[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 34205-34214]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3810

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of amendment No. 3810.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Without objection, the time will be equally divided between the two 
sides.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here to address my amendment, 
No. 3810, and I want to talk about the importance of reform to this 
farm bill.
  I was disappointed today when the amendment of Senator Dorgan and 
Senator Grassley was defeated. It was a very important amendment. In 
other years, we actually had enough votes for this amendment, before I 
was here, but we weren't able to muster the votes necessary to block 
the filibuster. Well, we have one more opportunity, and that 
opportunity is this afternoon.
  America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as 
an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect 
struggling family farms from the financial shocks of volatile weather 
and volatile prices. I believe after 75 years, the reasons for that 
safety net still exist, and I believe the farm bill that came through 
our committee has some very good things in it. It is forward thinking; 
it is about cellulosic ethanol. It is about finally having some 
permanent disaster relief. It is about a strong safety net for 
America's farmers. But there is one thing missing from this farm bill, 
Madam President, and that is the kind of reform that we need to move 
forward.
  I want to demonstrate what we are talking about here with our 
amendment, which is cosponsored with Senator Durbin and Senator Brown, 
and why I think it is so important to this bill. As you know, I come 
from a farm State. It is sixth in the country for agriculture. I am 
proud of the work our State does and our farmers, and we have diverse 
farming. I know some of the farmers in my State may not like this, but 
the vast majority of them support this reform because they know if we 
don't reform ourselves, someone else will do it for us.
  What I am talking about is farm subsidies going to people who 
shouldn't have them, such as Maurice Wilder, who is a guy that is very 
wealthy, and who was the No. 1 recipient of commodity payments from 
2003 to 2005. He has collected more than $3.2 million in farm payments 
for properties in five States, even though his net worth is more than 
$500 million. We also have $3.1 million in farm payments going to 
residents of the District of Columbia, $4.2 million going to people in 
Manhattan, and $1 million of taxpayer money going to Beverly Hills 
90210.
  Now, what can we do to change this? The first thing we are doing is 
we are getting rid of the three-entity rule, which cuts down on abuse 
and allows these payments to go to the people they should go to, and 
ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations so 
that they get multiple payments.
  The second thing we could have done--and sadly we defeated it today--
was the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, which would have put a limit on the 
actual payment at $250,000. That is a lot of money where I come from.
  But there is a third thing that we still have the opportunity to do 
today. I ask my colleagues, those who are fiscal conservatives and who 
really care about fairness in this country, to look at this amendment 
and think about what we are doing. Right now, under existing law, no 
matter how much you net in income--and I am here talking about 
deducting expenses because expenses don't count. So when my colleagues 
talk about farms that might have higher expenses, those are out of it. 
This is just adjusted gross income.
  So for full-time farmers who have unlimited incomes, they can be 
making millions and millions and millions of dollars. They still 
qualify for subsidies. And because we weren't able to get it passed and 
put a limit on subsidies, they do not have that $250,000 cap. Part-time 
farmers right now, under existing law, can make $2.5 million, and they 
get subsidies and marketing loans, since we were unable to pass this 
limitation today.
  The President's number, which came with the administration's 
suggested agriculture proposal, was a $200,000 limit--a $200,000 limit 
for both full and part time. The Agriculture Committee in the House is 
chaired by Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and I wouldn't call him a 
radical guy. He has been a friend of farmers forever. He put the limit 
at $1 million for full-time and $500,000 for part-time farmers. And he 
has recently been saying publicly that he thinks it should go lower 
than that, especially since we do not have the total limit on subsidies 
that was contained in the Dorgan-Grassley amendment.
  Now, what does the Senate bill do--the bill that came out of our 
committee? It has not changed for full-time farmers. No reform for 
full-time farmers. For part-time farmers, very slowly, it gets to a 
$750,000 limitation in income--for part-time farmers.
  This amendment says $750,000 for full-time farmers should be the 
limit--$750,000 in income on top of expenses. Now, if you have a bad 
year and you are a big farmer, you are still going to qualify. But if 
you make over $750,000, that is where there is a cutoff. It is great 
you are making money--you should put it in the bank--but then you don't 
qualify for the subsidies. If you are a part-time farmer, under our 
amendment you can make $250,000 or under, and then you will qualify for 
the subsidies. And here is where we are talking about these investors, 
the people who aren't full-time farmers, people making less than 66 
percent of their income from farming.
  Now, what does this amendment do? Let's consider what it means. If 
you live in a city, and you have a job as an

[[Page 34206]]

investment banker and make $2 million a year, you don't get the 
government checks. Right now you can, but under our amendment you won't 
be able to. And if you are a full-time farmer, meaning more than 75 
percent of your income comes from farming, under current law there is 
absolutely no limit on your income, and you will still get those 
government checks. This puts some reasonable limits on the income when 
you qualify for the government farm subsidy checks. That is what it 
does.
  I have to tell you this: With the kind of budget battles we have 
ahead of us, we have to look at what we are doing and we have to be 
thinking: Is this fair? When we have a limited amount of money, Madam 
President, and we are going to have to deal with Social Security and 
Medicare and all these issues, if we can't even say, for farmers making 
over $750,000, we are not going to put some limit on these government 
checks, I really don't understand how we are going to grapple with 
these tougher issues. It is a matter of fairness because I believe this 
money should be going to family farmers.
  That is what this system was set up to do. It should be going to the 
hard-working farmers in this country, not to art collectors in San 
Francisco and not to real estate developers in Florida. That is all we 
are trying to do with this amendment. So I would appeal to my friends 
on both sides of the aisle and suggest that this is our opportunity to 
act. We have the chair of the House Agriculture Committee already 
putting in their bill some limits and indicating they may want to go 
lower. We have an opportunity to be part of that change.
  I am going to give the other side some opportunity to speak and save 
the rest of my time, but I will end with a little holiday story. I 
thought we needed a little holiday cheer today, on a very difficult 
day.
  My daughter and I, when she was 9 years old, went to see the movie 
``Polar Express.'' We watched this fanciful movie, and after we came 
out, she said to me: Mom, you know, there was one thing in that movie 
that wasn't true.
  And I looked at her and thought, what could it be? Could it be when 
this big body of water froze over so the train could go over it? Was it 
when a million elves suddenly appeared at the North Pole? Was that the 
one thing that wasn't true?
  She said: You know, Mom, at the end, when the conductor--who was 
played by Tom Hanks--says to the little boy: Come on, kid, get on the 
train. It doesn't matter what direction the train is going, just get on 
the train. And she looked at me and she said: Mom, it does matter what 
direction the train is going.
  Well, that is what I would say to my colleagues today. It matters 
what direction the train is going. Are we going to be putting money 
into the hard-working family farmers in this country or are we going to 
spend it on real estate developers in Florida who have $5 million to 
their name or art collectors in San Francisco?
  Are we willing to say, change is afoot, and then be agents of change. 
People in this country want to see change. We heard that in this last 
election. This is our opportunity; it is our chance to go in the 
direction of reform. We have done that with so many different parts of 
this farm bill, and that is why I supported this farm bill in 
committee, but this is our chance to go in the direction of change. It 
is a very small incremental step, but it will start us going in the 
right direction with this farm bill--a direction of reform.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I ask how much time I have 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Klobuchar 
amendment.
  Let me say first that I am disheartened that farm program critics 
continue to try to lead the general public and our elected officials 
into believing that there is a vast army of farm program participants 
who are receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. Stories 
about people living on the east and west coasts and everywhere in-
between receiving program benefits continue to make the headlines. They 
are used as the poster children of those who do, but should not receive 
farm program benefits because they are wealthy landowners or 
millionaires, but more often than not there is no explanation or 
concrete definition of either.
  Home prices have spiraled over the last decade and many families have 
homes, usually their single largest asset, worth hundreds of thousands 
of dollars. Individuals receiving farm program benefits obviously have 
an interest in an agricultural holding somewhere in the country. 
Hopefully, they also have a 401(k) or some other savings plan that will 
allow them to retire one day.
  More often than not, the type of individual I just described is not a 
wealthy landowner. They have a home, a farm--which by the way, they 
might have inherited--and hopefully a retirement plan. They also have 
jobs and use the income to pay their mortgage, purchase a vehicle, 
raise their family, and save for college and every other imaginable 
cost associated with living. Most of the people I know in these 
situations don't consider themselves wealthy. Most of them will tell 
you that the adjusted gross income at the bottom of page 1 on their IRS 
form 1040 doesn't reflect what they would consider to be a wealthy 
landowner.
  Another class of individuals that draws a lot of attention is 
millionaires. It is pretty hard to figure out who those individuals are 
unless you are their accountant. More importantly, I would hope that we 
all know there is a significant difference between having a million 
dollars in assets and having an annual income in the millions. In the 
vast majority of cases, most individuals receiving farm program 
benefits do not have anywhere near a million dollars in assets or 
income.
  But as I will point out momentarily, it is not about wealthy 
landowners and millionaires receiving program benefits, it is really 
about farmers in general, regardless of their economic situation, 
receiving program benefits.
  Let me back up for a moment, and provide some historical context to 
where we find ourselves today. Prior to the 2002 farm bill there had 
never been an income test with respect to the eligibility of 
individuals and entities to receive program benefits. Congress 
acknowledged those concerns and addressed adjusted gross income--AGI--
in the 2002 farm bill. Beginning with the 2003 crop year, any 
individual or legal entity with an AGI of $2.5 million or more for the 
3 prior years was not eligible to receive farm program benefits, unless 
at least 75 percent of their income came from farming, ranching and 
forestry operations. We believed that was a good first step and 
recognized that when it came time to write a new farm bill, as with any 
provision, we would take another look to see if the limits were 
appropriate.
  The ink was hardly dry on the 2002 farm bill when the ``reformists'' 
started shouting once again that individuals and entities otherwise 
eligible for farm program benefits shouldn't receive farm program 
assistance because they were millionaires or wealthy landowners.
  The bill passed by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry took a positive step to address the issues surrounding AGI. 
The Committee adopted an AGI provision that reduced the limit to $1 
million dollars in 2009, and to $750,000 in 2010 and beyond, unless at 
least two- thirds of a person's income came from farming, ranching and 
forestry.
  The reform minded AGI provisions adopted by the committee directly 
answered the calls to ensure that payments don't go to millionaires. We 
didn't go to $750,000 in the first year--not a reflection of resistance 
to change, but rather, recognition that land lease arrangements have 
already occurred with respect to the 2008 crop payment year because 
here we are in December of 2007, with farmers and ranchers all across 
America already in the final stages of planning for their 2008 crop 
year. In some instances--for

[[Page 34207]]

example winter wheat--they have already got seed in the ground for the 
2008 crop year.
  In the 2002 farm bill we added a provision referred to as ``tracking 
of benefits''. This provision required the Secretary to attribute all 
payments to an individual, a partnership, or another legal entity back 
to a natural person or what some referred to as a ``warm body.'' The 
intent of this provision was to provide transparency and allow the 
agricultural community, general public, media and other interested 
parties to trace benefits paid to entities, partnerships, et cetera, 
back to a ``warm body''.
  During the committee markup, Senator Klobuchar said she wanted to 
stop millionaires from receiving payments. She mentioned the names of 
several persons that had received payments with the obvious reference 
to laws that needed to be revamped. That might be true if you are 
referring to the 2002 farm bill, but not when compared to the 
provisions adopted by the committee to keep these individuals from 
receiving payments.
  I am pleased that there is acknowledgment that the tracking of 
benefits provision worked as it was intended, as it is obvious she and 
her staff have researched a certain database Web site that is 
accessible to the general public. I am equally pleased that the 
adjusted gross income provision that was included in 2002 also worked 
as intended.
  What I am not pleased about is the mischaracterization that people 
who are no longer eligible for payments because of the provisions 
contained in the 2002 farm bill are somehow skirting the system and 
still receiving payments.
  One name that frequently comes up is Scottie Pippen, whom we all know 
to be an outstanding NBA basketball player. When you look through a 
certain Web site database you will notice that Mr. Pippen received 
Conservation Reserve Program payments, CRP as it is commonly referred 
to, for the 2003 through 2005 program years through an entity named 
Olympic Land Company Incorporated.
  USDA tells me that Scottie Pippen owns 100 percent of Olympic Land 
Company Inc. Olympic Land Company purchased a farm in 2003 that had an 
existing CRP contract. Because the contract was in existence prior to 
the 2002 farm bill, the new AGI limits did not apply. The CRP contract 
expired on September 30, 2005 and Olympic Land Inc. did not enter into 
a new contract with the 2002 farm bill AGI provisions obviously playing 
a role in the decision.
  Another name used frequently is Ted Turner, who has extensive 
agricultural holdings in Montana, New Mexico and other States. Mr. 
Turner bought property in Stanley County, SD, that had several CRP 
contracts initiated prior to the 2002 farm bill AGI limitations 
becoming law. Once again because these were multiyear contracts and 
entered into prior to the 2002 act, AGI provisions did not apply to Mr. 
Turner until the contracts expired. These contracts expired on 
September 30, 2007, and Ted Turner did not enter into a new contract 
with the AGI provisions obviously playing a role in that decision.
  I believe these are just two of many examples where the AGI 
provisions contained in the 2002 farm bill worked as intended, and what 
we have done in this bill is reduce that limit by an additional 70 
percent. There isn't anyone who can stand before this body today and 
say that a 70-percent reduction in the AGI test is not real reform.
  Landowners and producers often jointly share in the risk and 
production of the crop in a manner that is normal and customary for the 
area. When the landowner shares in the production risk, by covering 
costs such as fertilizer or harvesting, the producer benefits from: No. 
1, reduced risk in producing the crop, No. 2, reduced capital 
requirements, and No. 3, a landowner's greater general appreciation of 
the operation.
  I can tell you what is going to happen as we continue to lower the 
AGI and it is very simple. Landowners intend to capture a return on 
their assets and unless there are special circumstances, the landowner 
is going to change from a share lease to a cash lease. Instead of 
participating in the risk of producing the crop this policy will shift 
all of the production risk and input costs onto the back of the 
producer. The landowner will cash lease the land and walk away with a 
guaranteed lease payment and the producer comes away from the deal with 
higher production costs and more risk. Do we really want to make it 
more difficult for the folks who are actually out there getting dirt 
under their fingernails, driving the tractor and caring for the land?
  I want to repeat again what I said earlier, this debate is not about 
wealthy landowners and millionaires receiving program benefits. It is 
really about farmers in general, regardless of their economic 
situation, receiving program benefits. A few short months ago the 
debate was about making payments to millionaires and now we are at 
$750,000 and people want to go even further. This amendment is actually 
an assault on everyday farmers; but is disguised as an assault on 
wealthy landowners and millionaires.
  I am urging my colleagues to vote no on the Klobuchar amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, why are we here today? We are here today 
because we are writing a farm bill. We do that every 5 years--1,360 
pages. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because in 1932 a 
President named Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked out at the farmers of 
America and said: We have a serious problem. These poor people are 
going bankrupt and losing their farms because of circumstances beyond 
their control, because of weather, because of terrible prices. He said: 
We are going to step in as a government and make a difference. We are 
going to provide a safety net so that families who are farming do not 
lose their farms. Thank God he did it, and thank goodness we continue 
this tradition through this farm bill.
  Every time we argue or debate a bill such as this, we debate it in 
the poetry of family farms and the heart of American values. But when 
you take a look inside this bill, you will not find poetry; you will 
find the prose of corporate farming and people who have decided to use 
this farm bill to make a fortune. That is the reality.
  Many of these so-called farmers are more adept at reaping Federal 
checks than they are reaping and harvesting any crop known to man. Is 
what they are doing illegal? No. This bill makes it legal, legal for 
them to use these Federal farm programs, designed to help the 
struggling farmers, to make a fortune personally.
  I listened to Senator Chambliss talk about the struggling farmers 
with dirt under their fingernails. Listen, many of the people who are 
making a fortune off of this farm bill end up at the end of the day 
with the ink from corporate annual reports on their hands and no dirt 
under their fingernails--trust me. What Senator Klobuchar and myself 
and Senator Brown are trying to say is, shouldn't there be a bottom 
line where you say: Listen, you are doing quite well in life; the 
Federal Government is no longer going to subsidize you.
  Here is the bottom line. If your adjusted gross income is over 
$750,000 a year, we say: You are on your own. Good luck. We hope life 
continues to be very good to you. And we go on to say that the income 
limit for those who earn less than 66 percent of that income from 
farming would be $250,000. We will give no more than a quarter of a 
million dollars of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to those who are 
doing very well in life.
  Is that an unreasonable standard? At a time when we are waging a war 
at $14 billion a month, that we do not pay for; at a time that we 
cannot fund our schools under No Child Left Behind; when this President 
will not increase Federal research to find cures for diseases facing 
American families, is it unreasonable to say we should have limits to 
the amount of money we should pay those who call themselves farmers 
but, in fact, are just investors?

[[Page 34208]]

  I do not think it is unreasonable. This amendment is the same as the 
issue I raised this morning. This morning, by one vote, the Senate 
decided to continue the subsidy to oil companies in America making 
record-breaking profits.
  The question on this amendment is, Will we continue to subsidize the 
rich who are using the farm program to get richer?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Can I ask the Senator to yield me time?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Two minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. How about 3.
  Madam President, I am very proud of our bill. We worked very hard to 
craft a bill. But, you know, any bill needs to be improved when it 
comes to the floor. I think this is one item where we need to fix it. 
The bill that came out of committee, we did not do our job in this 
respect. I wish to echo what the Senator from Illinois said. I think of 
it this way. If you are a bona fide farmer, more than two-thirds of 
your income, it could be 70 percent of your income comes from farming, 
you have no limits. There are no limits. You could have an adjusted 
gross income of $10 million and you will still get Government benefits. 
There are zero limits.
  Now, again, if your income from farming is less than that, less than 
two-thirds, then you have an income limit of $1 million, then it goes 
down to $750,000 in 2010.
  The Senator from Minnesota is on the right track. There is absolutely 
no reason why someone whose bottom-line adjusted gross income, bottom 
line after they have taken all their depreciation, all their expenses 
and everything else, bottom line of $750,000, they do not need free 
Government money.
  But I can understand why they are fighting this amendment. Who wants 
to give up free money? This is free money. Well, if you are going to 
give free money, then how about giving it to people who deserve it? 
That is what the Klobuchar amendment does. It takes this savings of 
$355 million and puts it into the Beginning Farmer Development Program, 
the Individual Development Accounts Pilot Program for beginning 
farmers, rural broadband grants, organic agriculture research and 
extension, Grasslands Reserve Program, community food projects, things 
that go to help rural America and help our legitimate small family 
farmers.
  So that is why I feel this is one amendment I wish to speak out on as 
chairman of this committee. As I said, I am proud of this bill. We have 
put a good bill together. But there is one hole in it we need to patch 
up, and we need to have at least this amount of reform in this bill, or 
else people will continue to say: Well, there they go again. They are 
taking care of the richest and the biggest, the richest and the 
biggest.
  Do you know what is happening now with farm programs? It is similar 
to a black hole. Do you know what black holes are in astronomy? Those 
are the things in space where there is so much gravity that nothing 
escapes, not even light. If anything gets near it, it sucks it in and 
nothing gets out.
  Well, this is akin to what is happening in our farm programs now with 
this kind of a situation. The bigger you are, the more you get. That is 
what is happening here. The bigger you are, the more you get from the 
Government.
  Now the more you get from the Government, the better able you are to 
bid up the price of land around you and buy it. Therefore, you get 
bigger. Now that you are bigger, you get more Government money, and you 
can buy up more land, and you get more Government money.
  That is why it is similar to a black hole. We have to stop this. This 
is not in the best interests of rural America. What is in the best 
interest is the Klobuchar amendment. I mean $750,000, quite frankly, 
personally I think it ought to be lower. I think if you had an adjusted 
gross income over $500,000 or $300,000, you ought not be able to get 
Government programs.
  But at least $750,000 is a lot better than what is in the bill. 
Because the bill says there are no limits, none, $10 million, you still 
get Government payments, if two-thirds of your income is from farming. 
That is why the Klobuchar amendment ought to be adopted.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa and the 
Senator from Illinois. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I have one comment on the statement 
the Senator from Illinois made. Let me make sure there is no 
misunderstanding because he misstated something. This amendment has 
nothing to do with amount of payments. This has to do with the 
eligibility of payments.
  I assure you, anyone who has an adjusted gross income of $750,000 
from a farming operation, which is required under the bill that is 
before this body, has invested millions and millions of dollars into 
their trough in order to be able to achieve that goal, and they 
probably had a pretty good year to do that.
  There is nothing in this amendment that says to that farmer, if you 
lose all those millions of dollars, that we are going to do something 
for your benefit. That is what our safety net is all about. That is why 
this is such a bad amendment.
  I yield the balance of the time remaining on this side to the Senator 
from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleagues for 
the work we have done on this farm bill. I come to the floor today to 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Klobuchar amendment.
  Listening to my colleague from Minnesota, her description about 
directions being important does matter. That is why it is important for 
us to look at the direction we are going in this farm bill. This 
underlying farm bill that we brought together in the Senate Agriculture 
Committee has the most substantive reform in the history of a farm 
bill.
  It stands for farmers, for family farmers. It stands for a safe food 
supply which is absolutely critical. It is a bill that ensures that in 
future generations we will have a safe food supply. But we can also go 
too far in the one direction. I think that is important for us to take 
a look at.
  The Senator from Georgia talked about the fact that these individuals 
have large operations. Well, if you are farming 1,000 acres of cotton, 
you are going to have to sign an operating loan at the beginning of 
your crop year to the tune of about $5 million. That is tremendous 
risk. How important would it be to have a brother or a son who is going 
to also cosign that note, who is also going to have access to the 
ability of allowing the Government to provide those two a safety net, 
of being able to provide that safe and affordable food supply.
  If those individuals are farming and they are getting payments, it 
means they are getting those payments because prices are low. One year 
it may be good, the next year it may be bad. We do not need to go in 
the wrong direction.
  The millionaire Senator Klobuchar references from Florida, he should 
not be out there. If he is worth $500 million, he should have been 
caught by the last farm bill's initiative. He would certainly be caught 
by the limits that are in the committee bill we bring to the floor.
  I might suggest that from the GAO study we have seen, much of what 
gets underneath what actually exists is because the existing 
administration is not implementing the current law. The GAO study tells 
us that. Well, if they are not implementing the current law, why would 
we go further in that wrong direction? We have gone critically in the 
right direction. We have lowered by 70 percent the AGI means test. That 
is what it is, a means test.
  As I stated on this floor so many times during the consideration of 
this legislation, the underlying bill already contains the most 
significant farm program reform in the history of a farm

[[Page 34209]]

bill. We have already included the dramatic reform to this adjusted 
gross income means test that unanimously passed the Senate Ag 
Committee.
  Prior to the 2003 farm bill, there was no means test that existed for 
farm programs. However, we knew it was important to eliminate loopholes 
that nonfarmers used to receive program payments. During the 2002 farm 
bill debate, we instituted a $2.5 million test. Well, I would ask my 
colleagues from Iowa and Minnesota, the gentleman who was referenced by 
the Senator from Georgia, he is not going to be caught if he were to 
reinvest.
  We have not extended this means test to anybody else. The 
conservation programs are not--I hope the chairman will correct me--the 
conservation payments will not be corrected by this, they will still 
remain under the current law at $2.5 million. So they will not even be 
lowered to what we have lowered it in the committee bill, to 750.
  So if we are going to do this, if we are genuine about wanting to put 
this strong means test and go down that severe direction, then why are 
we not doing it across the board? Why are we not making that 
difference? If what we want to do is to create all those savings, then 
why are we not being fair about it and making it across the board?
  In the underlying bill, we have gone further and lowered the 
threshold to 750,000, and that is a 70-percent reduction, a 70-percent 
reduction in the AGI test. Before we go further, let's see if that does 
not work. We went to 2.5 in the last bill, we have gone consistently 
lower now. If the President is not going to implement the law as it 
exists, what good would even taking it more extremely down that road 
do?
  I hope we will not forget we have also significantly reformed 
individual program payment limits on top of which we will sharply 
reduce benefits to producers who remain eligible under the AGI test.
  This is already historic reform. There is no need to hit these 
farmers with a double whammy. It is also vitally important to remember 
the purpose of the AGI test we included in the committee bill is to 
keep rich nonfarmers, the ones my good friend from Minnesota and others 
continually cite, from receiving farm bill benefits.
  But, unfortunately, the Klobuchar amendment would not just ratchet 
down the AGI limits to rich nonfarmers, it would also sharply ratchet 
down the support to family farmers, families who come together to farm 
because they want to share the risk, they want to be able to share the 
ability to sign that operating loan note or to share the cost of what 
it costs to purchase that equipment, that seed and that fertilizer, the 
enormous expenses that go into a capital intensive farm. They want to 
share those risks.
  It would sharply ratchet down their ability to do it. That is not the 
purpose of an AGI test. That is not the purpose of means testing. 
Ironically, while the amendment before you would do this to farm 
families, it leaves wide open another loophole that lets rich 
nonfarmers continue to collect those huge conservation payments to the 
tune of $2.5 million, which is the existing law. We do not even correct 
that.
  That is right. It is not across the board. The big elephant in the 
room no one wants to talk about, that while folks hammer away at farm 
families in this country trying to make ends meet, other wealthy 
nonfarmers, such as Scottie Pippen, who was mentioned earlier from my 
State, who often gets cited, will continue to collect conservation 
checks.
  I do not know why we continue to talk about how we want to ratchet 
down on family farmers, but we do not want to talk about it across the 
board in other programs where we are seeing large payments going to 
very wealthy millionaire nonfarmers.
  So I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, vote no on this 
amendment which hurts family farms while letting some of those rich 
nonfarmers completely off the hook. If the Senator from Minnesota wants 
to rid the country of all the sensational stories based on half-truths, 
I would advise her to apply her test in this proposal across the board 
to all the commodities and not just target Southern growers yet again.
  I would advise caution, though, because I do not think we fully 
understand the ramifications of true means testing to that degree. On 
one hand, once we have set the precedent of implementing a means test 
on farmers, who is to say we will not begin tying a means test to other 
sectors of the economy that receive Government subsidies and tax 
breaks, perhaps those who deliver health care, maybe those who receive 
health care, capital investments, the list could go on and on.
  If we are going shortly to means testing where the Government is 
going to investigate, I would suggest we stop for a moment and pay 
caution and remember these are the hard-working farm families who 
provide us a safe and abundant supply of food.
  Senator Durbin continues to talk about unsafe foods coming in. What 
happens 10 years from now if we put farmers out of business and all of 
a sudden we are dependent on foreign food just as we have become 
dependent on foreign oil?
  Second, we don't know what our neighbors make. I don't want to know 
what my neighbors make. If we start seeing our rice and cotton 
outsourced to foreign countries, we will see the full effect of this 
means test. The consequences of enacting a means test that is too 
stringent and disqualifies certain farmers' crops is very dangerous to 
our farm families. It is like playing with dynamite and seeing how 
close you can stand to the blast without getting hurt. I ask my 
colleagues to oppose the Klobuchar amendment.
  I do know one thing. If we go too far in the wrong direction without 
being given the opportunity to better understand what we have done and 
why certain people are not coming under that test, as a country we are 
going to regret it. We are going to regret that we have put out of 
business southern growers who provide 85 percent of the rice we consume 
in this country. The American people are going to hold us accountable 
when we become dependent on foreign food that comes from countries that 
have no regulation on how it is grown, on what is used, no regulation 
on the water source that may be used, how they fertilize, no 
regulations such as our farmers adhere to, producing the safest, most 
abundant, and affordable food supply in the world.
  One of the things you can definitely say of the underlying bill that 
passed the Senate Agriculture Committee unanimously is that millionaire 
nonfarmers need not apply where this bill is concerned. Going too far 
in the direction that Senator Klobuchar wants to take us without 
understanding what we have already done and how it will have unintended 
consequences could be dangerous for this country and the families of 
this country who depend on these working farms for the safe and 
abundant supply of food they so desperately need.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, how much time remains on my side and 
the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 3\1/2\ minutes. The 
opponents have 2 minutes 40 seconds.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the average farmer in my State makes 
$54,000 a year. I think you see family farmers like that all across 
this country. That is what this amendment is about. There has been 
debate about Scottie Pippen and all these people. The USDA has looked 
at this, the Government has looked at this, and this would save about 
$355 million. Where is that $355 million coming from? It is coming from 
full-time farmers who are grossing $750,000 or more, into the millions 
a year, and part-time farm investors who are making over $250,000 a 
year. That is where this is coming from.
  There has been discussion, which I think is smoke and mirrors, about 
expenses. Let me make clear, farmers can deduct their operating 
expenses such as seed, fertilizer, fuel, and labor from their adjusted 
gross income. When it comes to investment in buildings and equipment, 
these are capital expenses,

[[Page 34210]]

and they depreciate over time. That depreciation is deductible. When it 
comes to land, it works like it does a home mortgage. Your interest is 
deductible, but your land is something you have that you get value 
from. When it comes to rented land, the rental cost of the land is 
fully deductible from adjusted gross income.
  I didn't come up with these laws. They are in the Tax Code. They are 
the law. What this is about is making sure we have some real reform. 
Because if we don't do it in the farm States, it is going to happen to 
us. I have said this before, and I truly believe it will happen.
  There has been some discussion about what our existing bill does. Let 
me explain again. The House-passed bill sets it at $1 million for full 
time, $500,000 for part time. My colleagues have been saying: We have a 
70-percent reduction for a part-time farmer. That goes to say, if you 
start high enough at $2.5 million, anything like 70 percent sounds 
good. But instead, in fact, the actual Senate bill is only at $750,000 
for a part-time farmer.
  I have visited hard-working farmers all over my State, visited all 87 
counties 2 years in a row. I have talked to them and to farm groups 
across the country. Do they like this? Well, not totally. They get 
concerned. What does that mean? I think many of them understand--and I 
know Senator Grassley knows this in Iowa and Senator Dorgan understands 
this in North Dakota--that at some point the Government has a limited 
amount of money. We have to make some decisions. What I am saying is, 
let's make a decision to help the hard-working farmers of this country 
to move in that new direction, to cellulosic ethanol and energy 
independence and good conservation and making sure we have a strong 
safety net that this farm program deserves. Let's go in that direction 
to the future and not stay here where we increasingly, as our economy 
has changed, are giving a larger amount of money to the wealthiest 
investors. Beverly Hills 90210, $1 million in payments.
  I believe in this safety net. I support this farm bill. I will 
support this farm bill, because I believe in a safety net. But I 
believe it is time to move to some reform. The people of this country 
are ready for this reform. The people in our rural communities are 
ready for this reform. Now, my friends, we have a chance to do it.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, as we close this debate, I want to say 
thanks to so many Senators who have worked hard to come up with 
particularly what we brought out of the Agriculture Committee which was 
an enormously well-balanced bill. We eliminated loopholes that people 
had complained about. We eliminated the three-entity rule, the generic 
certificates. We put in transparency that people have been clamoring 
for in the direct attribution. I remind people that these are all 
things that apply to the basic commodity programs. Here we go again 
with going farther in something we have already reformed.
  Senator Klobuchar wants to go one step farther in lowering that AGI. 
But you have to ask the question: Why is it we have to cherry-pick 
lowering that means testing and AGI just for the commodity programs, so 
it hits the capital-intensive crops that southern growers grow? Why 
does it not apply to the conservation payments that go out that are in 
large numbers? Why doesn't it apply to the sugar program or the MILC 
program or the ethanol tax credit? It simply cherry-picks those 
individuals whom they can cherry-pick. That is the commodities program.
  My argument to my colleagues is, we have lowered the AGI means test 
from the 2002 farm bill by 70 percent. Some of the people who were used 
as examples should be caught. I am not sure why they are not. Maybe it 
is the reason the GAO study tells us this administration doesn't 
implement the existing law. But we should make sure that what we are 
doing in this bill is working before we begin to take a further step 
and suffer the unintended consequences of putting out of business those 
farmers who use these programs when prices are low, cherry-picking 
those commodities that are capital intensive and will suffer the most 
from this, and not extending this across the board so that everybody 
feels the pain, so everybody understands what it means when you start 
putting means testing on programs, when you are dealing with 
circumstances that are beyond our farmers' control, when you are 
dealing with weather, trade, global competition?
  I ask my colleagues to think twice before they support this amendment 
and remember that we have done 70 percent in terms of lowering the AGI 
test. I hope they will oppose the Klobuchar amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, 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. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, again, trying to work this through and 
get our amendments lined up, I have a unanimous consent request, and 
then we will be on our way to four votes in a row.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment 
No. 3530 be modified with the changes at the desk, and that the 
amendment then be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table; that upon disposition of the Brown amendment, the Senate 
then return to the Craig amendment No. 3640, and that there be 2 
minutes of debate prior to the vote, with the time divided between 
Senators Craig and Leahy, and that the Craig amendment be subject to 
the same 60-vote threshold as is provided for in the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I say 
to the chairman of the committee, I think you alluded to the Craig 
amendment as 3640. It is 3630.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is 3640.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3530), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

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

     SEC. ___. PAYMENTS TO DECEASED INDIVIDUALS AND ESTATES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall not provide to any deceased 
     individual or estate of such an individual any agricultural 
     payment under this Act, or an Act amended by this Act, after 
     the date that is 2 program years (as determined by the 
     Secretary with respect to the applicable payment program) 
     after the date of death of the individual.
       (b) Report.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry of the Senate, and post on the website of the 
     Department of Agriculture, a report that describes, for the 
     period covered by the report--
       (1) the number and aggregate amount of agricultural 
     payments described in subsection (a) provided to deceased 
     individuals and estates of deceased individuals; and
       (2) for each such payment, the length of time the estate of 
     the deceased individual that received the payment has been 
     open.

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, here is the situation, for all Senators. 
We are now going to be having a series of votes. The first vote will 
occur on the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. 
That will be a 15-minute vote. The next three votes will be Senator 
Tester's amendment, then Senator Brown's amendment, and then Senator 
Craig's amendment. Those will be 10-minute votes. Each one of these has 
a 60-vote threshold.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support the Klobuchar amendment because it 
moves farm policy in the right direction. It would limit commodity 
program payments for those farmers who earn more than two-thirds of 
their income from farming, after expenses are deducted, to $750,000.

[[Page 34211]]

  The amendment, however, has a number of problems. For example, rather 
than applying the savings achieved by tightening the payment 
limitations to deficit reduction, it applies most of the savings to 
other farm programs. It also does not apply the stricter income test to 
conservation program payments. Nevertheless, the amendment takes a step 
forward in reining Federal spending on farm subsidies and, therefore, 
warrants my support.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 3810

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the 
Klobuchar amendment.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 426 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Tester
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of the amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3666

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). There will now be 2 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, prior to the vote on the Tester amendment No. 
3666.
  The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, this amendment would prevent 
businesses from using legitimate business justifications as a defense 
against claims of unlawful practice under the Packers and Stockyards 
Act. This is clearly a determination that should be left to the 
discretion of the courts and not summarily decided in advance by 
Congress. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I encourage the body to support the 
amendment. It addresses manipulation in the meatpacking industry. It 
would stop the meatpackers from using business justifications to create 
a monopoly or restrain commerce. That is it.
  If you want free markets and to support family farmers and ranchers 
and cow/calf operations, you need to vote for this amendment. I ask for 
a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have previously been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 427 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3819

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3819 offered by the Senator from 
Ohio, Mr. Brown.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, this amendment threatens to undermine 
and kill the Crop Insurance Program so vital to farmers and ranchers. 
The amendment does not take into account the real world expenses of 
industry, including the list of the private reinsurers which ensures 
that the taxpayers do not pick up the risk.
  If we endanger this program, many farmers, especially young farmers, 
will be in danger because their lenders and their landlords demand they 
sign up for crop insurance.
  This is a genuine Kent Conrad chart, the veracity of which is 
unquestioned. If we look back to 1980, when I first had the privilege 
of coming to Congress, we had 64 crop insurance companies. We can see 
what has happened every decade as we further cut investment in crop 
insurance. We are down to 16. We had a reform with Bob Kerrey in 2000. 
We expanded it all over the country.
  If this amendment is adopted, I am telling my colleagues, it isn't 
going to be 16, it is going to be 5. Don't support this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
bipartisan Brown-Sununu-McCaskill RESCU amendment.
  This amendment significantly improves the way we target Federal 
resources to agriculture--eliminating waste and providing additional 
investments in important programs. The amendment also redirects 
hundreds of millions of dollars into deficit reduction that would 
otherwise subsidize large insurance companies.
  As my colleague, Senator Brown, points out, in the last 7 years crop 
insurance companies have received 40 cents out of every dollar that 
Congress has appropriated for the crop insurance program--that is $9 
billion out $19 billion for the program. This is billions of dollars 
meant for farmers that ended up in the pockets of insurance companies. 
The Brown amendment cuts $2

[[Page 34212]]

billion of that spending by lowering the subsidy rate for insurers.
  Currently, that subsidy is calculated based on crop prices. As crop 
prices rise, so does the subsidy--even though the work burden stays the 
same. Rising commodity prices have driven up premiums so that these 
subsidies are now over three times what they were 10 years ago, even 
though the cost of administering the policies has stayed the same.
  In other words, it makes no sense.
  This amendment reduces the reimbursement rate to the 2004-2006 
national per policy average. This level is still higher than any year 
prior to 2006 and is quite fair to the companies.
  A recent GAO report showed that compared to other insurance sectors, 
crop insurance companies earn profits that are more than double 
industry averages. I don't have a problem with industry profits, but I 
don't think those profits should come right out of the pockets of U.S. 
taxpayers.
  This amendment would require that insurers share a portion of their 
underwriting gains or losses with Federal taxpayers by increasing the 
Federal share of risk from 5 percent to 15 percent.
  The $2 billion in savings would fund over $1 billion in improvements 
to the Food Stamp Program, $400 million for conservation programs, $200 
million for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program, and over $600 
million for deficit reduction.
  Through these changes, we will be able to conserve soil and water 
quality on millions of acres of farmland, provide real food benefits to 
a countless number of less fortunate Americans, and make a significant 
investment in the lives of millions of children from some of the 
poorest corners of the world.
  Farmers will not pay more for crop insurance. This amendment does not 
reduce premium subsidies to farmers. Premium subsidies are set by law. 
This amendment does not change them.
  I thank my colleagues, Senators Brown and McCaskill, for their hard 
work assembling this language.
  Now, let me just say a few words about the McGovern-Dole Program, 
which would enjoy increased funding under this amendment.
  The amendment would provide enough mandatory money for the McGovern-
Dole International School Feeding Program to provide nutritious meals 
to millions of children each year who would otherwise go hungry.
  The McGovern-Dole Program is based on a simple idea that I first read 
about in an op-ed written by former Senator George McGovern in 2000. 
The op-ed was titled ``Too Many Children Are Hungry. Time for Lunch,'' 
and it argued that the fastest way to alleviate poverty in less 
developed countries is to provide healthy, nutritious meals to children 
attending school. The principle is simple--by linking school attendance 
with nutritious meals, you provide an incentive for families to send 
their children to school to become educated, rather than keeping them 
at home to work. And as children become more educated and better fed, 
they grow up smarter, stronger, and better able to earn a living and 
make positive contributions to their societies.
  The statistics are startling. Since it was founded in 2000 by 
President Clinton as the Global Food for Education Initiative, GFEI, 
the program has provided healthy meals to more than 26 million boys and 
girls in 41 countries around the world. Through the program, American-
grown wheat, rice, peas, corn, and other crops have been provided to 
young children in countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Chad, Nicaragua, 
Nepal, and Senegal. More than 500,000 metric tons of commodities have 
been distributed since the program's inception.
  In communities that have benefited from the McGovern-Dole Program, 
school attendance rates have increased 14 percent on average and 17 
percent for girls compared to similar communities that have not 
benefited from the program. What is even more amazing than the 
statistics are the stories about what this program enables in some of 
the world's poorest communities.
  Take my friend Paul Tergat. Paul Tergat is the current world record 
holder in the marathon. He ran the 26.2 mile race in 2 hours 4 minutes. 
When Paul was a child living in Kenya, he received free lunches through 
a World Food Program school feeding program. Without the program, he 
says he would not have been able to go to school because his parents 
were too poor. He says it is likely he never would have trained to 
become an athlete were it not for the generosity of the program.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have seen school feeding programs like 
these in person, and I can tell you they have a transformative effect. 
I saw the program when I traveled to Kibera in Kenya--it is one of the 
world's largest slums. Over 1 million people. It is the slum that you 
see if you have ever watched the film ``The Constant Gardener.'' When 
you visit, there are people as far as the eye can see, kids playing in 
the streets, in railway yards, everywhere.
  We visited a school in Kibera and saw a feeding program in action. At 
lunch time, the students were provided with what looked like gruel or 
porridge--it was a highly nutritious enriched food provided thanks to 
the productivity of U.S. farmers and the generosity of U.S. taxpayers. 
The children stood in line patiently, and you could just tell this was 
going to be their one meal of the day. And they were there in school so 
they could get that meal. It is these types of stories that make you a 
believer in the power of school feeding programs. This program is 
transformative in the lives of vulnerable children around the world. 
And it promotes U.S. interests around the world. Delivering bags of 
food labeled as gifts of the people of the United States is a public 
diplomacy tool that demonstrates the good will and generosity of the 
American people. It represents the best of our values, and it tells 
people all over the world who we are and what America stands for. 
Imagine the possibilities for shaping perceptions of the United States 
if we significantly increase our investment in the McGovern-Dole 
Program--the millions more children we could touch at an early, 
impressionable age and give the most basic gift of a healthy, 
nutritious childhood.
  The McGovern-Dole Program is also good for American farmers and the 
agriculture industry. In 2005, the program distributed approximately 
120,000 metric tons of U.S. commodities. The McGovern-Dole Program is 
also good for related industries, including processors, millers, 
packagers, freight forwarders and shippers, as well as U.S. port 
facilities.
  The program serves as one more market for U.S. commodities, which is 
one reason the program has the support of a wide range of industry 
groups, including the American Soybean Association, the North American 
Millers Association, and the National Farmers Union.
  This is a strong amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill-McCain-Durbin-
Schumer amendment will make the Crop Insurance Program work for family 
farmers and work for taxpayers. In the last 6 years, $10.5 billion in 
benefits through the Crop Insurance Program have gone to farmers. It 
took 19 billion taxpayer dollars to deliver that $10 billion in 
benefits. Farmers get less than half of the crop insurance money. Of 
the crop insurance dollars, more money goes to insurers than it does to 
farmers. We want to take a very small amount of that and move it to 
deficit reduction and move it to the conservation programs and move it 
to the McGovern-Dole Program, something I know Senator Roberts 
supports.
  This is not going to mean the Crop Insurance Program is in jeopardy. 
This will make the Crop Insurance Program work better for family 
farmers and work better for taxpayers.
  I ask for my colleagues' support of the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill-
McCain-Durbin-Schumer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page 34213]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 32, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 428 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Alexander
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Casey
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Specter
     Sununu
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--63

     Akaka
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3640

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to the vote in relation to amendment No. 3640, offered by 
the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, fellow Senators, this is a fundamental 
private property rights vote. This is what is happening across America. 
This is what is happening across America in a post-Kelo decision. 
Counties and cities are oftentimes reaching out into farm country, 
condemning land, and holding it as open space when it is already open 
space, and this amendment speaks to that.
  Sandra Day O'Connor, in her dissent against Kelo v. New London, said 
this:

       The fallout from this decision will not be random. The 
     beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with 
     disproportionate influence and power in the political 
     process, including large corporations and development firms. 
     As for the victims, the government now has license to 
     transfer property from those with fewer resources to those 
     with more.

  The American Farm Bureau, the American National Cattleman's and Beef 
Growers, and the National Public Lands Council support this amendment. 
If the Judiciary Committee had responded, and I hoped they would have, 
we would have a much broader definition as it relates to Kelo and as it 
relates to the right for eminent domain.
  Clearly, the public good is not damaged because entities still have 
the right for the public good, and that has always been the purpose of 
eminent domain. But simply to acquire property through condemnation 
when it is open space, to hold it as open space and to deny the private 
property owner his or her rights is fundamentally wrong under our 
Constitution.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I strongly disagreed with the very 
conservative, very activist Supreme Court decision on Kelo, but this is 
not the place to correct that, on a farm bill. If the Senate, or any 
Senator, wants to introduce legislation to repeal Kelo, then let's take 
it to the committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
and we will hold hearings on it.
  There have been no hearings. This amendment does nothing to prevent 
the Government from seizing private property in order to hand it over 
to private developers. Instead, it allows governments to seize farmland 
for a prison but not eminent domain for conservation purposes or a 
parkland. It is opposed by all the leading conservation groups--the 
Defenders of Wildlife, the National Wildlife Federation, the Wilderness 
Society, and on and on.
  Now, my commitment to farming is very strong, but I don't want to say 
let's grab farmland for a prison because we passed legislation that 
nobody has reviewed, nobody has done anything on. This is a mistake. It 
doesn't belong in a farm bill.
  If the Senate, or any Senator, wants to overturn the Kelo decision, 
which after all was done by an activist Republican conservative Supreme 
Court, then we will hold hearings on it.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, our Government should not be able to 
confiscate the land of private citizens in a way that is reckless or 
that benefits the pecuniary interests of private developers at the 
expense of the public good. That is why I share the concerns of many 
Americans about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of 
New London, where the Court held that eminent domain could be used to 
transfer private property to other private owners for development 
purposes. However, today, I joined a majority of the Senate in voting 
against an amendment that would have unduly limited the power of 
eminent domain by State and local governments because the reach of the 
amendment was far too broad and its text had not been the subject of 
hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The proposed 
legislation would have imposed severe Federal sanctions on State and 
local governments seeking to exercise eminent domain over land for 
perfectly legitimate and defensible reasons, including for purposes of 
historic preservation, conservation, to create parks, or to promote 
recreation or community service. I share the view of most Americans 
that the power of eminent domain must be exercised in a fair, prudent, 
and balanced way. Unfortunately, this amendment would not have 
accomplished that objective.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3640. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 429 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson

[[Page 34214]]


     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for adoption of this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.

                          ____________________