help build a more secure and 
self-reliant America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Global 
competition for oil continues to grow as demand soars and oil-rich 
States tighten their control over supplies. Already, we have witnessed 
Russia cut its exports to selected countries for political gain, and 
the Governments of Iran and Venezuela have threatened to do the same. 
Each year, Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars to import 
oil. Some of that money enriches authoritarian governments that 
suppress their own people and work against the United States. 
Meanwhile, oil infrastructure is being targeted by terrorists. In 
today's tight oil market even a small disruption in oil supplies could 
cause shortages and send prices much higher than the $90-plus per 
barrel prices Americans have paid in recent weeks.
  Biofuels will not make America completely independent of energy 
imports,

[[Page 33588]]

but they can strengthen our leverage over oil-rich regimes hostile to 
the United States, give greater freedom to our policy options in the 
Middle East, help protect our economy, and foster rural development.
  Reaping the economic and energy security benefits of biofuels and 
other rural, renewable energy requires breakthroughs in research and 
incentives for infrastructure development. Our amendment provides an 
additional half billion dollars to transform renewable energy's 
opportunity into reality.
  During the markup in the Agriculture Committee, I offered an 
amendment to increase nutrition funding in the farm bill by about $1.6 
billion through cuts to direct payments.
  Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated 17-4. However, the amendment 
sparked constructive, bipartisan debate on the importance of strong 
funding for the nutrition programs that provide a safety net for people 
across our country who are on the cusp of poverty. I am thankful to 
Senators Harkin and Chambliss for taking that discussion seriously, and 
as a result, using the savings generated from a committee change to the 
underlying bill to provide additional funding for the nutrition title 
of this farm bill.
  But even as I applaud the efforts of Agriculture Committee members 
for their attention to nutrition programs, I have serious concerns that 
the nutrition program in this bill is essentially only authorized for 5 
years. At the end of the 5 years, funding for nutrition programs drops 
dramatically. In 2012, we would then be faced with having to manipulate 
the budget to find additional funding for these programs or vulnerable 
Americans would lose this much-needed assistance. This is because the 
agriculture bill before us is ``front-loading'' spending during the 
first 5 years and then virtually zeroing out nutrition spending for 
years 6 through 10 so that the bill will come out budget neutral, on 
paper, but will cost taxpayers handsomely in reality. This is just one 
of many budgetary tricks performed so that the scoring works out 
favorably without regard to the practical application of such 
maneuvers.
  In our amendment, nutrition programs would not end. In fact, we 
increase funding for these important programs by $2 billion over the 
underlying farm bill and make these funding increases permanent. We 
cannot and should not build a safety net with holes.
  This leads me to another benefit of our reform proposal. Our 
amendment provides critical funding for each of these priorities and 
yet pays for itself from the existing agricultural budget passed by 
Congress without employing deceptive budgetary maneuvers. In fact, our 
bill will save taxpayers $4 billion.
  Unfortunately, this is not the case with the underlying bill, and if 
you take a thorough look, you realize just how precarious that bill's 
budget situation truly is. In fact, the Bush administration's Statement 
of Administrative Policy highlighted a number of budget gimmicks used 
to make the farm bill pay-go compliant, at least on paper.
  The FRESH Act amendment is fully paid for, fiscally responsible and 
provides a framework for growth for farmers and rural communities. 
Furthermore, the long-term budgetary savings from our proposal will 
allow for us to make considerable investments in key priority areas.
  There is an inappropriate political assumption that agriculture 
policy is impenetrable for consumers, taxpayers, the poor, and the vast 
majority of Americans who are being asked to pay for subsidies, while 
getting little in return. Even if only a small number of farmers in a 
State raise a program crop or one of the protected specialty crops like 
milk, sugar, or peanuts, their focused advocacy somehow has more 
political influence than the broader well-being of consumers and 
taxpayers. In short, those who benefit from current agriculture 
programs are virtually the only participants in the debate.
  This fact is probably best illustrated by the fact that one of the 
most contentious debates on this bill has been whether farmers with 
income of over $1 million, after farm expenses have been paid, should 
continue to receive subsidies. I have even seen media reports that 
indicate that if a payment limitation amendment were passed, the farm 
bill could be filibustered. Keep in mind that the median household 
income for Americans for 2006 was $48,200 and the average income of a 
food stamp recipient is less than $10,000.
  There is also an ongoing reluctance to consider change. Members will 
say, ``Farming is conservative by nature. You can't demand too much 
change.'' In 2002, I offered a similar type of reform proposal and 
opponents argued that the proposal was ``too new, too radical, and 
required too much change.''
  You will hear that same baseless argument today. Mr. President and 
Members of the Senate, when is the time for reform? When will we fix 
this broken system? When will we act on the clear evidence before us?
  As Senators, we clearly must understand our responsibility. Whether 
we understand all the complexities of our current farm programs, we 
know where the money goes. The bulk of the money in the underlying farm 
bill goes to a very few farmers, a very few. That has been clear 
throughout. This is not a great humanitarian effort. This does not save 
the family farmer, the low-income farmer, or even the middle-income 
farmer.
  This bill is about making choices. And it is incredible to me that 
with all of the budgetary pressures that we are facing to fund critical 
needs such as providing better health insurance coverage for Americans, 
protecting Social Security and pension savings, improving education, 
increasing border security, and providing our men and women in the 
Armed Forces with appropriate pay and equipment that we would consider 
a bill which enriches so few individuals.
  I believe that this year's farm bill debate is a good time to begin 
changing these dynamics.
  This year an unconventional alliance of conservation, humanitarian, 
business and taxpayer advocate groups has entered the fray with success 
in framing the issue and building support for the FRESH Act. They 
represent the broadest ever political support for change.
  Newspapers in at least 41 States have written editorials in support 
of changing our farm programs to a fair, trade compliant and fiscally 
responsible system. I have distributed these articles to my colleagues.
  Perhaps more importantly, there has never been a better time for 
farmers to change. Thanks to strong foreign and domestic demand for 
energy crops, net farm income is forecast to be $87 billion, up $28 
billion from 2006 and $30 billion above the average for the previous 10 
years and setting a new record for new farm income.
  As a result, average farm household income is projected to be almost 
$87,000 in 2007, up 8 percent from 2006, 15 percent above the 5-year 
average between 2002 and 2006, and well above median U.S. household 
income. Farm revenue may be high today but this will not always be the 
case. It is critical that we have an appropriate safety net in place to 
assist these farmers during times of need.
  Agriculture policy is too important for rural America and the 
economic and budgetary health of our country to continue the current 
misguided path. Our amendment provides a much more equitable approach, 
produces higher net farm income for farmers, increases farm exports, 
avoids stimulating overproduction, and gives more emphasis to 
environmental, nutritional, energy security and research concerns. More 
importantly, this proposal will protect the family farmer through a 
strong safety net and encourage rural development in a fiscally 
responsible and trade compliant manner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey.) The Senator from Montana.


                Amendment No. 3666 to Amendment No. 3500

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside amendment 3711 and call up amendment No. 3666, and further ask 
unanimous consent that the time not be charged against the time 
allocated for amendment 3711.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 33589]]

  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 3666 
     to amendment No. 3500.

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to unlawful practices under 
                    the Packers and Stockyards Act)

       On page 1232, strike lines 9 through 12 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively;
       (2) in subsections (c), (d), (e), and (g) (as redesignated 
     by paragraph (1)), by striking the semicolon each place it 
     appears and inserting ``, regardless of any alleged business 
     justification;''; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       On page 1233, line 20, strike ``subsection (a)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (a)(3)''.
       On page 1234, line 2, strike ``subsection (a)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (a)(3)''.

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 
prohibits meatpackers from engaging in any course of business or doing 
any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or 
controlling prices. This act was passed in Congress way back when it 
was determined that the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act 
were insufficient to promote competitive markets.
  Unfortunately, back in 2005, three judges decided to rewrite the 
Packers and Stockyards Act instead of interpreting this statute. What 
this amendment will do is reinstate the Packers and Stockyards Act, and 
with that reinstate free market competition in the marketplace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time I am 
talking not be charged against the time for debate with respect to the 
Lugar-Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3660 to Amendment No. 3500

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3660, and ask 
unanimous consent that once the amendment is reported by number, I be 
recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes, and that at the conclusion of 
my statement, the amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Reserving the right to object----
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator mind 
amending his unanimous consent request to provide for Senator Nelson to 
speak for 5 minutes and Senator Martinez to speak for up to 5 minutes?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is fine as long as the time is not being charged.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no objection as long as this time is not 
charged against the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself and Mr. 
     Crapo, proposes an amendment numbered 3660 to amendment No. 
     3500.

  The amendment is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To modify the trade title)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3__. AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY.

       (a) In General.--Section 902(1) of the Trade Sanctions 
     Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201(1)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (1); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Agricultural supply.--The term `agricultural supply' 
     includes--
       ``(A) agricultural commodities; and
       ``(B)(i) agriculture-related processing equipment;
       ``(ii) agriculture-related machinery; and
       ``(iii) other capital goods related to the storage or 
     handling of agricultural commodities or products.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Trade Sanctions Reform and 
     Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``agricultural commodities'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``agricultural supplies'';
       (2) in section 904(2), by striking ``agricultural 
     commodity'' and inserting ``agricultural supply''; and
       (3) in section 910(a), in the subsection heading, by 
     striking ``Agricultural Commodities'' and inserting 
     ``Agricultural Supplies''.

     SEC. 3__. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT TERMS UNDER TSREEA.

       Section 908(b)(1) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
     Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7207(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 
     (i) and (ii), respectively, and indenting appropriately;
       (2) striking ``(1) In general.--No United States person'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Prohibition.--
       ``(A) In general.--No United States person''; and
       (3) in the undesignated matter following clause (ii) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (1)), by striking ``Nothing in this 
     paragraph'' and inserting the following:
       ``(B) Definition of payment of cash in advance.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `payment of cash in advance' means 
     only that payment must be received by the seller of an 
     agricultural supply to Cuba or any person in Cuba before 
     surrendering physical possession of the agricultural supply.
       ``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a description of the contents 
     of this section as a clarification of the regulations of the 
     Secretary regarding sales under this title to Cuba.
       ``(D) Clarification.--Nothing in this paragraph''.

     SEC. 3__. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CERTAIN TRAVEL-RELATED 
                   TRANSACTIONS WITH CUBA.

       Section 910 of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
     Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7208) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(c) General License Authority for Travel-Related 
     Expenditures in Cuba by Persons Engaging in TSREEA-Authorized 
     Sales and Marketing Activities.--
       ``(1) Definition of sales and marketing activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this subsection, the term `sales and 
     marketing activity' means any activity with respect to travel 
     to, from, or within Cuba that is undertaken by United States 
     persons--
       ``(i) to explore the market in Cuba for products authorized 
     under this title; or
       ``(ii) to engage in sales activities with respect to such 
     products.
       ``(B) Inclusion.--The term `sales and marketing activity' 
     includes exhibiting, negotiating, marketing, surveying the 
     market, and delivering and servicing products authorized 
     under this title.
       ``(2) Authorization.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     authorize under a general license the travel-related 
     transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of 
     title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on June 
     1, 2007), for travel to, from, or within Cuba in connection 
     with sales and marketing activities involving products 
     approved for sale under this title.
       ``(3) Authorized persons.--Persons authorized to travel to 
     Cuba under paragraph (2) shall include--
       ``(A) producers of products authorized under this title;
       ``(B) distributors of such products; and
       ``(C) representatives of trade organizations that promote 
     the interests of producers and distributors of such products.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to 
     carry out this subsection.''.

     SEC. 3__. AUTHORIZATION OF DIRECT TRANSFERS BETWEEN CUBAN AND 
                   UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

       The Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 
     2000 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 911 (22 U.S.C. 7201 note; 
     Public Law 106-387) as section 912; and
       (2) by inserting after section 910 (22 U.S.C. 7209) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 911. AUTHORIZATION OF DIRECT TRANSFERS BETWEEN CUBAN 
                   AND UNITED STATES FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including 
     regulations), the President shall not restrict direct 
     transfers from Cuban to United States financial institutions 
     executed in payment for products authorized by this Act.''.

     SEC. 3__. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF 
                   TSREEA PRODUCTS SHOULD BE ISSUED VISAS TO ENTER 
                   THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Secretary of State should issue visas for temporary entry 
     into the United States of Cuban nationals who demonstrate a 
     full itinerary of purchasing activities relating to the Trade 
     Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (22

[[Page 33590]]

     U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) while in the United States.
       (b) Periodic Reports.--Not later than 45 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act and every 90 days thereafter, 
     the Secretary of State shall submit to the Committees on 
     Agriculture, Foreign Affairs, and Ways and Means of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committees on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry, Finance, and Foreign Relations of 
     the Senate a report that describes any actions of the 
     Secretary relating to this section, including--
       (1) a full description of each application received from a 
     Cuban national to travel to the United States to engage in 
     purchasing activities described in subsection (a); and
       (2) a description of the disposition of each such 
     application.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, more than 200 years ago, Richard Whately, 
an English logician, said:

       A man is called selfish not for pursuing his own good, but 
     for neglecting his neighbor's.

  Not only does our current Cuba policy make it difficult to pursue our 
own good, we are also guilty of neglecting the good of one of our 
closest neighbors.
  Today I am offering an amendment to enable America's farmers and 
ranchers to sell their wheat, potatoes, and dairy products to a 
neighbor only 90 miles away and a market of 11 million consumers. That 
market, of course, is Cuba.
  In the year 2000, Congress authorized limited sales of food and 
medical goods to Cuba under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
Enhancement Act, otherwise known as TSREEA. That law permitted United 
States farmers and ranchers to engage in cash-based sales of their 
goods to Cuban buyers.
  Under this new law, our agricultural trade with Cuba prospered. At 
its peak, American farmers and ranchers, including those from Montana, 
sold over $400 million worth of peas, beef, and wheat to Cuba in 1 
year. In fact, in the year 2003, I led a trade mission to Cuba and 
walked away with a $10.4 million deal for Montana. Cuba bought $10.4 
million of Montana wheat, beans, and peas. I went back a year later for 
$15 million worth of Montana goods. But then things changed. In 2005 
the Treasury Department issued rules to stymie such sales. Under the 
guise of clarifying the intent of Congress, the Treasury Department 
instead undermined the express will of Congress by restricting the 
ability of U.S. farmers and ranchers to engage in cash-basis sales. 
Specifically, the new Treasury rule requires Cuban buyers to pay for 
their goods before they leave U.S. ports. What is the effect of that? 
That converts the goods to Cuban assets, which makes them vulnerable to 
seizure in American ports to satisfy unrelated American claims against 
the Cuban Government.
  In order for American farmers and ranchers to sell their wheat, beef, 
and pork to Cuba, they must work with foreign banks, and surrender a 
portion of their profits to costly fees. Not surprisingly, since 
Treasury's rule, cash-basis sales of agricultural products to Cuba have 
slowed to a trickle. It made implementation of Montana's 2004 agreement 
with Cuba virtually impossible.
  I think I know the intent of Congress. I was here when that act was 
passed. I can assure you that we do not need Treasury's 
``clarification.'' Congress did not approve legislation to expand trade 
with Cuba with the expectation that the administration would seek to 
restrict it. Congress does not approve legislation to enable the sales 
of products by our farmers and ranchers, while at the same time making 
it impossible, by the Treasury Department, for them to receive payment.
  These rules have continued to stifle the ability of farmers to sell 
their products to Cubans on a cash basis. They have encouraged foreign 
banks to take a cut of every United States ag deal with Cuba. They have 
required farmers and ranchers to wait weeks and months to get a license 
to travel to Cuba to meet potential buyers. They prevent Cuban buyers, 
who want to come to this country to meet with producers, who are going 
to buy the American products, from entering our country.
  This amendment would change that. It restores the true intent of 
Congress. It simplifies the cash transactions, and expands 
opportunities for U.S. farmers and ranchers. It enables direct 
transfers from American banks to Cuban banks. It allows American 
farmers and ranchers to travel to Cuba to sell their products, and it 
encourages Cuban buyers to come to the United States to see our first-
class products for themselves.
  These provisions are plain, simple, common sense. These provisions 
are sound policy. I had hoped we could have a discussion and a vote on 
this amendment. But, unfortunately, some Members of this body have 
threatened to hold up the farm bill if we include, or even vote on, 
these important provisions.


          Amendment No. 3660 to Amendment No. 3500 Withdrawn.

  In the interest of moving the farm bill forward, it is with deep 
regret that I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of FLORIDA. Mr. President, Senator Baucus and I see eye to 
eye on about 95 percent of the issues in front of the Senate. This is 
one we do not agree on.
  I thank Senator Baucus for withdrawing his amendment. He has been an 
outspoken and very articulate spokesman for his point of view of 
wanting agricultural products to go to Cuba. And coming from his State 
of Montana, I certainly understand that.
  There is a greater issue here, in this Senator's opinion, and that is 
the issue of the foreign policy of the United States.
  This Senator believes this issue ought to be a foreign policy debate 
on the future of the relationship of the United States with Cuba. There 
will be an appropriate forum in which we can engage in that debate. I 
believe that debate will come sooner than later because there is change 
in the air and change on the island of Cuba. Fidel is transitioning 
out. Raul is transitioning in. There is a great deal of unrest among 
the people, increasingly in a police state that has been so effective 
in tamping down any dissent over the course of the last four decades. 
Increasingly we are seeing the people of Cuba start to resist, to 
dissent, and to do it openly. We are right on the cusp of the Castro 
government starting to disintegrate and being unable to cow the people 
by imprisoning them as they have in the past.
  What, therefore, should be the foreign policy of the United States 
when we are right at this moment of change? I think we ought to have a 
deliberative discussion about that issue, instead of on the farm bill. 
That is why I am thanking the Senator from Montana for withdrawing the 
amendment. I look forward to that debate. I look forward to this 
extraordinary change that is occurring on the island of Cuba so that 
ultimately those people will be able to break the shackles of bondage 
they have been in, and we can have a normal relationship between the 
Government of Cuba and the Government of the United States when that 
country finally does become free. That is our hope, our prayer. That 
should be the goal of the foreign policy of the United States. It is 
within our grasp shortly.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I join with my senior colleague in 
thanking the distinguished Senator from Montana for withdrawing this 
amendment which was ill-timed on this farm bill. Much important farm 
legislation and related items are in this bill. To now inject into it 
the very difficult issue, as my senior colleague well described, of a 
very fine-tuned policy, a foreign policy issue with Cuba into this bill 
would be a grave mistake.
  I want to speak in a little broader context about the relationship 
between the United States and Cuba. It is one that is rooted--and the 
reason this proposed amendment would be so wrong--in the steps the 
Castro government took against U.S. economic interests on the island 
almost a half century ago, all uncompensated, never accounted for, and 
never taken care of. It is a debt that still exists. Legitimate 
business interests had their property

[[Page 33591]]

taken from them without just compensation. That is why we have the 
policy we have today.
  The question is, how can we influence events, how can we better help 
the Cuban people to overthrow the shackles that have held them in 
prison for 47 years?
  The fact is, there is an awful lot happening on the island. People 
are increasingly saying enough is enough. It is time for change. 
Cimbio, the Spanish word for change, on this little bracelet that the 
people around the island are wearing increasingly represents the desire 
of the Cuban people. The Cuban regime, true to its nature, continues to 
repress the people. Here is why we should not reward the Cuban 
Government with a change in U.S. policy.
  Yesterday, Human Rights Day around the world was celebrated in Cuba 
by a small group of people seeking to simply peacefully march to Ghandi 
Park, a park where Ghandi, that peaceful icon of the world, is 
represented. On their way there, Government thugs beat and arrested 
them, took them into unmarked sedans, and removed them from the area. 
So threatened is that Government that they also arrested 70 young 
people a month or so ago for wearing this simple bracelet. But that is 
not all. The most unheard of human rights abuse has taken place in 
recent days. In addition to the illegitimate detention of political 
prisoners in the most unspeakable conditions is the fact that the Cuban 
Government thugs entered a Catholic Church just a few days ago and 
arrested 18 young people who were there exercising the very limited 
right they have to at least attend church and to hear a sermon and to 
maybe have conversations about their hopes and dreams. The Cuban 
Government invaded that sacred space, took the people and arrested 
them. These are just a few examples of why this Government so 
illegitimately each day loses a little more of its grip on the people.
  I believe the time will come when we can trade with Cuba, when we can 
have open relationships, and when we can see the fruits of that 
relationship benefit the people of Cuba, not just the Government 
structure with which America's farmers are dealing. We should not give 
credit to the Cuban Government. We know these cash sales are the only 
way we can be sure our people will be paid, and we should not enhance 
or increase the opportunity for the Cuban Government, which is the only 
owner of anything in Cuba. No one owns any property in Cuba but the 
Cuban Government. To trade with Cuba does not mean trading with Cuban 
farmers. It means trading with the Cuban Government apparatus. The 
Cuban people only see the meager droppings from the table of the 
tourists who go to Cuba with whom they are not allowed to even have a 
conversation.
  Oftentimes people say: If we only opened the opportunity for people 
to freely travel, if we only allowed for the contact Americans would 
have with ordinary Cubans, everything would change. There are Canadian 
tourists, British, Italian. Their impact upon the Cuban people has not 
changed a thing because the tourists are prohibited from interacting 
with the people themselves. The people are just their servants. The 
people are the people who facilitate a fun time in the sun, but they 
are not allowed to have any political influence upon the people of 
Cuba.
  I know there was a hearing this morning. I would love to comment 
further on that because much was said there which I believe to be 
completely wrong. But I thank the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, 
who, in this hearing this morning, spoke about his 5 months in Cuba. I 
saw Senator Bunning when he was in Cuba during that time as a young 
boy. I had the pleasure of going to a stadium and watching him pitch, 
which was a thrill to me. Little did I know I would have the honor of 
serving with him in the Senate. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for 
his very good words and his clear understanding of the Cuban situation 
as it is today.
  I thank the Senator from Montana for withdrawing an ill-timed and 
ill-advised amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that whatever time is used 
during the quorum be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3720 to Amendment No. 3500

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may call up my amendment and that the time 
I use to describe my amendment not be charged against the time for the 
Senators from New Jersey and Indiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3720 to amendment No. 3500.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To improve crop insurance and use resulting savings to 
          increase funding for certain conservation programs)

       On page 272, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 19__ SHARE OF RISK; REIMBURSEMENT RATE; FUNDING AND 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Share of Risk.--
       (1) In general.--Section 508(k)(3) of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(k)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``require the reinsured'' and inserting the 
     following: ``require--
       ``(A) the reinsured'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B)(i) the cumulative underwriting gain or loss, and the 
     associated premium and losses with such amount, calculated 
     under any reinsurance agreement (except livestock) ceded to 
     the Corporation by each approved insurance provider to be not 
     less than 12.5 percent; and
       ``(ii) the Corporation to pay a ceding commission to 
     reinsured companies of 2 percent of the premium used to 
     define the loss ratio for the book of business of the 
     approved insurance provider that is described in clause 
     (i).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 516(a)(2) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1516(a)(2)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Costs associated with the ceding commissions 
     described in section 508(k)(3)(B)(ii).''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on June 30, 2008.
       (b) Reimbursement Rate.--Notwithstanding section 1911, 
     section 508(k)(4) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1508(k)(4)) (as amended by section 1906(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Except as provided 
     in subparagraph (B)'' and inserting ``Except as otherwise 
     provided in this paragraph''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Reimbursement rate reduction.--For each of the 2009 
     and subsequent reinsurance years, the reimbursement rates for 
     administrative and operating costs shall be 4.0 percentage 
     points below the rates in effect as of the date of enactment 
     of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 for all crop 
     insurance policies used to define loss ratio, except that the 
     reduction shall not apply in a reinsurance year to the total 
     premium written in a State in which the State loss ratio is 
     greater than 1.2.
       ``(F) Reimbursement rate for area policies and plans of 
     insurance.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) through (E), 
     for each of the 2009 and subsequent reinsurance years, the 
     reimbursement rate for area policies and plans of insurance 
     shall be 17 percent of the premium used to define loss ratio 
     for that reinsurance year.''.

[[Page 33592]]

       (c) Funding and Administration.--Notwithstanding section 
     2401, section 1241(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3841(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``2007'' and inserting ``2012''; and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (3) through (7) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(3) The conservation security program under subchapter A 
     of chapter 2, using $2,317,000,000 to administer contracts 
     entered into as of the day before the date of enactment of 
     the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, to remain available 
     until expended.
       ``(4) The conservation stewardship program under subchapter 
     B of chapter 6.
       ``(5) The farmland protection program under subchapter B of 
     chapter 2, using, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     $110,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       ``(6) The grassland reserve program under chapter C of 
     chapter 2, using, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     $300,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.
       ``(7) The environmental quality incentives program under 
     chapter 4, using, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(A) $1,345,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(B) $1,350,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(C) $1,385,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(D) $1,420,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 and 
     2012.''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
Senator Harkin's substitute amendment to the farm bill. I commend 
Chairman Harkin, Senator Chambliss, and all the members of the 
Agriculture Committee for their hard work during the drafting of this 
farm bill.
  I particularly thank the committee for its commitment to making this 
bill the most fair in our country's history. The committee's farm bill 
includes all agricultural producers, not just growers of commodity 
crops. With new programs for specialty growers and expanded protections 
for dairy and livestock producers, this bill is truly a winner for all 
parts of the country.
  I thank my colleague from Iowa once again, now that he is in the 
Chamber, for his great work and for being inclusive as he always is.
  I am here this morning offering an amendment I believe builds on the 
spirit of the committee's bill. This amendment increases funding for 
vital conservation programs that are important to all working farmers. 
It provides an additional $480 million over 5 years to the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP; an additional $65 
million over 5 years to the Farmland Protection Program; and an 
additional $60 million to the Grassland Reserve Program.
  To offset these increased payments, the amendment makes small 
reductions in the Federal subsidies of crop insurance. It increases the 
cut in administration and operations payments to 4 percent, above the 
committee's 2 percent, and retains the important snap-back provision 
Senator Roberts introduced.
  The amendment also raises the underwriting gain share to 12.5 
percent. That is the level to which the House raised it.
  Working farmers are the most important stewards of our natural 
resources. Farmers and ranchers own 70 percent of the land in the 
country. They deserve help from the Government preserving these 
resources because all Americans benefit from them.
  I would also like to add, I am in full support of the amendment--I am 
a cosponsor, in fact, of the amendment--the Senator from Ohio, Mr. 
Brown, has offered. This amendment is along the same lines, and I will 
not ask for a vote on it if his amendment succeeds because I think it 
is an outstanding amendment.
  With that, I yield back the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________