it comes to foreign policy we have a stark disagreement senator lugar believes we'd be better off if we simply disposed of the current farm safety net in favor of a revenue program with no price floor savings would be invested in conservation nutrition and specially crop agriculture i believe those are good priorities in terms of where the money would go but i would remind members of the body that the work of the committee and by the way the bill came out of the committee without a single dissenting vote truly did not have a roll call so i don't know how members might have expressed themselves but nobody asked for roll call nobody asked to be recorded in the negative and the fact is we increased each of those areas that are addressed in the fresh air act we increased conservation over the baseline by four and a half billion dollars we increased nutrition by five point three billion dollars over the baseline we increased specialty crop resources by two and a half billion dollars those are all very large increases the biggest percentage increase went for conservation when it comes to investing in the things that senator lugar and senator lott and byrd care about the committee did a good job so this is not about investments in those areas what is the real difference i don't think this bill is about resources for other areas i think it is largely about finding a way to gut existing commodity programs i've heard statements in support of the fresh act that really amount to broadsides against existing policy so let me respond to some of the arguments that we have heard from the other side let's examine the attacks on the distribution of farm program benefits mr president the critics say only forty three percent of all farms receive payments the critics say fifty seven percent of farms operate without a safety net the critics say the largest eight percent of all farms received fifty eight percent of farm program benefits mr president all of those statements have some element of truth but they don't tell the whole story they don't come close to telling the whole story in fact taken alone i think they completely mis represent the reality of the farm program let's look at each of these claims in turn according to the economic research service firing operations receiving no government payments had an average household income of over seventy seven thousand dollars per year but the fireman income portion of that was only a thousand dollars so when the assertion is made that almost half of farms get no farm program benefit guess what those people really are farmers they have an average income of seventy seven thousand dollars only a thousand of it comes from farming operations people aren't engaged in farming in any meaningful way what this tells me about the fifty seven percent of firms operating without a safety net is that the big chunk of them aren't much into farming at all the largest portion of them farm only marginally or do so as a hobby our own son is in that category they've got a little farm they have over a thousand dollars of receipts so they're counted nala statistics as being a farmer because that's all it takes a thousand dollars a receipt and you're counted as a farmer but he has a job in town full time job he's basically a hobby farmer and yet they're saying he should be getting farm program benefits that it's unfair because he's not getting fired program benefits no and that applies to the first argument the absurdity of trying to claim that these producers are mistreated is the fact that the fresh x own risk management accounts wouldn't allow them to participate either so i guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander that's because the eligible prison participant and some with an a g i from fireman operations is someone with an agent from fireman operations of the ten thousand dollars or more so they wouldn't count them as farmers at all so if the protests proponents of this legislation don't call the majority of farms not receiving government payments farmers why should they be clamoring to provide support for them in the commodity support provisions part of the problem is the way farmers are designed for defined for statistical purposes to quote from the economic research service most establishment classified as farms are too small to support a household because the official u s farm definition requires only a thousand dollars of sales to qualify as a farm so the first criticism that we hear i think is just without i like to think of a farm for a household as those  actually obtain a significant portion of their income from a farming operation when you look at those households you get a completely different picture as this chart shows or government program payments go when compared to gross receipts of farming operations you see a very different reality if you look at all of the farms with gross farmer seeds above fifty thousand dollars you will see that just twenty three percent of roughly two million total farms are responsible for ninety percent of farm receipts but their share of government payments is actually somewhat less totaling just over eighty one percent so here's the reality those with receipts of over fifty thousand dollars account for only twenty three percent of farms but they do ninety percent of the business and they get eighty one percent of farm program payments actually somewhat less than their percentage of actual production the group signified on the left with sales less than fifty thousand dollars constitutes nearly seventy seven percent of farms but produce about ten percent of gross farm receipts yet their share of government payments is nearly double their percentage of those gross receipts let me emphasize that seventy seven percent of farms as tallied by u s d a are below fifty thousand of receipts they do about ten percent of the production they get a disproportionate share of the benefits it's amazing what different conclusions one reaches when one actually researches the underlying facts i want to repeat that first the test again farm with gross receipts of over fifty thousand dollars account for only twenty three percent of our farms but they produce ninety percent of the foodstuffs that we consume and they receive eighty one percent of government payments and when you drill deeper into the data farms with receipts less than ten thousand dollars constitute fifty eight percent of total farm numbers yet they produce less than four percent of total farm production and still receive seven percent of government payments so the conclusion one reaches if you actually examine these things is totally different than the story being told by the critics the statistics from u s d a is economic research service clearly show government payments goes to those who are actually producing the food in an about rough equivalent proportion that's what's happening you get farm program benefits roughly in relationship to your share of production that's the way it's designed to be that's the way it is don't anyone don't let anyone try to tell you something different to the extent there are farming operations that don't participate and yet provide a great deal of production this farm bill seeks to help them through investments in specially crop agriculture and a broad based disaster assistance program but to suggest the vast majority of farms are being mistreated by the fire and program is simply false it's not true it's not true it's not fair it's not accurate fact the smallest producers get a bigger share of government payments relative the receipts then do the largest producers also i seriously question how replacing the marketing alone countercyclical and direct payment programs with area and farm revenue programs would change how payments are distributed in fact these free revenue programs would almost certainly follow production and they don't have any internal payment limitations or adjusted gross income limitations provided in the titles being eliminated they would concentrate payments payments even more wouldn't that be ironic proponents of this bill are trying to make the case that the policy contained in the committee bill violates our trade command all of this talk about trade violations or potential against the u s on trade can be a bit confusing for most members but let me attempt to reduce the confusion first the current w t o rules limit our trade distorting domestic support to hundred billion dollars a year the congressional budget office says payments under this farm bill will be less than that when it comes to potential actions against the u s by countries like brazil and canada it appears they're throwing the kitchen sink at us hoping to make something stick it's gotten so rigid ridiculous that brazil even claims excise tax exemptions on off road fuel are a trade violation you've got to you've got admire them for their creativity we can't write a farm bill based on some agreement that has yet to be written we do a pretty good job sometimes of predicting the future around here but i don't know how we can predict where the future trade agreement might look like that's not yet been written so to say that we are violating an agreement that has not yet been written or made or passed is an empty exercise it's  r responsibility to write a policy for agriculture that's in the best interests of america not in the best interest of those who want to be critics the reductions in support to crop insurance that are contained in this alternative proposal could destroy the program cutting twenty five billion dollars from the crop insurance program will lead to compan simply walking away and crop insurance not being available when it's desperately needed now i believe crap insurance needs a serious look needs reform but taking to an axe to it is simply i believe simplistic and counterproductive i'd rather that we do a serious study on how to reform crop insurance and follow those results rather than an ad hoc vote here on the floor i want to direct colleagues attention now to the potential catastrophic impact impact this bill would have on farm income if it was adopted texas a and m did an analysis by actually going to farms across america and looking at their books and records and determining the effect of this amendment on those farms and their incomes twenty four of the twenty five representative crop farms would see more than a twenty five percent reduction in their cash income seventeen of the representative crop farms would experience more than a twenty five percent decline in ending net worth by the end of the period with lower commodity prices the provisions do not come close to providing the same amount of support as the programs in the two thousand and two farm bill and should such a low price scenario occur in the future most of the farmers and ranchers would not be able to survive the erosion in farm income without some additional government support this is a bankruptcy proposal for rural america if prices turned down let's be clear about the consequences of this amendment it can be summed up in two words mass bankruptcy that will be the result of a proposal like this it is adopted and god forbid prices decline and declined sharply and we have seen that repeatedly in agriculture essentially what this study says from the texas a and m is that if prices remain high the impacts of this bill wouldn't be substantial but when low prices return and they've got a bad habit of returning in agriculture proposals like the fresh act would pull the rug out from under our producers and result in financial ruin for them that's what the experts at texas a and m have concluded i don't think the american people are interested in mass bankruptcy in rural america for those who would like to you to believe that our foreign policy is not benefited the people of our country and indeed the people of the world i will leave you with the words of a recent wall street journal article this is what they said the prospect for i'd asked for an additional five minutes dodging the prospect for a long boom is riveting economists because the declining real price of grain has long been one of the unsung forces behind the development of the global economy thanks to steadily improving seed synthetic fertilizer and more powerful farm equipment the productivity of farmers in the west in asia has stayed so far ahead of population growth that prices of corn and wheat adjusted for inflation have dropped seventy five percent and sixty nine percent respectively since one thousand seventy four among other things falling grain prices made food more affordable for the world's pool poor helping shrink the percentage of the world's population that is malnourished you never hear it from the critics you never hear it from the critics but the wall street journal is reporting is one of the key reasons for the economic boom in the world is the increase in productivity in agriculture led by the west led by our country that amazing increase in productivity has in real terms dramatically reduced the cost of corn and wheat by seventy five percent and sixty nine percent since one thousand nine hundred seventy four i think those words should be taken to heart s agriculture policy has provided enormous advantages to all of our citizens and to the world i can't imagine what would have happened without lee let me now conclude by reviewing the distribution of funding for this package and the investments made in nutrition and conservation under the bill proposed by the senate agriculture committee the amount for commodity programs is reduced eleven percent t thirteen point six percent of total outlays all establishing many new programs to benefit specialty crops producers spending for nutrition programs remains and about two thirds of total outlays let me repeat that where's most of the money going for in this bill where is most of the money going it's going to nutrition that's the bill that came out of the committee sixty six percent of the money is going for nutrition we don't hear that from the critics but that's a fact less than fourteen percent is going for commodity programs and that's an eleven percent reduction from the previous bill this the bill out of committee represents a significant redirection of resources in areas we all know is necessary and it wasn't it wasn't needed to gut farm programs to make these investments mr president i hope my colleagues will reject this proposal and support the committee package that is before us it is responsible it is good for taxpayers it is good for farmers and ranchers it's good for the economy it's good for nutrition it's good for conservation it deserves our support i think the chair five i think it's likely to be a little bit before that are standing is a sense a lot and barack has some comments he wants to make on this cement hour make some comments and to lugar may have some additional comments he wishes to make before the vote following the vote on the lugar law a memo that would ask unanimous consent that senator gregg be allowed one hour equally divided on his amendments number three six seven one three six seven three and three six seven for that following senator gregg that sent alexander at one hour equally divided on his amendments three five one three five five t that following sentence xander senator coburn have ninety minutes equally divided on his amendments number three five three zero three six three two three eight zero seven and sent colleague earlier but we're also working on the content here there is another amendment that we might want to insert in there if my friend would just withhold i think we can work this out in a little bit of a following the vote which i understand is going to be at approximately three thirty now that the following amendments be called up in this order sent to gregg amendment three six seven one three six seven three three six seven for that debate be one hour equally divided and following that debate senator alexander on the members three five one three five five three four one hour equally divided and s just again reserving the right to object i first i want to thank my colleague for working these out this is great progress we get great time agreements i really appreciate his his work in that regard i just want to make it clear that  wasn't the intention of the my friend to have them all in that order or they could they could be in different orders that when they come up or when people are here yeah because that does not democrat comes up with an amendment on this side i don't have one right now that they could at that time work and we have at least one i know that we might want to call up later today sure  after the pending amendment is voted on that's right and if i had just followed this in my office but could i ask the senator if from george if you'd be kind enough to tell me i understand thirty six seventy one was on your and is there another request a member of the six seventy for the mortgage forgiveness amendment and is there in the senator's unanimous consent request is there any time limit on the amendments yes  thanks to chairman senator harkin and writing member senator saxby and the entire agriculture committee for the weeks of work that represent the foundation of this legislation i also particularly want to thank senator lugar for bringing his experience and knowledge to the development of our amendment his background carries the tradition of generations of family farming in indiana where over six hundred acres are some of theirs are still under production and he calls farming to be continued as a significant part of america's culture he understands how critical it is to our national well being that family farms exist independently to produce the nutritious foods that help america maintain a healthy population and although i didn't grow up on a farm i do have experience in the business world and our alliance on this issue brings together two disparate views from on the  for what we ought to do in the well being and the interest of the well being of our country and that business experience that i had kind of matches up well with senator lug experience in this amendment because i learned in my business experience that fair and balanced competition for all products will result in quality products at low prices and we ought not to be subsidizing the extremely well off producers at the expense of family farmers who need help to continue to be able to offer their produce in the marketplace writing like the farm bill  no simple task with a very deuce on how we put nutritious food on family tables at costs that are affordable now i believe that the bill on the floor helps farmers and millions of americans in several ways that fulfill our responsibility as public servants for example it imposes limits on the amount of taxpayer money that can be used to subsidize our already profitable farms changes or serious reform and i know that many of my colleagues agree with senator lugar and me on the need to do more to encourage all farmers to continue to produce food and at the best quality at the lowest possible price while they earn a livelihood mr president america grows thousands of crops but the bill before us includes forty two billion dollars in subsidies subsidies for only by corn cotton rice so id's and wheat and most of the money that goes there is not going to struggling farmers who are spending long hours in the fields away from their families toiling to bring enough crops to market to merely get by and resisting the seduction of selling their land at high prices to developers for commercial purpose the money is going to those who are already raking in record profits and i want to show you what i mean this chart says ten percent of the farms receive nearly seventy five percent of the subsidies think of it seventy ten percent are received the farms receive nearly seventy five percent of the subsidies the ten percent of the farms we talk about on this chart are those well off farmers and i wrote businesses the ones who are bringing in giant profits as a matter of fact they received one hundred twenty million dollars in subsidies  the last ten years in fact our current farm policy panel subsidy checks into the mailboxes of millionaire landowners and agribusinesses across the country and even someone who might have just become familiar with the security situation in front of us would tell you that it won't make sense to fund huge farms and businesses while failing to keep farmers to help farmers continue producing crops essential to our national well being on smaller farms that preserve the traditions that made america strong and independent we all recognize that the agriculture committee wants america's farmers to thrive our economy to be strong and for americans to eat healthy foods but i ask if every farmer is helping to feed america shouldn't america be helping every farmer the answer without question is of course we need a farm bill that helps farmers across the country regardless of where they farm or what they grew but they grow we need a farm bill that invests in more than just crops it must invest in nutrition and healthier foods such as proof that suppose so our children are not burdened with of the city and diabetes and other serious illnesses that are the side effects of poor nutrition it must provide more and food stamps so modest hardworking parents who face tough times can still prepare quality nutritious foods for their families to eat and must invest in conservation so our green spaces do not fall victim to high rises and commercial buildings and so we don't destroy the earth that our children and grandchildren call home by turning it into concrete highways and buildings the center from indiana senator lugar and i have offer a plan for reform we come from different states and different experiences my colleague senator lugar grew up on a farm i grew up in the city but when it comes to the farm bill senator lugar and i see eye to eye on the challenges that america and its plans face and we have a shared vision for the path forward we see that subsidies for only a handful of crops in our country go to the giant agribusiness is instead of smaller farms the taxpayer funded handouts we turn over to those business totaled in the last five years seventy two billion dollars gave them seventy two billion dollars think  in the profits of four out of five largest crops that get subsidies will set all time records this year this is been a prospers year for lots of people who are who man the a the large agribusinesses and the large profit making firms farms the all time records are being set this year according to the department of agriculture at the same time such as fruits vegetables and other nutritious foods that we want to see on american tables do not get the same kind of help my state new jersey for example has many farms and  populated state but we are called the garden state for a reason we have major growth growers of blueberries cranberries lettuce for example near the marketplace and those nutritious fruits and vegetables go directly from our farms the markets in the cities saving unnecessary fuel and transportation costs while improving the health of our residents at the same time but the current farm bill battles to aid and encourage these farmers across the country and that's why the luger lautenberg amendment makes so much sense our plan for reform will help every farmer in america grow their crops and feed the nation and show you here what i mean if we were fair here to free crop insurance to protect all farmers from major losses our plan replaces the current system of subsidies was smart and free insurance programs to protect all farmers from catastrophes like drought or  infestation whether a farmer grows corn graham berries so i didn't just squash their livelihoods are protected so they can continue to provide nutritious meals that are essential for the health and well being of children and families across the country are playing guarantees that the end come of farmers will not fall so severely that they stop farming it protects all farmers most of whom will be covered against hundred percent or more in any year well as they grow and harvest twenty acres or two thousand acres and this approach is not only more equitable for every farmer but it's far less expensive tomatoes are anxious with more support for nutritional food like fruits and vegetables americans can provide healthier meals and fight health problems like diabetes and obesity and more  money food stamps will help the twenty six million americans who rely on food stamps to stay alive he's their heads above water the feed themselves and their families and it's shocking to note mr president that some of the food stamp recipients are expected to survive on ten dollars a month think about that ten dollars a month a paltry sum by any  checked prices that a local supermarket agrees and if you add up the cost of a loaf of bread a gallon of milk a pound of cheese and a dozen eggs you're already over ten dollars provided that's for an entire month how is that possible for people to sustain that to sustain themselves with that small amount of funds at their disposal helping them helping those people with the least is exactly what america is about buying creasy money for food stamps are amendment goes in the right direction our plan invest one billion dollars more than the bill on the florida conservation programs that assure farmers that they can protect their land from pollution and urban sprawl and all of us see what's happening now the pine land to to t green areas that they're falling prey to development at paces that frighten us cities across the country cities in my state are beginning to say no more development here we're going to stop that well the best way to stop it is to have people using that land to continue farming as they have for the last couple of hundred years right now our farmers who want to participate in these programs are limited because they don't have the funds our plan invest a half a billion dollars more into alternative energies with oil prices and concerns about global warming on the rise disinvestment addresses both of these urgent problems and finally mr president are we formed plan does with the public wants us to do to be good stewards of the taxpayers money by putting four billion dollars towards paying down the federal debt deficit just think of it at a time when our national debt is growing growing out of control our deficit are growing and  we are looking for constantly for ways to thun domestic programs we don't have the means to do it but at least we'll begin to rest in significant part the growth of the  annual deficit and four billion dollars four billion dollars at the same time as we accomplish the goal of making sure that those who do farm those who are who are  very very tough for all of us so mr president every state in america has agriculture so we need a foreign policy that helps every state the plan in the best interests of every american farmer and every american family the men and women whose labor sweat and toil feed the nation deserve nothing less and we hope that it will be recognized in the floor floor of this chamber that we want to encourage farmers to stay on the farms that we want to encourage the availability of products that are nutritional and will go toward helping the health of our population to continue  serve more farmers more fairly and be responsive to regional and national crises that endangered the continued success of america's farmers farmers in my region master this amendment does just the opposite that if an acted it would seriously endanger the success of my farmers because this amendment removes the safety net that producers support most of it immediately and the rest over a period of time here's what it does phases that non trade distorting direct payments that are critical for farmer financing in sport it removes the availability of a non recourse marketing loan that producers relapse on to market their crops it removes countercyclical support that is necessary in times of low prices and it allows with that limitation contained in the committee approved the production of fruits and vegetables for processing on any base a courage which is a serious concern to the specially crop industry madam president there are twenty six agricultural organizations who have signed a letter urging senators not to support this amendment that goes it does eliminate the safety net provided to producers and shift significantly more funding out of the commodity title and i would ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be submitted into the record that objection sent to look as amendment replaces the current safety net with several majors two of which are related to crop insurance and revenue protection i greatly appreciate senator lugar's interest in expanding crop insurance coverage because there are very few farmers in mass day or even eligible to purchase the coverage center luger uses as a component of his safety net and i have been encouraging my farmers to take more advantage of a to call crop insurance as they make their plans each and every year and they are doing so after a shade santa loses interest in expanding the group risk income protection or the g r p and the group risk protection or g r p which are county level revenue plans of insurance but i have serious concerns about building the safety net around these programs as a replacement to traditional commodity programs while g r p and g r p may be popular workable programs in indiana they are not in my state of georgia of the one hundred fifty peanuts about twenty five guineas in georgia in two thousand and six only forty seven of these policies were so and earned premium forty seven for the whole state out of it with thirteen thousand total policy so and earning premium only seven of those triggered indemnity payments one of those forty seven producers called my face and said he wished he had never taken it because it did not provide individualized coverage ninety thousand eight hundred ninety six old and earning premium that's less than one percent of all policies in kansas in two thousand and six there were one hundred ten g r api and g r p policies out of a total of one hundred seventeen thousand nine hundred eighty four so again less than one percent in south dakota in two thousand and six there were twenty g r api and g r p policies out of a total of fifty nine thousand six hundred forty eight policies so in north dakota in two thousand and six there were now and you are at the policies and zero g r p policies out of a total of sixty nine thousand five hundred thirty nine policies illinois and indiana have a different experience twenty percent in each of these states where g r r r are g r p policies i'm very glad these products are available risk management tool and the law in indiana and possibly other states and i want those folks to continue to be able to use them where it's to their advantage but i wonder why our producers in these other states are not purchasing these products and i question how prudent it is to include these products as a significant component of a replacement so called safety net when few producers are voluntarily purchasing these policies in most places except again for illinois and indiana again while i appreciate senator lugar's interest in expanding this coverage i do not support it as a replacement to the safety net provided in the committee approved a bill which contains a safety net that producers have voiced support for and works especially for my home state crop insurance as experience tremendous growth and success in the sense the enactment of the two thousand reform bill in two thousand and seven farmers ensured more than two hundred  seventy one million acres with an estimated crop last lab melody of sixty seven billion dollars in my home state in one thousand nine hundred four only thirty eight percent of eligible acres were insured in two thousand and six eighty nine percent of eligible acres were insured so my farmers and ranchers are taking a greater advantage of this risk management too and it is in their best interest as they continue to expand utilization of crop insurance in the committee approved farm bill over four point seven billion dollars has been taken out of the crop insurance program defun other farm bill priorities the savings were achieved to answer criticisms o the program and to improve operational efficiency we have tried to manage these funding reductions in a way that will not unduly harm the program or the delivery system because crop insurance is a federal program that is supported a blend of private and federal reinsurance and delivered through private insurance providers and a network of agents nationwide we have to be careful in making any changes to the program there must be sufficient financial incentives for providers and agents to provide appropriate service to their customers yet not be so lucrative as to waste taxpayer dollars the financial strength of the insurance providers is critical to the reinsurance community providing financial and risk bearing support to the insurance providers commercial reinsurance helps assure the economic stability and continuity of the insurance providers in delivering and servicing the crop insurance policies by requiring a seeding of thirty percent of risk back companies to u s d a and a much deeper cut in the administrative and operating expense reimbursement to providers than the committee approved bill and the house passed bill this amendment will have serious negative effects on the delivery system that can impact service and the availability of coverage in many states after the house passed its farm bill this summer reinsurance community sent a letter to me expressing concerns about significant cuts that the house made in the a a no expense reimbursement as well as a required increase quota share by u for reference the house cuts were greater than those in the committee approved bill but less than what senator lugar is proposing in this amendment specifically the letter signed by a third seen reinsurers states at the house's proposed reduction in a  will further strain the insurance providers ability to properly deliver and service the crop insurance program the letter notes that there's a justifiable and widespread concern that even fewer insurance providers will exist in the future there are sixteen approved insurance providers nationwide that does not mean sixteen providers in every state some states have as many as sixteen others have less this issue raised by the reinsurance community should concerning especially for those of us who states have fewer insurance providers than the current nationwide total the letter states that every insurer sense that insurance providers will be unable to subsidize further the costs of processing and claim settlements reinsurance will likely exercise extreme caution in providing private reinsurance credit where this is paramount for reinsurers which do not need and do not want to support thin capital last and or leveraged insurers the latter also maintains that allegations about the insurance providers arning excessive products in recent years are unwarranted and inaccurate and madam president  would ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter also be inserted into the record without objection an independent study was recently shared with my staff about the profitability of the federal crop insurance community national crop insurance services or n c i s is an international not for profit organization representing the interest of more than sixty crop insurance companies representatives of n c i s share the results of an independent study of the federal crop insurance program compared to the property and casualty insurance industry for the period of one thousand nine hundred two through two thousand and six key findings include the federal crop insurance program is not as profitable as a p and c industry and writing federal crop insurance entails greater risk secondly that under the current standard reinsurance agreement which is a contractual agreement between u approved insurance providers for delivering the program am no reimbursements continue to be below actual federal crop insurance expenses incurred by private insurers although the latter finding indicates crop insurance company's costs are not fully covered by the federal government the committee approved a bill contains an you know reduction of two percentage points below the rates currently in effect for policies except in a study in which in which in a year in which the lowest ratio is above one point two the policy basis for this was to answer criticisms concerning costs of a n o reimbursements while providing an exception in cases where loss adjustments and claim processing will be much greater we believe this is a balanced approach to reducing expended two years the crop insurance industry and the crop insurance program make a significant financial contribution in the committee approved bill but not to the detriment of the delivery system as under senator lugar's amendment while there are parallels between conservation provisions in this bill and those in the committee bill there are also very important differences the committee bill is more comprehensive and call for a tz important new emphasis on forestry especially on organic production wildlife and pollinators among others the committee bill addresses  participation and partnerships and cooperation for all of the above reasons madam president i respectfully request that my colleagues vote against th and present senator from indiana madam president i want to acknowledge the importance of the arguments that have been forwarded by my colleagues especially those comments most recently by seeing which ranking member of the i would culture committee earlier by the conrad chairman the budget committee and also very valued member for a long time of the agriculture committee i think it is important in response to the center of north dakota to point out as he described the situation that we have to take is common sense that farms that produce much more are likely under the current farm legislation receive more and subsidies and payments of various sorts there have been cerny comments made on our side of the question that  disproportionate amount of money goes to a very very few farmers and senator conrad attempt injury rebut that by i pointing out that these very few farmers may very well produce in some states the bulk of all that is produced so as a matter of common sense of payments are being made they would receive a very large share of those payments certainly that logic is impeccable the point that the lugar lautenberg amendment tries to bring to the fore is that leaving aside specific farmers we're talking about the interest of all of the american people all of the taxpayers who who make these famous in fact to a very few are making the point that farmers who do produce a lot of corn or wheat or soybeans or cotton are very likely to be more successful i pointed out in my opening statement how farms have grown how successful farmers have purchased the farms of those who were elderly or from the states or from young people who have moved away from the states or young people who do not have the where with all the by property in short what i described is a consolidation of agriculture in america which is a pretty strong trend and which i believe that the underlying farm bill we're discussing today what accelerate i think that that would be regrettable and therefore the point that i'm making with our amendment is not to discuss really whether proportionately subsidies go to those who are most successful and produce the most but rather to say that we should not have these payments at all what we should have is a safety net for all farmers who being the large and the wealthy is well as those who are not very wealthy and not very large an underlying safety net  crop insurance based upon each county in america so this is not a broad gauged situation it is a very locally specific situation taking in consideration presumably the soil the weather patterns the history of crops in that particular county in america or a farmer could choose somebody to take the last five years of net farm income and have crop insurance based upon that farm history a whole farm history not simply of a specific crop although farm would have the option under our plan of choosing a specific crop th farmer could choose whole farm income across the board including a great number of items that are not now covered in these specific crop situations and that the the bill we're talking about now provides that insurance pays the premiums for all farmers so that in the event that in any particular area of america by county right state or by region there is difficulty created by the weather or conceivably by world trade distortions elements that are well beyond the ability of any one individual farmers management to control that that farmer is going to receive compensation that will keep that farmer in business and i furthermore madam president the the farmer would have the option of buying additional crop insurance as each of us has farmers now do to cover the other fifteen or twenty percent of pending upon the plan chosen so that in fact you could ensure that you were going to elites receive the same income that you've received over the last five years on average receive at least the computed predictions of what the price ought to be for soybeans or for corn let me say as a practical example that impression that i take our own experience on the luger farm is indicative of how this might work we have had a profit on our farm for the last fifty years every year one reason we have had those profits is because we have had proper insurance and we have bought the highest level of crap insurance it was possible we paid premiums for it wasn't given to us paid money for it good many farmers who were neighbors said i don't want to put that expense and to insurance i'll let the lord provide sort of hope it all works out doesn't always work out given weather patterns on our farm in this soybean season we had very adverse weather we had drought during many of the weeks of the summer coming up toward harvest fortunately it did not injure the crop totally we had at least a forty one bushel yield and we could have anticipated normally more like fifty one about a twenty percent efficiency but that's the way things move in this world and we understand that the antidote has been crop insurance so that if you have a productive farm operation you are not penalize because of acts of god literally through the weather now that is what we are proposing for all farmers in america and covering all of the d earlier today direct payments direct payments historically on my farm once again received now under the bill that's being produced the underlying bill direct payments whether we have the same number of acres or even the same crops that's a historical record which these payments come and furthermore of we could under the so called marketing loan situation try to game the system trying to borrow money from the federal government and pay it back in less amounts pending upon moving upward moves downward we don't  lose and i would just say simply this is not a fair system with regard either to agriculture competition or with regard to the rest of the public the public as a whole once to make certain a farmer stay in business must make certain small farmers have a shot at it once to pay at least for the insurance premium so that if there is an adverse situation it could not be controlled the encumbered comment on the farm that that is true i would say that there are a good number of agricultural interests deeply involved in this bill and that is usually been the extent of the argument those of the groups that are heard in the hearings are heard sometimes senators but this time we've had a different situation i've cited that over forty major newspapers in the united states of america that taken time and their editorial policies and furthermore in supporting articles to point out the deficiency of foreign legislation as it's evolved this represents i would submit a much larger group than twenty six agricultural groups or even members of our committees who believe that they are advocates for specific groups in american agriculture this time brave broad number of americans and spoken out and humanitarian way as people who respect the federal budget people who respect general fairness in terms of groups and federal support for those situations and i think that's very healthy i hope that that will be if they had any idea of the arguments that is being presented today and thank goodness through our newspapers and editorials a lot more people do have such an idea and they are expressing themselves well let me make and i simply want to recites some specifics about the technicalities of crop insurance for the moment crop insurance companies are really first by the federal government as a percentage of the cost of the policy so as commodity prices have increased so has the reimbursement of private companies even though the workload has not changed if in fact there is huge demand now for  along with it without any of the risks involved in changing the g a o the government accounting office described this as quote a kind of windfall end of quote our amendment reduces the reimbursement to a rate that is still well above historical averages and furthermore we create a safety net through cap insurance programs dramatically increasing business opportunities for private bath insurance available everywhere every county every state that's a very important consideration in terms of a nation safety net as opposed to a crop specific or state specific safety net is reporting profit insurance underwriting profits of two point eight billion dollars over the last decade three times the insurance industry average the amendment that i'm offering today was centered on  also reduces underwriting profits by requiring companies to share thirty percent of their accumulated underwriting gain back with the taxpayers back with a all government so there is not undisguise windfall and we have estimated that this will save taxpayers more than one point four billion dollars in reduced outlays in the ten years that this bill covers i point out and i'm present because i think it's important to say our members is going to be a remarkable boon for crop insurance it's going to be virtually universal and a lot of money is going to be made but before we get into that we had better change the terms of reference with regard to what taxpayers are paying for and the underwriting risks that are involved here i would point out one further argument and that is that we have been talking about the relative merits of our amendment when it comes to conservation we're not really discuss differences with regard to research we might have talked more about  development in rural areas i tried to make the point or no earlier statement and then present that only about fourteen percent of the people now living in rural america live on farms only about one out of seven hundred fifty individuals actually do farm the need for development in our rural counties is obvious population flight from so many counties is very apparent if we're talking about rural america we have got to be talking about ways that was new jobs will come to counties in america and that is not going to come through a normal farm bill situation rewarding specific farmers in specific crops and not all of those so i point out that our amendment tries to focus on rural america on the opportunities for jobs for people in county seats all over our country and i would i would also point out that we have tried to think through the problems  of the young we believe tried to talk about resisting the trend toward consolidation of agriculture by actually providing support for the small farmers who do not receive much support and this is pointed out they don't produce as much and they never will under the circumstances currently in american agriculture we think it's very important that young people coming out of college have this choice and furthermore that families who do have a tradition of farming not be entrapped by the current circumstances that are driving fairly toward much more concentrated  management ownership of american agriculture but i would say that that the reason why a farm such as we have in the lugar family in marion county indiana has great hopes for the future is that some great things have occurred in agricultural research and this is why i want to highlight it's a small point in all of this debate but i touched upon this just a moment ago in describing the soybean price i could have discussed the evolution of prices of corn in the last three or four years the fact is that corn and soybeans are now being utilized for energy the demand for these grains for energy is controversial all by itself there are some outside of this chamber as well as inside this body would say that there's a danger that food supplies are going to be converted into energy some of even feel logically said this is not what god suggested it's not the energy it should be food others have suggested that the price of corn because it's going up abnormally some would say to provide ethanol is driving the rest of american food costs up  some even make the case that it's driving world food prices up word that residents of very poor countries are now forced to pay more for food because of our policies of both of our major political parties have for some time said that this nation is now two thirds dependent upon foreign oil terms of our petroleum needs percentages increasing those sources of supply are more and more precarious and sometimes very unfriendly and the fact is despite all of our conservation efforts we are still using more oil each year if we do not have a policy that even toward a slight bit of energy independence not total which i agree is not within the cards as we now see life in our country if we don't move at least to eliminate a portion of that  vulnerability we're going to have very severe consequences in terms of our own jobs our competitive ability in the world quite apart from the ability to drive our cars and our homes we understand that i would just point out that the agricultural research got ahead of the curve here has made possible huge changes in agricultural income in this year as well as in the last year and will continue to do so if we continue our research on cellulosic ethanol if we continue our research on all of the ways in which agricultural food and fiber might play a role in this and then how we increase the yields to believe that somehow because we have increased the acreage of porn dish year and we are running out of land that that's the end of the story as deny the fact that i remember from boyhood on ards my my dad was receiving about one third as much a yield out of our corn fields as we're getting now and i've seen that just and in the last sixty years of time there are many who would point out that on our farm we could do a whole lot better and i'm all ears for that as are most productive farmers and charges that the threshold potentials for income and therefore to have a debate mired in the thought that we must maintain all the all the subsidies and the programs that as a matter of fact have been so expensive that brought about concentration have led even to a loss of jobs in rural america makes no sense at all in my judgment we really have to talk about the future i would say furthermore and present speaking about those abroad ten bishops from the church  africa came to visit with me and i suppose of others in this in this body and they pointed out specifically that the cotton programs that we support the bil program specifically and perhaps the opportunities brazil may have to extract for billion dollars out of some war in our economy maybe hitting other crops under the or they may receive going to work in a world that also has a humanitarian focus on feeding people on humane results on foreign policy that has at least to some public diplomacy that works and i really with them i would say to cotton farmers or to soybean farmers and corn farmers let's make sure we do have an underlying safety net let's make certain that there cannot be farmer or a soybean farmer payments payments up front regardless of what happens and likewise the ability to game the government with regard to these marketing loans i would just say on the face of it taxpayers generally persons of humane quality are kind of are not going to like the looks of that kind of program and that is the nature of our program and the farm bill that we have been  saw their members and they said we want every penny every penny of what we got in the fast and more we want those farm programs and we don't want them touched however the  members also began to hear from humanitarian groups groups that wanted to feed americans and receiving food stamps oxfam k man people and conservation came in and numbers people and energy research  in and so pragmatically the house committee said fine we'll do more for each one of you a whole lot more as a matter of fact we're going to add to programs and they did so they took the whole block of the farm subsidies as they were and added on all of these additional programs and then of the end of the trail they said we have a pay go system and so they added a tax bill offered by representative doggett's who was outside the farm community but at the same time had an ideal over it in finance as to how some money might be raised with regard to certain commercial for an interest that he thought so you pay for it that way and shut the whole thing along hoping that many constituencies will be pleased now and that the basic farm subsidies even the enhanced in our situation in this body we had an even more curious situation think we senator from north dakota spoke earlier as a proponent along with others of a disaster relief program a huge one and that one over to the finance committee at the finance committee discussing the veyron bill as a matter of fact making a huge contribution to the farm electronic means the money over is an unusual situation in which we have no idea how much this might cost and actuarially i think the assumptions are not very sound but it was an interesting  meeting at least one particular objective and trying at least to find some other way of paying for it through an unusual clause in tax law i mention all of this because this kind of legislation is not good is not necessary i hope that members will in fact know that there is a strong alternative the fresh act the lugar lautenberg amendment that they will vote for that and they will make a senators voting in the affirmative durbin enson gregg lugar and schumer bismark healthy  mr alexander  mr rockefeller no access of subsidies to crop underwriters of the rescue amendment to the farm bill the rescue remember it is based on a simple promise when resources are limited we can't afford to waste now we can't afford to consent that following the five minutes for the senator from oh how that sense of new hampshire senator gregg be recognized for our thirty minutes equally divided on three amendments amendments three six that's out of there i wanted to ask the senator for whom the thirty minutes is being reserved and the managers i wanted to ask if they would grant me six minutes before you start to inform the senate about the status of a project that i think is vital they should know about six minutes i have madam chair chairman i have no objection that i just want to make sure that the debate three amendments the first one is three six seven one which is the farm stress program three six seven two which is to strike the asparagus provision in three six seven four which is the mortgage forgiveness amendment madam president i'd be happy to receive up to that approach except i was in talking to the senator from michigan who has an interest in the asparagus program if this is a convenient time for it her i'd be happy i'll substitute the amendment on the on the emergency funding which is three six three eight two two for the august one which is three six seven two unless the senate is ready to go  been informed that there is an objection our side to including thirty six seventy four which has to do with the mortgage crisis the finance committee as inform me that they want to take a look at this before we agree to a time on on the mortgage crisis because i would just suggest that i be recognized over those three men so we set the time limits at the convenience of the managers i mean i'm i'm grateful to fast time on or let's just let the last i just proceed to offer them and you guys can work out the time agreements well i think there's a fight say to my friend from new hampshire i think there's there's an indication are some on our side that a couple of those members thirty six seventy four and thirty six seventy three i'm now informed would both perhaps require sixty  recognized to discuss his amendments whatever they may be that following him that the senator from tennessee senator alexander be recognized reserving the right to object i'm just wondering is this mean we're not going to have votes on the amendments that i'm offering there will be no votes today is the understanding that some point we're going to get to vote on the five and then once they're part of the original twenty minutes that are  and mccain and durbin schumer takes dollars from where they don't belong that is heavily subsidized crop insurance invest them in priorities with the return to the united states like nutrition programs and conservation programs initiatives to create sustainable economic development in other countries which after all is the key to strong export markets are men what does not does not increase the crew of the cost of crop insurance for any farmer that's an important point it merits repeating our amendment does not increase the cost of crop insurance for any farmer instead it reduces the excessive taxpayer funded fees that crop insurers receive for servicing their customers the savings from this amendment when v n vested in programs that work programs like mcgovern dole which provides school lunches to over a million children around the world who suffer from hunger there's a reason t house provided eight hundred million in mandatory funding for this program the senate provided none there's a reason this program was developed by and is named after two of the most notable members of this body the reason is this program stands out it melds compassion with common sense feeding the hungry and building sustainable economies in the developing countries in the developing world in making our country safer can we have order please the senator from ohio in speaking we receive bonded thank you madam present we responded to a hostile communist threat in europe with the marshall plan our best response to a hostile threat overseas is to provide help in nutrition and education to p lou desperately needed this amendments about ensuring the appropriate funding levels also for conservation programs we've done a good job with conservation in the senate farm bill in much of that credit goes to chairman harkin but we can do better and it will pay off for our nation to do so the farmland protection program received no increase in funding from the committee passed bill yet it's crucial to protection of family farms the environmental quality incentive program equip protects water quality and provides farmers and ranchers with the tools they need and want to be good environmental stewards yet three out of four applications go on funded our amendment invests in these research in these resource conservation programs important it vests in invest in human decency invest in preventing americans from going hungry how in the wealthiest country in the world can we let our people too many of our people be hungry more americans are struggling to make ends meet and with the savings from our amendment children who rely on food stamps won't have to go to bed hungry it's a smart amendment i know some of my colleagues madam president are skeptical about the amendment so called pay for some of my colleagues don't want to take money from crop insurers that's why we must take a serious look at the excess of subsidies in the federal crop insurance program federal crop insurance is an essential part of the farm safety net and will continue to be in the future however billions of dollars that are intended to benefit farmers are instead siphoned off by large crop insurance companies since two thousand fam farmers have received ten and a half billion dollars in benefits from crop insurance but it's cost taxpayers nineteen billion ten billion in benefits it's cost taxpayers nineteen billion dollars to deliver those benefits where does a difference go according to a g a o report crop insurance companies take forty cents out of every dollar that congress appropriates to help farmers manage risk of agriculture production what kind of good business sense is that in the same report g a o finds a crop insurance companies where more than profits come from the province surance companies crop insurance company profits are more than double industry average is private property casualty insurance has eight point three percent profits federal crop insurance is literally more than doubled the rate of profit over the past ten years crop insurance companies had an average rate of return of eighteen percent compared to just over eight percent for the comparable proper operating private property and casualty insurance companies let me repeat no farmer under the under the brown brown or the brown durban mccaskill mccain sununu amendment no  farmer will pay more for crop insurance because of this amendment the federal government sets federal crop insurance premium rates this amendment doesn't change any of that this amendment will require that crop insurance companies share a greater portion of their underwriting gains with tax payers it's only right in a true public private partnership that both sides benefit fairly this is this amendment also reduces the exorbitant and i mean exorbitant administrative fees that crop insurers receive for each policy they jerry port shows that per policy subsidies to insurance companies will be triple what they were less than ten years ago triple what they were just a minute we'll reduce the administrative subsidies for each policy to the national average from two thousand and four to two thousand and six it's not a huge cut it simply says let's go back a couple of years you were getting well compensated in well subsidized then to the crop insurance companies why should we do more than that with high commodity prices is still well above every year prior to the senator from new mexico direct nine hundred mind i say mountain president senator for i regret that i had to ask you for time in the middle of a debate on such a serious subject when i will talk about something that's not not related first of all it looks to me as if the united states senate a once again be forced to consider a tax package that we know is likely to be vetoed we considered an energy tax increase in june on the senate floor and the senate rejected it be considered an energy tax increase on the senate floor last friday and the senate rejected it now we will be forced again to consider what i understand as the twenty one billion dollar tax increase that is likely to be vetoed i hope that once again the senate will reject it but while we delaying and playing these games we jeopardize the passage of the cafe standards and a real increase in the much needed renewable fuel standards should be able to be put to work and we will be reshaping the flawed amendment that was sent to us by the house on that score i urge the majority to reconsider this attempt to force of another vote on taxes and that provision that w we have been told by the president will be vetoed now i can't answer the question why is it going to be vetoed why can't we do it another way why can't we negotiate why can't we piled part of the taxes all i know is that the president says if you send me this tax bill no matter how good it is with that twenty one billion dollars in taxes it's dead i will veto it now i want to tell you all this i've been in this senate for thirty six years and for twenty five twenty years of it we have been trying to change the cafe standards on automobiles plates in the united states increasing the cafe standards to thirty five miles an hour by twenty twenty will be the biggest conservation initiative for transportation fuels in years additionally increasing the renewable fuel standard will bring thousands of jobs to rural america and help reduce our increasing dependence on foreign oil now mr president all of this good work will be put at risk by the inclusion of the twenty one billion dollar tax increase i urge my colleagues on the other side i urge them to stand back from this risky decision and let us pass a bill and send it to the house that does not include these taxes and we will get one of the most important amendments that will that we could ever do for saving transportation fuel let me start over the most important area where we abuse the use of fuel that is fuel that comes from crude oil is in the transportation system what we're trying to do is to modify the cafe standards to a way to force the production of higher mileage cars in the fleets of america we are told by the best expert in the world testified before one of the committees here that there is nothing else we can do that willy that will increase our savings of crude oil and the souls then this particular provision of cafe modification now i say to everyone if it the fact is you think you need taxes you know you want taxes you say when are you going to get these taxes and you say they ought to be on this scale and i say to you if you put them on  don't get the taxes and you don't get the big energy savings part of this bill well what do you say we're going to do it anyway but what you can do it for with just well throw the bill in the basket here we don't have to fool around and waste time put it in a basket and throw it away because if you insist on doing it and putting the twenty one on and sending it back to the house so they can do play games they are keep the twenty one and then the president will say i told you not to do it here it is goodbye i urge that the best opportunity to get a major energy saving piece of legislation  and with it this other provision which will give us ethanol to it which will be for for the rural america to begin producing not by corn but other than corn producing  for transportation fuel i believe i can't say it any better it's a wasted time and effort to pass the bill with twenty one billion with the taxes we won't get either the taxes which w and we won't get the energy savings portion i thank the senate for giving me an opportunity to speak to the senate and i hope those who are proposing this will understand it can't be done i can't fix it i can't help it if the president  get him to change his mind he won't do it i haven't asked him you won't do it thank you then present senator from new hampshire's recognize and president i rise to speak about amendments which i have pending to the agriculture belied hope that they try to make it a better bill although it is a bill that has very serious problems let me talk about that just quickly because this agriculture bill comes forward every five years as a reauthorization of the farm programs and the practical effect is that every year the consumer sort of gets taken to the to the woodshed behind the barn and gets fleeced and then this is known no change from that that historic activity under the farm bill only this time the fleecing is happening by the use of jiggling numbers and gamesmanship of numbers there's thirty four billion dollars of spending in this bill which is done through gimmicks gimmicks to avoid what is euphemistically called pay go around here gimmicks to avoid budget points of order gimmicks which allow this bill to look like it cost less than actually cost thirty four billion dollars date changes things like that then there's a other games played here where money which historically has been spent by direct mandatory spending is taken out of the mandatory spending accounts moved over to the tax accounts so that basically we in the conservation area where we used to have i think it's five billion dollars or three billion dollars and mandatory accounts spending we now have five billion or fifty three billion dollars of what's known as tax credits what's the practical effect of that well what it does by moving it over moving those that spending over to the tax  up that amount of money on the spending side on the mandatory side to be spent with the practical implication that the bill jumps in its cost by that amount of money so you've got a basically a fairly significant increase by doing that  and in the end that adds to the deficit of course because you've ended up increasing spending by that amount of money and in addition the bill adds a large number of new program attic activity subsidy realm now we already subsidize a lot of farm products around here in a questionable way sugar is a good example of that we basically subsidize sugar so that the price of sugar in this country is about to seventy five percent higher than it is on the world market that has an effect not only on the cost of sugar but it also has an effect on things like the production of ethanol because sugar can be thousands of can be produced from sugar cane in addition it for corn going to vote for soybeans soybeans vote for peanuts peanuts will vote for cotton and so forth and so on and so although none of these subsidies could stand on their own when they get in this row when they get in this sequence child support effort they build a very solid wall of support for a lot of programs which are of squashing noble need and certainly of questionable value when you look at a market economy which we are supposedly a market economy course in the farm area we're not a market economy where throwback to most of which is of questionable value but it obviously has some interest groups which promoted it and therefore gets its footing the bill so what i've done is i've lined up five amendments here which i think are fairly reasonable and address a number of issues policy wise big issues and from a stance farm standpoint some of them addressed fairly narrow and concise issues first amendment which i hope to offer which i have offered which has been offered on my behalf by senator thune but which i will call up and ask for a vote on as soon as we can get to it as soon as we can get people that give us votes around here is the mortgage forgiveness amendment what we're having and what we're seeing in america today whether it's in the farm america rural america or in urban america is obviously a huge meltdown in the subprime lending markets effect of that meltdown is that many people are finding their mortgages foreclosed on which is obviously an extremely traumatic event to have your house taken in the mortgage foreclosure i can't think of too many more traumatic physical events than that obviously the more dramatic health events but not physical events or economic events well when you get foreclosed on you have a second really totally incomprehensible event occurred the i r s assesses you a tax on the amount of the money which you owed to the bank or to the lender which you couldn't repay in which was wiped out in the foreclosure so if you for example have a  obligation to a bank of a hundred fifty thousand dollars and your homes foreclosed on and it's sold for something that recovers one hundred thousand dollars of that then that fifty thousand dollars difference becomes personal income to you and the collection agents come by and say well you x number of dollars because your home was foreclosed on well this this amendment would put an end to that it would say that that will not be deemed income to the taxpayer so the taxpayer whose home was foreclosed on does not receive the double whammy of having a tax bill sent to them seems pretty reasonable to me i can't imagine that anybody's going to oppose this amendment i would hope that it would get a very large vote it's not subject to a point of order because the cost of it is within what's left on the paygo scorecard to the extent there's anything left on the pecos scorecard having been shredded but senator conrad last week said there was six hundred seventy million dollars left on the pecos scorecard which my staff confirmed as ranking member the budget committee and this bill is a mammoth cost less than that so it is in order and i hope that it will be supported and i think that is only the fair and right thing to is what i call the baby doctors for farm families men today in rural america there is a crisis in the area of health care there's a lot of problems in health care across this country but especially in rural america there is a significant crisis and the crisis is this if you are a woman of childbearing age or just a woman period you are going to have a lot of trouble finding an o b g y n why is that because baby doctors are being sued out of existence in rural america as a result of the avarice inis of the trial lawyers in this country and their constant attacks especially on the practice of obstetrics and delivering babies it is virtually impossible is extremely difficult for o b g y n to practice in rural communities whether their farm communities are just rural communities in this country why is that because the the base of practice the number of people they can see the number of babies they can deliver never creates enough revenue to simply pay the cost of their malpractise insurance problem in a place like new hampshire we're probably driving in a snowstorm recently or something else it's not very easy to drive and it shouldn't have to go that sort of distance so we've suggested that simply in the area or baby doctors in rural america that we put in place something to support the women in those communities and make sure that they have proper access to those those doctors and essentially we're following the texas in the california proposal where we limit pain and suffering liability in a manner which allows these doctors to have affordable malpractise premiums doesn't mean that somebody that gets in your doesn't get recovery  they get full and total recovery in the area of economics they get significant recovery in the area of pain and suffering what they don't what you don't get are these explosive li large verdicts which essentially make it impossible for someone to pay the cost of the premium to support an obstetrics practice in a rural area and so this proposal which is very now and very reasonable will serve a very large need in our country which is to make sure that women get proper health care and especially during their childbearing years in rural america and i can again i can imagine being opposed but actually this one's being opposed aggressively by the trial lawyer lobby they're opposed to anything that limits their income in any way even when something is reasonable is saying in an area where we have a clearly under served population which is rural america and doctors serving women in rural america doctors who deliver babies that they're going to stop any sort of reform that tries to make it possible to improve that situation now we know this reform works why do we know it works because texas is tried it texas language here mirrors texas texas tried it and what texas has seen seen during this period when they put in this law is a huge influx a in practice that this works and i know that if it were in place it would give a lot of women in this country country the comfort of knowing that they were going to have a decent doctor or a to any doctor be decent doctor obviously the to care for them as they decide to have children so that we can get this amended but again i'm interested the fact that this amendment being stonewalled by the other side they're telling me what we can't vote on this amendment women in this country so you wouldn't have to have extra people here to defeat the bill which is fairly reasonable which tracks a major state's decision and which is pretty proven to work when it comes to caring women who want to have  very narrow again only applies in rural communities only applies to doctors who deliver babies in rural communities only gives women an opportunity to get decent health care now i have another amendment which  i call law which i would like to have voted on fairly soon which i'm agreeable by the way i'm agreeable to voting all these tonight i'm agreeable to a half an hour timeframe i'm agreeable to voting them all tomorrow so i'm not holding this below i'm  these amendments the pending they're ready to go another member i have says that this new program of creating a farmer's stress network should not be created this is more a statement i mean how many new programs can we can rate in this bill this is an authorized program is not funded by suspected to be appropriated before we get too far down the road but why do we need a stress program for farmers i mean granted farmers are under stress are used to work on a farm understand  farming is a stressful activity but you know running a shoe store during a risk down to economic downturn is a stressful activity running a restaurant is a stressful activity running a grow our garage is a stressful activity there are a lot of activities in america that involve stress are we going to set up a network of stress a network for every activity in america that has stress and are we going to expect the federal government to fund know my goodness think of what we have to do for our wonderful staff here we have to have an entire goodness we have to have such a program would be incredible because we really give them a lot of stress the simple fact is that you just you just can't drawing these programs out there because they make good press releases there's fifty one new programs in this bill let's at least pick one of them that is just so far off the ranch when it comes to being anything rational that the news that the american taxpayer should have to pay for and say no we're not going to go this way that would be a nice gesture a gesture to the american taxpayer i call it all the stress program stress n then i have an amendment which says that the money in here for the asparagus program shouldn't be in here i like asparagus now i've been accused of not liking asparagus that's why i bring this forward that's not true i going too far a lot is going too far in this bill but this is just another example of going too far so grizz only fifteen million dollars but again i'd like to think of it as a statement on behalf of the american taxpayer that we're not going to spend that money on a new brand new asparagus program now there are some other ones we should also throughout the community a program we should throw out the chick the program these are all new programs they should all go out to but i was only allowed five amendments and so i've picked the ones that i think are most egregious and which we should make a little make a little attempt to try to put some discipline into this bill fiscal discipline and then there's one that's fairly big which is my last minute there's five billion dollars in this bill which is the ultimate earmark it's five billion dollars alleged to be an emergency fund or one emergency strike farm community now you have to understand  classic we know that when we have an emergency in this country we will find it especially if the emergency is in farm country we do it every year and i believe historically it's average about three point five billion dollars i think that's the number but i'm not that's off the top of my head as a budget or i just think that's the number that we usually spend on emergencies and farm communities if it's bigger than that we spend more and that of it's less than that we spend less than that hopefully but when you put in place a program which exists before the emergency occurs all you're saying is here's a bunch of money come and get it for every big storm that occurs in north dakota somebody's going to claire emergency and try to get reimbursed for their mailbox that got blown over because the money is sitting there it's that simple it really is terrible  are in dire need of additional funds in order to meet their heating bills literally they're going to be in the cold they're going to spend this winter as we head into february in serious straits new hampshire we've already seen a use the money on a real emergency something that actually exists where people are actually feeling the pain right now today in the area of paying for heating families and so in addition i've reduce the deficit with it and that's pretty practical approach that's addressing a need that exist today and the need is going to exist tomorrow which is to reduce the deficit rather than adding to the deficit and creating an emergency spending account which basically ends up being a slush fund and walking around money for folks in four or five states who traditionally declare emergencies so those are the five amendments and i regret quite honestly that we can't get an agreement to vote all of them right now i'd be willing to say ok let's  all of them for a half an hour and then go to a vote to vote i'm bang bang bang bang i mean i'd like to you know obviously i have serious reservations about this bill i think it is very bad policy in a lot of areas but i've recognize that the votes are there to pass the bill so i'm not trying to delay it in some tactical or procedural way suggesting just the opposite that we proceed to vote on issues which are important include making sure the people whose homes are foreclosed on don't end up with a tax man showing up the next day and saying they owe money on the money that they didn't never see as a result of their home being foreclosed on making sure that women were having children and see a doctor in a rural community farm families have adequate access to the baby doctors making sure that people have enough who are very low income have enough to be able to meet the heating costs of this winter which we know are going to be thirty forty percent higher than they were last winter making sure that we reduce making sure we're suggesting that we eliminate a couple of programs which aren't that big but you're sort of examples of underlying problem which is that there are a lot of new program out of activity in here probably shouldn't be in here and there's a lot of subs new pro subsidies in here that shouldn't be in here the asparagus program and the farmers stress network program the president at this time i'd like to call up three six seven four i'm not calling it up for a vote because i understand that's not agreed to but i do want to call it up and send a motion to the desk under the previous order the senator from tennessee will be recognized benatar from tennessee is recognized by the madam president asad i'm notified when when i have five minutes remaining i will notify i don't present first i'd like to congratulate the senator of new hampshire for his usually eloquent remarks but i'd like to congratulate him especially how much time do you have allocated he didn't the senator didn't explain that how to congratulate a senator from new hampshire he's usually eloquently was again today but the subject matter is not just eloquent it is critical in the state of tennessee there is a medical liability crisis especially for women who live in rural areas the fact of the matter is is the center of new hampshire has said women who live in rural areas don't have access to doctors for prenatal health care they don't have access to doctors to deliver their baby in two thousand and six forty five of tennessee's ninety five counties preg pregnant mothers had to drive for miles to get prenatal care or to deliver their babies in fifteen of those counties pregnant mothers have no access whatsoever to any dr frank bone said that we must not lose sight of the fact that one of the side effects of our current medical malpractise crisis in o b g y n is a steady loss of medical students who are choosing to practice one of our most important medical specialties if this decline continues patients having babies or needing high risk care will be faced with access problems this country has not yet seen the same stories true at the university of tennessee medical school in memphis on any given day there are more than one hundred  four thousand doctors applied for licenses to practice in texas o b g y n and other doctors are poor ing back into texas up thirty four percent from the previous year because of a change just like the one the senator from new hampshire has suggested i'm happy for texas but i'd like for tennessee and the rest of the country to experience the same thing senator gregg is exactly right to point up the medical crisis that is caused when women who live in rural counties can't offered on my behalf the first the first amendment madam president is three five five one this is an amendment that would add seventy four million dollars for the last three years the farm bill for agriculture research it land grant colleges or universities for langrigg colleges i stole that i stole the chair of the senator from new hampshire specifically it would mandatory funding for the initiative for future agriculture and food systems as follows twenty four million in fiscal year two thousand and ten twenty five in two thousand and eleven twenty five million in two thousand and twelve and it would be fully offset by striking section three o two of the farm bill tax title which basically says that taxpayers in california georgia and tennessee for example will pay for transmission lines for tat rate payers in north dakota and south dakota and other states who want to build transmission lines through rural areas primarily for wind energy mr president i'm here today to talk primarily about farm incomes secret weapon for farm incomes in the day in which we live which are the land grant universities of america i was state is a great land grant university i imagine the university of minnesota is a land grant university in minnesota i know that i was president of the university of tennessee which is our land grant university and i will confess to some bias i think i'm the only land grant university former president in the united states senate and why is that so important that i'm president earlier this year we unanimously passed after two years of work a bill we called america competes act what it did was recognize that america's brainpower advantage is what has given us our incredibly high standard of living in this last year our country the united states of america produced about thirty percent of all the wealth in the world for about five percent of the people that's our population and how did we do that well there variety of reasons but primarily since world war two we've taken our brainpower advantage to create new jobs that have given us that great high standard of living this amendment is about making sure that we take advantage of that in the agriculture community it will provide more competitive grants to our land grant universities so they can create value added agricultural products of which i have an example right back here congress recognize the importance of this brainpower advantage our land grant universities have when it authorized the one thousand nine hundred eight farm bill it created something called the initiative for future agriculture and food systems in addition to farm income this research was to be for future food production for environmental quality for natural resource management as well as i said as i said farm income here is a specific example here of the kind of value added opportunity i'm talking about there is a weed i guess people would call it call the y usually weed that grows out in the southwest but research that was done at the university of arizona led to the development of a non allergic latex product that's made from that plant that is just as useful as latex rubber for example for gloves that we use to work with but it doesn't cause allergic reactions as latex does in ten percent of our nation's healthcare workforce that's an example of the brain power advantage at the university of new mexico and at the university of tennessee are taking opportunities or sources of energy and is as ways to create containers at texas tech university the research that has come directly from the program that i described that was started in one thousand nine hundred eighty has led to the development of a less toxic version of the castor seed created by using genetic modifications this means that we can grow more castor oil here in this country and have instead of having to import it now one might might say well what's the big deal about castor oil it just tastes bad it's it's what you take when you're sick that's not not anymore on the defense department's critical needs list there on multiple uses for the military in terms of castor oil including lubricants and he saves pharmaceuticals waxes and polishes and lynx the senator from from from georgia and from iowa it will know very well the value added advantage to our country of all the products that have come from soybeans our great land grant universities have led the way to create these extra farm incomes these new jobs for our country there are seventy six land grant universities in america and during the two years where this program that was passed in one thousand nine hundred eighty worked well two thousand one into this grant program that i'm describing awarded one hundred eighty three different grants one granite least in every state and in the district of columbia so these land grant universities created in abraham lincoln's administration have been at the forefront of our this grant program that i'm describing which is which has a long name it's called the initiative for future agriculture and food system first when it was appropriated and the senator from georgia mentioned this to me the appropriators got for the money and they canceled the appropriation and then increased another account and earmarked the money for their favorite university that practiced off in two thousand and one and two and basically we went through a period where the research grants were awarded in the way they're supposed to be the way most of our research grants are awarded one reason our great higher education system works so well is because it's a large marketplace students may choose their school government money follows them to the institution of their choice public private nonprofit and the billions of dollars we spend on research to create jobs giving us the brainpower advantage is competitively awarded usually peer reviewed so in a couple of years that worked here for this program within the authorized look at what the appropriators is done and they said in effect well we're going to aramark some of this money to our favorite universities and that happened for a while and then in two thousand and five we got into a budget crunch and those trying to balance the budget said here's a place to get some money and they took the money that was dedicated for agricultural research and used it for the two thousand and five budget reconciliation so mr president only in two years since one thousand nine hundred eight has this excellent competitive gran program worked very well two thousand and one and two thousand and two now in the current house version of the farm bill that we're debating today they tried to put it back on track the first two years of the bill they appropriate the money to deal with budget deficit that was dealt with in two thousand and five but in the last three years they authorized excuse me the authorized money authorized money for this kind of research two hundred million dollars in each of two thousand and ten two thousand and eleven two thousand and twelve six hundred million amounts to about two tenths of one percent of the total cost of the house version of the farm bill the senate version unfortunately well fortunately in the first two years does pay the money to deal with the budget problem the decision that was made a few years ago but in the last three years during the time when the house put in six hundred million the senate puts in zero so my men would restore seventy four me of the six hundred million and in conference hopefully the conferees could decide that this is an important provision and sense of both houses had provided money we could put the program back on track how do we pay for it well by striking section three zero two from the tax side now section three o two of the tax cycle provides new tax breaks for  large transmission towers that transmit elektra city primarily from wind farms in remote and rural areas in my part of the country tennessee for example wind farms barely work at all because the wind doesn't blow but where they do work a little bit is up on top of some of our most scenic mountains so what the effect of this provision would be is to say we're going to give people who own the land and  ability not to pay income tax on the income they get from running these big transmission towers from the top of our scenic mountain tops all the way down to where the electric grid is mr president that's unnecessary in the first place because the provision as written is retroactive doesn't just apply to future deals that were made with landowners it seems to apply to current and existing dealers number two it provides tens of millions of dollars about fifty five million in my computation of new subsidies for wind and wind already is in my judgment and in the judgment of many others over subsidized in terms of an energy energy source of third and perhaps the largest objection is that transmission towers should be paid for by the utilities that build the transmission towers if the tennessee valley authority builds  transmission tower for whatever purpose those of us who buy our electricity from t v a lot of pay the bill we shouldn't send the bill to the colorado tox payer or to somebody who lives in southern georgia or someone who lives and i york and neither should they send their bills to us so i think it's inappropriate for all of those reasons to subsidize further the ability to build transmission lines primarily from wind farms to the grid what it tends to do is to create such extravagant subsidies for when that investors see an opportunity to make a lot of money and they build wind farms in places where the wind doesn't blow now that my sound to someone a ridiculous statement but we have one of those in the southeastern united states it happens to be in east tennessee it's a t v a experimental farm it up on top of buffalo mountain at thirty five hundred feet it ought to be a particularly good place for it you can see the big white towers in the flashing lights for twenty miles instead of seeing the mountain tops which we prefer to see and what does it do not much it costs sixty million dollars over twenty years for t v a right players just to pay somebody to provide this energy but during august when we're in a drought and we didn't turn our air conditioning on it was operating at about ten or fifteen percent of the time so there's a much better solution to the need for new electricity in our part of the world in many parts of america then to encourage investors through extravagant subsidies to build  huge transmission lines through rural areas to connect wind farms with grids that are a long way away if the market supports that sort of electricity subsidy let it support and that will usually mean that if you're going to build big wind farms you'll build them fairly close to the electric grid so you won't have to spend a million dollars a mile on a transmission line to mr president that's the first amendment we would take the seventy four million dollars from this unnecessary expenditure that causes people to pay in one part of the country to use their tax dollars to pay for what should be an electric right payers bill in another part of the country gives an unnecessary incomes mr president i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record the number of groups who support my amendment to to to support research is land grant universities they include c the national association of state universities and land grant colleges national coalition for food and agriculture research national association of wheat growers national cattlemen's beef association coalition for funding agriculture research missions the american society for nutrition the council of scientific society president they support both this idea and  there are a number of other groups who support this kind of funding but are silent on amendment number three five five one without objection thank you now mr president i would like to talk about a second much time do i have remaining the senator has used eighteen minutes please let me know in their five minutes if mr president here's my second amendment it's amendment number three five five three and i say it with all respect to the senator from colorado because he and i have discussed this and i'm sure he'll have more to say about it but here's what this amendment is about and let's let's show the other chart of we can you can please the question here is whether every member of this body and i hope a lot of senators are watching or their staffs are watching because they will do you want to help your senator if you're a staff member go home and explain where you may live in america why you took four thousand dollars of their tax money and gave it to their neighbor to build a twelve story tower in that neighbor's front yard with a flashing red light on top tax credit now i would ask those who can see this picture whether they would consider this tower here an example of a small wind turbine i think you can see the large crane by it you can see the telephone pole by and imagine whether that is in your neighborhood in the front yard of your neighbor what the proposal in the bill as reported say is that a small wind tax credit would give you up to four thousand dollars toward building a hundred toward building a turban of up to one hundred kilowatts that is a one hundred kilowatt winter now you might build a smaller one and the cost would go would pay more for that four thousand dollars would pay about thirty percent of the cost of a point five kilowatt turban or thirty percent the cost of a one kilowatt turban or or it might pay for twenty seven percent of the cost of a two point five kilowatt turban but you could build one that big with taxpayer with taxpayer funds under the provisions of this bill and i'd like to ask my colleagues to think about whether they really think that's an appropriate use of tax money my view is the puny amount of electricity produced by these winter is not worth ruining the character of our neighborhood so what my men want would do is simply say this is a farm bill and of the members of this body in this congress wa subsidize the building of twelve story white towers in rural areas or farms and businesses then deal with that in a farm but don't allow that to go into residential neighborhoods across america which the bill is presently written does now when i say a puny amount of electricity water by mean by that well according to the joint committee on taxation which as examined this provision of the proposed farm bill it would encourage the building of twelve megawatts of electricity now electrical generators are have something called rated capacity and americans are beginning to understand that nuclear power is the way you deal with climate change if you're really serious about it because they produce eleven or twelve hundred megawatts of power at ninety two percent of the time and that is clean power that has no nitrogen no sulfur no mercury and it has no carbon nuclear power produces twenty percent of our electricity and eighty percent of our carbon free electricity but the idea here is that by putting twelve story towers or up to twelve story towers in our neighbors are our neighbors putting them in their front yard or we in our front yard that we could produce under this proposal an estimated twelve megawatts of electricity now probably turbines like that would operate twenty twenty five thirty percent of the time so it wouldn't be twelve electricity be three or four megawatts of electricity two tenths of one percent of the energy from a nuclear reactor six percent of the energy from a single coal plant mr president my appeal is that we respectfully use our common sense as we think about how to deal with the various challenges we have with clean air with climate change with our need for energy and common sense does not say we ought to subsidize the building of twelve story towns up to twelve story towers in our front yards for example we get a much better bang for the buck five million dollars is what is estimated to be spent we simply bought energy efficient light bulbs and gave them to our neighbors that would save spending five million dollars on two dollar energy efficient light bulbs would save eight times the electricity generated by these quote small wind turbines so why should we ruin the character of our neighborhoods when we could do eight times as much good with the same amount of money by changing our li that would be common sense now mr president i'm very much aware of the concern about climate change i was one of the ever since i've been a member of this but i have had legislation in in the senate first with senator carper then with senator lieberman to establish caps on on on utilities which produce a third of all the carbon in the country and that legislation which i produced with those two senators over the last five years also would establish more aggressive standards for nitrogen in mercury and sulfur then the administration  does in addition to that last week when we were debating climate change the environmental committee adopted my proposal for a low carbon fuel standard to which i believe would be one of the most effective ways probably the most effective ways to reduce quickly the amount of carbon in the fuel we use and in the last congress i was the principal sponsor of the solar energy tax credit so i like most americans and looking for way for us to continue to power our huge economy but do it in a clean way but i would make a plea for common sense while we do this i suppose it would be possible for us to give four thousand dollars to a homeowner and say build a big bon fire in your backyard and then we'll give you some more money to sequester the carbon and bury it under the ground that would be possible but would it make common sense no it wouldn't make common sense there are better ways to use the money why would we destroy the environment to save the environment which is precisely what we're doing in residential neighborhoods with this so i regret that this proposal not that it allows farm families and farm businesses a small subs to build large wind turbines i regret that we would extend that to residential neighborhoods at the same time and mr president let me say something else about about the number of subsidies religion instead looking carefully at whether we should use more efficient light bulbs or smart meters on our utilities or solar panels sen has used the twenty six minutes  i thank you for that i believe i have no limit on my time time correct the senators correct i'll speak a few more a few more minutes or efficient appliances or green buildings a whole variety of things that we can do is as a country to to to to be green  instead of doing that i think we've gone overboard on on the idea of wind and let me give you a couple of examples of of that i there are a great many subsidies already in existence for when the biggest of course is the renewable production tax credit through that renewable production tax credit according to the joint committee on taxation the united states taxpayer will spend a levon point five billion dollars on wind energy over the next ten years now let me let me say that again the united states taxpayer is committed through the existing electricity production tax credit to spend eleven and a half billion dollars on when energy over the next ten years that doesn't count the value of various other federal state and local subsidies for when they're the clean renewable energy bonds to help build the winter their department of energy gran incentive programs their department of alg agricultural nubile energy and energy efficiency grants and loans there are various state subsidies for when texas is appropriating billions of dollars for transmission lines for wind that's their decision to do this so it's not as if this were a form of energy which lacked support and i'm afraid the result of this is that the extravagant subsidies for wind are causing people to build wind farms and to use wind where their wives wouldn't and our testimony before the environmental public works committee recently one utility manager from oklahoma was there he says he's tripling the amount of when they're using i said well why are you doing that can you use it is baseload that is can you use it as reliable power you can use all day long he said oh no we can't use it for that we can only use it when the wind blows and i said well can you use it peaking power and he said oh no we can't use it for that because the peaking power the busiest time of the day or the year might come when the wind's not blowing as it were then why are you doing it he said to make the regulators said so we're not letting the market decide where we've got obsessed with the idea that this needs to be done and how big is that obsession i think most senators would be surprised to learn that by the fiscal year two thousand and nine the renewable electricity production tax credit will be the single largest expenditure for energy one point nine billion of that in two thousand and nine would go for all renewable sources but one point three billion would be for when we hear a lot about oil and gas and the subsidies for oil and gas the united states and one might think that would be true since we have this massive economy and we use about twenty five percent of all the oil and gas in the world but according to figures from the joint tax committee and perhaps perhaps somebody will point out the joint tax committee is wrong but this is what they say in the year two thousand and nine the subsidies for oil and gas tax expenditures will be two point seven billion dollars from the taxpayers the production tax credit for wind will be one point three billion wind one point three zero and gas two point seven the reason i mention that is because of the disproportionate relationship between the value of oil and gas to this economy that uses twenty five percent of all of it in the world and the amount of electricity produced by win in two thousand and six when energy produced point seven of one percent of the electricity we consumed in the united states yet it's the largest single energy expenditure by the taxpayer in the country something is wrong with it and the energy information administration estimates that by the year two thousand and twenty after we spent presumably tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for large wind turbines in your front yard in your backyard in your side yard in your national forests along your beaches on your most scenic mountain tops after you've done all that according to the energy information administration wind is projected to produce about one percent of our electricity needs now i will say i'm skeptical of that figure i think the energy it managed energy information administration is too conservative it might be two percent it might be three percent maybe it's four percent but should the largest energy expenditure be to encourage the building of such towers or should we be spending our money in different ways we have other ways to produce electricity forty nine percent of our electricity is produced by coal would it be wiser to spend money in finding a way to sequester that call perhaps through algae enzymes so that we can use it and reduce our dependence on foreign oil i think it would but the largest single energy expenditure is for wind twenty percent of our electricity is produced by nuclear power eighty percent of our in my view if we're serious about climate change in this generation climate change is an inconvenient truth the inconvenient solution is nuclear power and conservation but the largest single energy expenditure is for a large winter hydro power is clean as well it's only about seven percent of the electricity united states it'll drop a little by two thousand and twenty but wouldn't there be ways to encourage that as well so mr president it may be said that this is only a small matter it's only five million dollars but it won't be a small matter in residential neighborhoods in knoxville and denver and los angeles all across this country when a neighbor comes in and says i just got four thousand dollars of your tax money and i'm going to put up a twelve story white tower with a blinking red light on top because i want to do what i can for climate change i think the proper answer is to say that's not the most common sense thing we can do there are many ways that we can conserve efficient light bulbs would do eight times as much then this proposal would so why don't we do that why don't we do that instead and if you think that this is not going to happen in your neighborhood i ask mr president in animas consent to place in the record following my remarks a story from c n n dot com about neighbors in atlanta who are already squabbling about someone who's built a wind turbine in their front yard in a historic neighborhood makes no difference that the wind doesn't blow very much in atlanta the neighbor is just making a statement and that's the kind of thing that this will encourage i ask unanimous consent complete to put that in the record without objection so mr present it would be my hope that this it would be accepted by the senate the effect of it would be to leave  s up to a four thousand dollars support for building a tower that could be as large as that one in rural areas or for rural business that would still be in place under what would not be in place is the ability to use that in a residential neighborhood and the amendment would also make clear that nothing we're doing here in this legislation preempt any local decision about the kind of decisions people wi as i said earlier i'm for caps on utilities i'm the sponsor of the solar credit i'm for cleaner air more aggressively than the administration has  been i'm ready to to use smart meters i'm ready to try geothermal almost anything the low carbon fuel standard but i hope that we'll use common sense and common sense says to me with all respect mr president that we should not encourage using other people's tax money your neighbor to build up to a twelve story white tower in his front yard as a solution to the current concern about climate change there are other better ways to do it starting with efficient light bulbs other ways that make much more common sense i thank the chair  senator from wyoming thank you mr president mr president agriculture is one of the most trusted respected and revered ways of life in america it is the farmers and the ranchers who feed this country wyoming agriculture is a billion dollar industry and livestock producers are at the heart of our state's prosperity i'm privileged mr president to represent more than ninety one hundred farm and ranch operations in the state of wyoming that is why i fight every day to ensure that our farm and our ranch businesses continue to thrive this generation of farmers and ranchers faces more challenges than our parents ever did we need agriculture policy that adapts to this changing world frankly mr president following the same old farm bill paradigm is not getting us there agriculture is critical to wyoming we produce over a billion dollars of agricultural products each year agriculture provides more than ten percent of the jobs in our state i am coming to this debate with a real interest in seeing american agriculture succeed and to do that we need to change our thinking and change our policy i commend the senate agriculture committee for producing bipartisan legislation that addresses the important issues of conservation  development and of agriculture disaster but let's not forget mr president this bill also carries a huge price tag and let's not forget that cost is for programs targeted at the old ways of agriculture i believe we need to spend our taxpayer dollars wisely we should focus our efforts on smart growth in agriculture we should sunset those programs those programs of the past the programs that failed to address the real issues facing agriculture today i support conservation programs i believe that providing incentives for farmers and ranchers to make improvements to their operations and to benefit the environment but both of those serves all of our interests in wyoming we've seen smart growth spurred by conservation programs wyoming producers have implemented almost three thousand environmental quality incentive program contracts over the past five years we've protected over thirty four thousand acres in our state through the grassland reserve program conservation programs provided for in this farm bill will continue the real on the ground results that we have seen in wyoming our conservation policies should give incentives to ranchers incentives that will help ranchers to operate at maximum efficiency and promote good business and a healthy environment i support business friendly policies that help our farmers and ranchers succeed in marketing their products it is a victory that this bill contains meaningful implementation guidelines for country of origin labeling we raise exceptional beef and exceptional lamb in this country our producers deserve the opportunity to label their product born and raised in the usa consumers demand it and they will buy it i'm also pleased that this farm bill will end the prohibition on the shipment of wyoming beef and lamb products to other states our state inspection program is more stringent than federal programs and yet we have faced a limit on our product for years i'm very pleased that this farm bill will change that eliminating this restriction will help spur new small business opportunities for all i hope to see more livestock competition reforms included in this farm bill and addition i've offered an amendment promoting veterinary research this amendment authorizes the minor use animal drug program this amendment helps the american sheep industry be competitive in the world market i'm proud to sponsor it on behalf of wyoming's nine hundred sheep producers and i am pleased that the bill's sponsors have included this amendment in the manager package animal disease research is of the utmost importance in wyoming our rugged lamps landscape is a real challenge to ranchers trying to keep their livestock healthy to meet this need i have co sponsored an amendment along with my neighbors from montana and idaho to promote brucellosis and pasteurella research i hope my colleagues will join us in support of this much needed work one of the amendments that we are likely to consider on this legislation would expand the renewable fuel standard enacted in two thousand and five this expansion is concerning both to wyoming and livestock users and two wyoming's energy producers i am troubled by the food vs fuel debate when we use so much corn to make ethanol there is less corn to feed our cattle the price of corn is rising and ranchers are struggling to keep their businesses profitable mr president this afternoon you and i attended a meeting of the energy committee we heard testimony from pat o'toole of former wyoming legislator and a ranch from savory wyoming he told the committee that as he was testifying his wife was driving a truck along i eighty in southern wyoming a truck of corn and the corn this year cost twice as much as it  year mr president i strongly support policies the advent that advanced the development of alternative and renewable energy solar energy wind geothermal coal to liquids biofuels we need all of the energy but we cannot forget the cost mr president if we trade food for fuel there is a great opportunity before this congress to meet the changing needs of agriculture we need to set a standard that improves our industry for the future that's why the people of wyoming want to see farm policies that use common sense let's put an end to farm policies that are outdated let us embrace the agricultur markets of today and of tomorrow now we can do this with on the ground conservation programs this farm bill can provide profit incentives and market based agricultural research that's what the american farmers and american ranchers deserve it's also what american taxpayers deserve i want to thank my colleagues for the hard work that's going into this bill i now mister president call the united states sen make real commonsense reforms for american agriculture thank you mr president energy security act and to thank one more time my our leader senator harkin and his partner in this senator chambliss for their their leadership and great work and for all of the support of the committee in bringing forward a unanimous bill bipartisan bill and i specifically today will want to touch briefly and two amendments that have been proposed by my good friend from new hampshire and i really do mean that somebody who i enjoy working with very much although i must rise to oppose him on an amendment dealing with the asparagus growers of this country and just as a background to this the u s asparagus industry was and continues to be economically injured unfortunately by an agreement back in one nine hundred ninety the andean trade preferences act which extended duty free status to imports of fresh peruvian asparagus this particular agreement eliminated the tariffs on a wide variety of products including asparagus coming into this country and unlike most trade agreements a t p a provided no transition period for american growers to allow our producers to prepare or adapt to an unlimited quantity of peruvian asparagus coming in with zero tariff as zero tariff and the recently approved proven trade promotion agreement actually  that particular situation for american asparagus growers following the enactment of this original agreement in one nine hundred ninety imports for process asparagus products surged twenty four hundred percent into the united states from five hundred thousand pounds of asparagus in one thousand nine hundred to over twelve million pounds zero tariff coming into the united states to compete  losing acreage losing their farms being placed in a very difficult situation very difficult situation economically michigan asparagus acreage has dropped from fifteen thousand five hundred acres in one thousand nine hundred one to twelve thousand five hundred acres in two thousand and six in washington state asparagus decrease from thirty one thousand acres to ninety three hundred acres and the value of washington asparagus in one nine hundred ninety was approximately two hundred million dollars the present value is seventy five million this is a huge drop for any in the area of american agriculture this is a huge drop and has created great hardship for our asparagus growers asparagus acreage in california decrease from thirty six thousand acres to twenty two thousand five hundred so what we have in this bill is some small effort to help those growers who found themselves because as of our policy our trade policy in an immediate situation of facing an unlimited supply was scarce coming with no tariff and no ability to have any kind of a transition and unlike other areas been hit by trade they didn't qualify for a trade adjustment assistance so the asparagus market loss program is a small relatively small compared to other parts of this farm bill is a fifteen million dollar effort that is critically important to compensate american growers across the country for the loss to this industry that resulted from the a t p a this program is based on a similar market loss program for apples and onions back in two thousand and two where cheap chinese imports harmed those american growers and that program provided ninety four million dollars for apple growers and i might add to my friend the author of this amendment that the state of new hampshire received over one million dollars from this particular market loss program for apples that was done in two thousand and two so what we're doing is patterning this very saying this program after the very same marketing last program that helped our apple growers market last funds will be used to offset costs for american asparagus producers to plant new anchorage invest in more efficient planting and harvesting equipment and it's a very small fraction of in fact what they have incurred a curse incurred as well ate a industry that has received dramatic losses as a result of our federal trade policy i might also and in different note senator gregg has offered an amendment that in fact is a reflection of a bill that i've introduced regarding the mortgage industry and senator george voinovich is my republican co sponsor and we have a number of colleagues that have joined us in this and i certainly support the intent of that amendment i know that the it is the intent there is a strong understanding and support coming from the chairman of the finance committee about the need to make sure that people who find themselves losing their home because of a a foreclosure situation or a short sale or some other situation regarding the housing crisis that they don't also end up with a big tax bill after possibly losing their home i know that there is a commitment from the finance committee of which i'm a member to address this and in fact make sure that people do not in depth with this tax liability the real question is how we do this in terms of this particular amendment certainly substantively i support it but the farm bill will not be done before the end of this year and if we don't have something in place by the end of this year people who have found themselves in the middle of the mortgage crisis with this kind of an unforseen tax liability will have an additional tax bill and i know it's our desire not to have that happen and it would be a real tragedy in fact that did happen so i know we have to work out what will happen on that amendment but certainly i think there's very broad support for the substance of it is a question of whether or not we are able to get relief to people quickly enough the farm bill will not be done and passed into law by the end of the year and we need to have that provision done by the end of the year and so i know i know that the finance committee leadership is making determinations about the best way to approach this but certainly i appreciate the issue being raised because no one wants to see someone who has found themselves in a potential situation of losing their homes that are on their home going into foreclosure or some kind of a refinancing for less than the mortgage price to find themselves also in a situation where they have a new tax bill that certainly is no one's intent and damn please the white house is supporting our legislation to fix this the house has in fact acted as well and we had sent a bill to us to address this and it's my hope sincere hope and urgent hope that we will have this done by the end of the this year rather than placing this policy into the farm bill because if there's a sense of urgency about getting this done right now so thank you mr president president first on behalf of you mr president senator salazar i ask unanimous consent that ben brown of fellow in senator salazar office be allowed floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the farm bill without objection  agriculture committee for the work we're doing on the farm bill i'm excited that it's moving ahead of you know i am hopeful that we will get some more reform in the bill including my amendment to make sure that the hardworking farmers in this country are at the receiving end of the help from the farm bill as opposed to multimillionaires from across this country and i was to debating that in the next few days mr president i'm here to talk about another topic and that is that across minnesota and across the country families are making their annual trips to stores into malls for their holiday presents kids are making their wish list i know my daughter has her own and parents are combing the ads for the best prices but this year parents are thinking about something a little more than the price a little more than the wish with they are also wondering if the toys that they're buying are safe and in fact mr president just this weekend i visited morehead minnesota in twenty below zero weather and i can tell you there were a number of parents who turned out as well as people who work in this area to talk about their concerns about safety as they just told me they are just shocked that in this day and age that we have these toxic toys on our shores in our stores and then we just got to put an end to it this year almost twenty nine million toys and pieces of children's jewelry have been recalled because they were found to be dangerous and in some cases deadly for children in many cases the reason for these recalls have been truly horrific i mean who would believe that a parent would buy some aqua dots a very popular toy for their children and find out the child swallowed these little dots which normally you would think wouldn't become a disaster but in fact that this toy had morphed into the date rape drug and put their child into a coma that's what happened in this country another nine million toys have been recalled this year for containing toxic levels of lead the lead levels in these toys can lead to developmental delays brain damage and even death if swallowed as a mom and as a former prosecutor and now as a u s senator i find it totally acceptable that these toys are in our country as my twelve year old daughter said when her favorite barbies were recalled mom this is really getting serious it is clear that the current system we have in place to ensure the safety of products for our most vulnerable consumers our children is broken it needs to be fixed and we need to fix it now the senate commerce committee which i serve has taken strong action to stem the tide of these recalls the consumer product safety commission reform act of two thousand and seven which was passed by the commerce committee under the leadership of chairman inouye and chairman pryor and with my help as well as the help of senator bill nelson and senator durbin represents some of the most sweeping reforms that we have seen in fifteen years for the consumer product safety commission the bill would finally take the lead out of children's products as stablish real third party verification simplify the recall process and make it illegal to sell a recalled product it also gives this long forgotten agency the resources that it needs to protect our children the recent actions by the commerce committee sent to the senate for an opportunity to reform our consumer protection laws and effectively ban lead from kids products i am hopeful that we will act quickly that we will work out any details that need to be worked out and that when we had turn for the holidays this reform will be passed the focus is simple we need to make sure that there is a clear mandatory standards not just voluntary not just a guideline but with the force of law i think it's shocking for most parents that when they realize that they're of never been a mandatory ban on lead in children's products instead we have this voluntary guideline that involves a bunch of red tape that makes it hard to enforce and as millions of toys are being pulled from the store shelves for fear of le contamination it is time to make crystal clear that lead is no place in kids toys the need for this ban was crystallized for me in minnesota when the little four year old boy journo brown got a pair of tennis shoes and a store in our state with a pair of shoes came a little charm and this little boy was playing with a charm and he swallowed it and he didn't die from choking or from some kind of blockage of his airways no he died  in that shot the lead that should have never been in that charm went into his bloodstream over a period of days and when they tested that charm mr president it was ninety nine percent lead it came from china and this little boy died what is most tragic about this death is that it could have been prevented he should never have been given that toy in the first place it shouldn't take a child's death mr president to alert us that we need to do something about this in this country the legislation that i originally introduced to address this problem is included in our bill there's a lead standard in the bill that affectively bans lead allowing for trace levels for jewelry and allowing for some trace levels for toys for thirty years we have been aware of the dangers posed to children by lead the science is clear it's undisputed that lead poisons kids and it should have been taken this long to figure that out we know it and now we can do something about in the eighty's and here we have billions of dollars of unregulated toys coming in from this country and there have been no response from his agency no request for a big increase nothing and meanwhile these toys are coming on to our shores the inspection effort for toys at the consumer product safety commission is led by a man named bob and he's an office that's kind of messy in the back of the c p s see and he's retiring at the end of this year we need to get inspectors in the field we need to give this agency the tools it needs to do its job the legislation sitting before the senate today goes a long way in modernizing the commission the legislation more than doubled the c p s these budget by the year two thousand and fifteen something we wish that c p s see has asked for it so we went ahead and did it ourselves the c p s the reform act will make it actually illegal to sell a recall toys finally taking action against those bad actors out there who are knowingly leaving we called products on their shelves and i do at this moment want to take a moment to thank some of the retailers who have worked with us on this bill toys r us the c e o of toys r us  testified we work with target a minnesota company and they want to get some legislation passed and they want to actually increase the budget of this agency so there can be more inspection this bill will also and this is a piece of the bill that i worked on will make it easier for parents to identify toys when they are recalls now i got to tell you most parents when they get their toys and they open them up maybe on christmas morning their child they don't keep the packaging my mother in law keeps the packaging but most other people don't so you have this packaging and then you have the toy and what we've say in this bill is the batch number should be on the toy it's practical you can't do it on pick up sticks you can do it on a foot of a barbie on sponge bob square pants so that when a parent hears about a recall we know there's some more to come we hope that was will level off very soon but we know there's more to come that the parent can actually figure out which toy to throw out and which toys they can keep in their toy box this is just a good practical way form that everyone has agreed to the other piece of this is that the badge number should be on the packaging that's because unlike some of the big retailers who it's easy for them to pull these recalled toys from their shelves into the zero him out on their computer system some people buy toys on e bay they buy him at garage sales and that's why we think it's very important that these toy numbers be on the actual packaging as well and the torn we've seen two men and headlines this year to sit around and think that this problem is going to solve itself as a senator i feel strongly that it's important to take this step to protect the safety of our children when i think of that four little little four year old boy's parents back in minnesota and you think about all those other children who've been hurt by these toys the one that just went into a coma over the date rape drug these are just little kids and we can do better in this country we can put the rules in place and make it easier for them to do their job we can't just sit around the moaning the results anymore we have to act we have the opportunity we must pass this bill before we go home for recess and with that mr president i object what is the nature of this amendment this is an amendment that will all be what the gregg a member does is take five point one billion dollars from agricultural disaster assistance for farmers and it puts nine hundred twenty four million dollars into light what my amendment does is put nine hundred twenty four million dollars into liking but does not affect the agriculture disaster assistance  it is a second degree to integrate like a degree yes and i do not object without objection mr president i come from a state where the weather gets twenty thirty the clerk will report the center from vermont mr sanders proposes an m m a number thirty eight twenty six two m m a number thirty eight twenty two in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted in france and i ask unanimous consent that the members be considered as read without objection mr president as i mentioned a moment ago i come from a state like many others here in the senate where the weather gets cold sometimes twenty or thirty below zero when i come from a state is many of the members do  where many folks are finding it extremely difficult this year to be paying for their home heating fuel costs because as we all know costs are soaring and it is not unusual that when i walk the streets of burlington vermont or other towns in the state of vermont people like us appalled and frightened about the rapidly escalating cost of home heating oil and they are in need of help and i think as you know mr president the law he program has been an enormously successful program in providing help to many many americans in paying their heating bills especially to senior citizens so what this amendment would do it all talk at greater length about it tomorrow is provide nine hundred in twenty four million dollars in increased ly he funding because we need that funding now we need to see like he significantly increase beyond where it is right now if for no other reason than to simply keep pace with the outrageous increased in costs for home heating further it is my view and why i'm offering this amendment that it is wrong to be cutting into the agricultural disaster assistance for farmers there are unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendments so that i can call up an amendment that i sent to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration is your objection the senator from georgia  hike and i worked very diligently over the last four weeks to get to the point to where we are today and i went to this list down to twenty amendments on each side and then if we make an exception on one set obviously i have a lot of folks who would like to have a in general about the farm bill which we are debating more correctly called the food and energy security act of two thousand and seven and also to speak about some of the amendments that have been proposed to it this legislation is an essential piece of legislation and i'm proud to have been part of the both committees actually that have brought the separate parts of this legislation forward and to have been able to work together in a bipartisan fashion to craft a a bill in the senate that i believe very effectively addresses the food and fiber needs of our nation as we move forward this legislation impacts the lives of families across this nation and around the world through providing food security enabling global competitiveness and ensuring a better environment i've been pleased to work with my colleagues on the senate agriculture committee and the senate finance committee and others in congress to craft a bill that builds upon previous farm bills for a stronger federal farm policy the legislation includes includes essential provisions such as the new specialty crops subtitle that strength strengthens the specialty crop blood grants and other important programs and i want to thank senator stabenow and senator craig for working with me and others on this effort i also want to thank the committee for its commitment to helping us be sure that these new specialty crops provisions have been included in the legislation there has been some confusion because although we have included specialty crops this year in the legislation they have not been included as what we traditionally call a commodity crop they have not been included in those crops that are covered by the commodity  programs instead they are included in ways that will help them to obtain better technical assistance and grant programs so that they can facilitate and enhance their development there the growing of these crops and the marketing of these crops but they don't technically under this bill in fact in any way participate in the commodity programs i also want to thank chairman baucus and ranking member grassley on the finance committee in helping to craft a tax title for this farm bill that in addition to its many other strong provisions includes improvements to the endangered species act through tax incentives for land owners to help them with species recovery this is a piece of legislation that both senator senator grassley have agreed to co sponsor with me as well as many other senators both republicans and democrats in the senate it's one that we've worked on for years now to try to find a a bipartisan path forward where those who are concerned about the preservation and recovery of species as well as those who are concerned about the impacts of our efforts on private property owners can come together with a proposal that will help us to facilitate the recovery of endangered species one little known fact is that over eighty percent or approximately eighty percent of threatened or endangered species in the united states are located on private property it's critical that we insist and incentivize private property we bring forward the assistance of private property owners and we incentivize their involvement in the recovery of these threatened and endangered species and that's what this legislation  i would like to take some time to talk more about other important aspects of the farm bill and some of the changes that are being proposed in order to do so i want to kind of explain what many people don't really understand when we talk about the farm bill we often discuss the farm bill as though it were a bill that focused on production agriculture and certainly it does the commodity title that i just referenced in the conservation title that i will reference in a minute both focus very closely on production agriculture but not solely on it what is often noticed or goes unnoticed in these debates is that the farm bill is a very broad bill that deals with and multitude of critical issues in our nation relating to the production of food and fib it has eleven titles titles on commodities and conservation as i have indicated it has titles on trade nutrition on rural development on credit on research forestry energy livestock and then other miscellaneous provisions and one other little known or little focused on fact relating to the farm bill is that the commodity title which is what we most often talk about represents only fourteen percent of the funding allocated in the bill the conservation title which is another one of those titles we talk about a lot only represents about nine percent of the funding in the bill the nutrition portion of the farm bill includes almost two thirds in fact a little bit over two thirds of the funding in the bill sixty seven point two percent of the funding in this bill is allocated to the nutrition programs and i'll talk a little bit about those as well as i go forward my point is that this is a very broad based bill it's one which impacts rural and urban areas it's one which deals with the importance of food and fiber in many different contexts from feeding a nation and clothing a nation to engaging  international trade to our security as a nation and to many other aspects of our lives and as i said earlier it literally impacts people not only throughout this country but throughout the world let me move and talk about just a couple of those titles now mr president and the first one i'll go to is the commodity program and the commodity title i'm concerned with efforts that have been introduced in some of the amendments to the bill on the floor that would lower selected loan rates including the rates for barley and honey to reduce them from the levels we have established in the bill back down to the two thousand and two farm bill levels and then to divert the funding saved by that reduction into the nutrition title and other titles of the bill i certainly understand and do not question the importance of our nutrition nutrition programs and other programs being targeted for this diverted funding but it's important to note that under this farm bill nutrition funding as i said already accounts for over two thirds of the funding in the bill with only fourteen percent allocated to commodities much work has been done in this farm bill to try to provide adequate support for farm families across our nation while carefully balancing the limited funding available to each title of the bill additionally adjustments or corrections have been made to the loan rates to better ensure that the loan rates do not distort planting decisions and that is very critical in our world trade organization negotiations under the two thousand and seven farm bill we have raised established in a way that will assist us in our global trade negotiations specifically the adjustments  senate bill increased the loan rates for wheat barley oats and miner oilseeds to eighty five percent of the olympic average for prices between two thousand and two and two thousand and six now for someone who doesn't pay attention to what all that means the bottom line is that it is important as we move forward in our commodity program that we not establish programs that distort planting decisions by farmers otherwise we will be accused of improper subsidy or improper trade  impacting decisions and policies that will be challenged in the world trade negotiation arenas loan rates for crops that compete for acres must be set at similar percentages of recent market prices or they can affect production decisions when prices are expected to be near or loan low levels near or below loan levels farmers and their lenders take price support from the loan program into consideration in making planning decisions and current loan rates under the two thousand and two farm bill were heavily skewed in favor of and against different crops ranging from sixty nine percent to one hundred eleven percent of the olympic average during the years two thousand two through two thousand and six it is these variations that create plant planting decision distortions that we need to avoid efforts to strike the changes that we've made and to divert funding will prolong this existing disparity in the current farm bill a policy which has been a factor in the loss of wheat barley oats and minor oilseeds to increased production in other commodities our producers work to feed our country and people of nations across the world while also dealing with high levels of regulation and taxation labor shortages drought and other natural disasters and ever increasing input costs substantial foreign market barriers and other factors that put them at a disobey adage in a very very competitive world market we've got to ensure that our farm families have the necessary support as they continue to work to remain successful while factoring in and facing these increased challenges and i ask our other senators in this chamber to stand with me in supporting this careful balance that we've reached in the farm bill and vote against amendments or other efforts to eliminate the loan rate rebalancing and other commodity program support mr president i also want to talk about the commodity title the importance of support as amendments are being considered to strike portions of the farm bill i rise today to discuss the history and importance of support for pulse crops in this farm bill pulls crops are cool season lagoons that can withstand the cool temperatures of the northern tier of the united states they include such things as dried peas lentils small chickpeas and large chickpeas these cool season nitrogen fixing lagoons are grown across the northern tier of the united states in rotation with wheat barley and other minor oil seeds in the late  ninety s when agriculture prices for commodities struggled bankers steered growers away from raising poles crops because they did not have the farm program safety net that was provided to other crops in their rotation in  ninety dropped by fifty five percent the pulse industry responded by requesting full program crop status for post crops as a way to keep these nitrogen fixing lagoons in the crop rotation with other program crops again as we work with issues in the previous farm bill this was an area that clearly needed adjustment and attention in two thousand and two i worked with other members of congress to include small chickpeas in the two thousand and two farm bill the citizens of our country demand that our farm programs protect the long term sustainability of our agriculture production and generate their own nitrogen requiring no processed or to produce a cr p nitrogen in the soil which supplies of pounds per acre nitrogen credit to the following crop in the rotation such as barley and other oil seeds the post crops and soybeans are the only farm program crops that did not require nitrogen fertilizer the carbon footprint of soybeans is lower than any other farm program because of their ability to generate their own nitrogen the farm bill provides us with the opportunity to encourage our nation's farmers to protect the long term sustainability of our soils including programs provides a safety net equal to the other program crops and therefore encourages diversity and sustainability once again it's an issue of favoring one crop over another with the unintended consequences of the impact on a soils of our nation stripping pulls crops out of the farm programs as some are proposing would encourage farmers in the northern tier to shift production to those crops with the safety net in periods of low prices this shift in production would upset the delicate environmental balance that provide to overall soil health and sustainability and would result in acreage loss i encourage my fellow senators to oppose the amendments that would strip traps and support for them from the farm bill now let me shift for just a moment to the conservation title mr president as a ranking member of the subcommittee on rural revitalization conservation and forestry i'd like to take a few minutes to evaluate and discuss the critical importance of the conservation titles the programs us authorized through the conservation title of the farm bill provide landowners with both the financial and the technical assistance necessary to bring real environmental results in fact i have said many times that of all the legislation that we consider in these chambers year in and year out it is the farm bill that provides the most significant protection and support of our environment than any other legislation that we consider conservation programs are the backbone of the federal conservation environmental policy the farm bill we have before us provides four point four billion dollars in new conservation spending the legislation builds on current successful conservation programs and needed enhancements to make them work better for our producers it provides one point two eight billion in new spending for the program name the conservation stewardship program funding is provided for continuation of the wetlands reserve program the grasslands reserve program the wetlands reserve program would be provide d with funds to enroll two hundred fifty thousand new acres per year through two thousand and twelve and the grasslands reserve program would have sufficient resources to work in a similar fashion from two thousand and eight through two thousand twelve as fiscal year two thousand as of fiscal year two thousand and six more than nine thousand wetland reserve sites have been rolled and improved on more than one million acres of land in the united states there are more than  hundred thousand acres enrolled in the grasslands reserve program providing habitat for more than three hundred migratory bird species who rely on this prairie habitat the conservation reserve program would be maintained at its thirty nine point two  of this program has reduced cropland soil by about four hundred fifty million tons it's restored two million acres of wetlands protected one hundred seventy thousand miles of streams and sequestered forty eight million of carbon dioxide through two thousand and six the wildlife habitat incentives program would be continued with eighty five million dollars per year through the year two thousand and twelve the farmland in ranch lands protection program would also be authorized at ninety seven million dollars per year easements on nearly two thousand farms and ranches have been unable through this program it's estimated that three hundred eighty three thousand almost three hundred eighty four thousand acres of prime unique and important farmland soil on the urban french have been or will be permanently protected from convert from conversion to non agriculture uses with these easements these are just some of the programs that are included in the conservation title of the farm bill i understand and share the interest of many who want to increase funding for conservation programs and as a strong supporter of proponent of these programs i believe we will all benefit from these investments in conservation however i think we should be very careful where we look to obtain these funding increases a strong farm bill is one that carefully balances each of the titles as i've indicated before i've indicated that the nutrition title represents almost or little more than two thirds of the funding in the bill nutrition in our schools remains an issue of critical importance for all americans as a father i understand the positive effects that good nutrition has in helping a child develop and learn throughout the course of the school day in addition i am troubled by the fact that the percentage of overweight young americans has more than doubled in the past thirty years i've been a strong proponent of programs that increase access to healthy foods for our children in schools example is the fresh fruit and vegetable program the farm bill would expand existing unlimited this existing limited program to every state in the united states and the district of columbia would require that at least one hundred of the chosen person participating schools be located on indian reservations i applaud the members of the senate ag committee for working toward these commonsense solutions and programs to support positive steps in nutrition for our children and to others across our nation but as i said earlier i also must express my concerns with proposals that seek to regulate food and beverage choices in schools from the federal level i'm wary of federal policies that interfere with the local autonomy of state and local schools in this manner in addition studies have shown that parents and educators need to work with our youth to educate them about the right choices they can make for dietary help the best way to get a child to do something different is to tell them they can't do it sometimes instead of dictating to our children we have a responsibility to teach them about their own choices and encourage them to make the right choices for themselves the rural development title also has much assistance for america throughout the farm bill debate there's been much discussion regarding investing in rural communities across our nation and i'm pleased to have had the opportunity today to highlight just a few of the ways in which this farm bill helps us to further and in rural america one of the things we've noticed as we've seen economic decline in rural america is that we must build up the infrastructure in our rural communities so that they can have access to the creasing markets overseas and nationally it's become apparent to me that the effect of our federal environmental rules and regulations is also felt most heavily in the small and rural communities these communities do not have the economies of scale because of the small population for very expensive updating required for their water and waste water systems that they must do in order to comply with federal law something that a large urban community could handle can literally bankrupt a smaller community seeking to comply with our clean water and safe drinking water standards because of that i have fought for years to promote a program called project search which we established in the two thousand and two farm bill to provide small rural communities with financial assistance to help them comply with these regulations through the changes made to project searches models small financially  and across the nation will now have increased and more streamlined access to federal assistance in the early stages of water waste water and waste disposal projects this will help them keep their water clean and help them to do so in a way that allows the community to avoid avoid financial ruin this farm bill has also made critical reforms to the rural broadband programs by assuring that broadband access to the communities is provided to those with the greatest nee to connect the nation match grant program will be added to the benchmark current broadband access programs and build g i s service maps to promote greater accuracy and understanding of our nation's broadband networks and also please that this farm bill  authorize the national rural development partnership there are many other important programs included with the river within the rural development title that will have a major impact on our rural communities and again i want to thank my colleagues for working with us to make this part of the title effective just two more titles i want to talk about one energy title the largest energy reserves in our nation reside in the farmland and forest across this country and we say that again the largest energy reserves in our nation reside in our farmland and forests across this country in order to provide for national energy security it has become clear that agriculture is a part of the solution it is far too long that we have been dependent almost entirely on petroleum as our major source of energy in this nation we are far too dependent not only on petroleum but on foreign sources of petroleum and as an yone working with a portfolio would say we must diversify that's why i've supported many of the provisions in this farm bill to move our nation into more diverse forms of alternative and renewable fuels let's take that the stored energy in biomass worldwide amounts to approximately fifty billion tons of crude oil equivalent units every year over five times our current energy needs using seventeen million tons of biomass a year for energy could produce up to seven thousand new primary jobs this place six point eight million tons of c o two from natural gas fired plants and generate renewable carbon credits that might eventually be worth more than two hundred million dollars through research we can expand and harness a good part of that astronomical potential and that's why we included biomass provisions in this bill provision such as the transition program that would stimulate production and transition toward perennial biomass competitive research grants for bio mass bioenergy programs focusing on process efficiency and utilization a byproduct and providing for regional bio energy programs on a competitive land university award program basis i also support strong focus in this bill we have long recognized the value in providing home in the form of ethanol it is cleaner it is renewable and it reduces our dependence on foreign oil as we move forward it's also clear that as we approach the maximum production limits of our starch ethanol we need to also move into cellulosic ethanol which must be a primary component of our nation's ethanol portfolio america's energy demand will increase thirty percent over the next twenty two years and are critical to that increase finally mr president i'd like to talk about the trade portion of our bill as congress moves forward and we want the farm bill debate we often wonder what is the future of american agriculture i'd like to do this gus one very important piece of it because it's very clear to all of us that a major part of our future in american agriculture lies beyond our borders agricultural production in the state of idaho is a great example of this according to the statistics from the state department of agriculture if i had to consume all of the farm products consumed in idaho then every day every idaho one would have to eat fifty two potatoes two hundred forty slices of bread thirty six glasses of milk or one point nine pounds of cheese to quarter pound hamburgers to the list goes on and on and on the point being we depend on other markets for our successful agricultural programs and trade support must be a critical part of our agriculture programs in this farm bill this farm bill contains a number of programs such as the market access program the foreign market development program and the technical assistance program for specialty crops which i talked about earlier to name just a few the final thing mr president is senator baucus and i have introduced an amendment with regard to trade with cuba the future success of our agricultural programs and our ability of this nation competitive depend on our ability to have access to markets beyond our borders there is a huge debate in this country about whether we should continue to refuse or to limit our trade with cuba or whether to open trade with cuba and i'm one of those who believes we should open it i recognize that we face in cuba and in the castro government a brutal dictatorship one in which human rights and civil rights are not recognized or honored in any way realistically but for us to refuse to trade with them in my opinion does nothing to solve that problem and does everything to reduce the opportunities of the united states to influence cuba both on economic levels as well as political levels if you look at the economic impact on the united states our refusal to sell our agricultural products to cuba does not mean that cubans cannot eat or that they cannot gain these agriculture products they simply buy them from somewhere else canada or europe or other places yet if we were to open our trade with cuba and allow more aggressive u s marketing of agricultural products there a recent study by the trade commission says that exports of fresh fruit and vegetables would likely increase by thirty seven million dollars to sixty eight million dollars in exports milk powder exports would more than double processed food exports would see a twenty six million dollar increase exports would be doubled to thirty four million exports of dried beans would increase by nine million dollars up to twenty two million just to give a few examples the point is there are markets in cuba for our goods which our producers need to be able to take advantage of and we will do nothing but increase our ability to work with the people of cuba to address the political issues they face by doing so if we want to have a positive impact on the people of cuba and on the pressures they face under the regimes in which they live then we should open trade we should open travel and open communication so that we can take to the i am an opportunity to see the freedom that we experience here and to experience the power of open and free markets that's that's why senator baucus and i have introduced this legislation and i hope th our senators here will support this amendment to this critical bill and help the united states in this one area move forward when we have significant trade with a nation like china across the pacific ocean yet will not open significant trade with a neighbor like cuba ninety miles off our shore we need to re evaluate the effectiveness of our foreign policy not only in terms of its impact on u s producers but in terms of its impact on our ability to truly reach out and cause the kinds of positive change in cuba that will help them to achieve the kinds of political freedom and to avoid the kinds of oppression and human rights of pressures that they now face mr president i've talked about a number of the portions of the farm bill there are other very critical portions as well the bottom line is that we have an opportunity in the senate this month it will deal with the amendments that are pending to move forward on a very critical piece of legislation a piece of legislation that as i indicated i deals with the food and fiber of our nation and the ability of our people and of people globally to have a better diet to have a better opportunity to participate in global markets and a stronger and cleaner environment i hope that as we move through this process that we will not make changes to the bill that will make it worse that instead we will simply adopt those improving proposals and then hopefully soon wind proposes memon i'm a thirty seven thirty six two a member number thirty five hundred present i would ask unanimous consent to proceed at this time without objection senators recognize mr president thank you and it's my intention to  work very closely with the senator chambliss in hopes that we can work out the amendment that i'm going to offer and now this amendment to this president in my view is an important one because it gives us a chance to promote the use of biofuels to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil and we have worked hard to try to build a broad coalition of organizations rate ranging from the national association of wheat growers to the league of conservation voters in an attempt to ensure that this proposal would have broad support here in the united states senate from an oil standpoint i think we all understand the value of promoting biofuels our country now imports roughly one billion dollars a day of oil and the fact of the matter is senator chambliss and i serve on the intelligence committee and i think i've come to feel that our dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue in effect when you pull up at a gas pump in this country whether it's new jersey or oregon or alabama in effect pay a terror attack a portion of what you pay at the gas pump in our states in effect eventually finds its way to a government in the middle east such as saudi arabia which consistently ends up through charitable groups and others back dooring it to terrorist organizations who want to kill patriotic americans so our dependence on foreign oil has very clear consequences and my view it's important for weak growers and firemen alas and others to come together as i and senator harkin have sought to do in our amendment with respect to  and it's important as a national security issue and it's important from an environmental standpoint in my view our proposal can reduce the amount of c o two and other greenhouse gases that are being released into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming our amendment will provide an opportunity for new sources of income for our farmers and our communities and what i and senator harkin and the wheat growers and the environmental folks have sought to do is to make sure that we can get these economic benefits for our farmers in a way that will ensure we protect the land and water and air for the longer term bio diversity and we want to encourage this biofuels production on a local basis allows to promote local economy so that means assembling enough farmers growing enough  feedstock and being in a position to funded new bio energy fuel or conversion you know facility so we give a boost to that effort with some small planning grants in order to help those farmers get off the ground in addition we think our proposed amendment is going to set realistic kind of conservation objectives again to promote soil and it lands avoid the untouched native grasslands and forests and warrant the investments that our country should be making in this exciting area at the end of the day chairman and then i'm going to to my friend the distinguished chairman of the committee we think bio energy production can be done in a way that protects threaten ecosystems the two are not mutually exclusive it's not a question of bio energy production or are protecting our treasured lands on air and water we can do both and that is what i and the distinguished senator from iowa the chairman sought to do i'm really pleased i think the chairman may not have been on the floor that we've got the national association of wheat growers in alliance with the league of conservation voters so it doesn't happen every day when i had a chance to visit with the the distinguished senator from georgia senator chambliss what i was trying to do was to talk about the fact this is a really exciting coalition that adds a lot of energy and passion for the future to this bill so mr president i want to yield that at this time to my friend the distinguished chairman of the committee it is our intent to work with the senator from georgia in hopes that we can all work this out and we had a good conversation before we got on the floor and i thank the senator from iowa for all his assistance mr president it's just a question are we under a time limit here no praed i want to thank my colleague my friend from oregon for us sponsoring this this amendment i'm proud to be a co sponsor of it and and quite frankly this amendment sort of kind of brings us to w had kind of initially started when we started talking about bio mass production for biofuels and if we do it right if we do it right i predict that five years from now by the end of the life of this farm bill we will see style aussi ethanol plants springing up like mushrooms all of the country in the far west in the plains states southeastern part of the united states all over america using different inputs wood pulp fast growing poppers pine switch grass buffalo grass miscanthus all kinds of things depending upon the area of the  country you're from but in order to get there we have to marry two things right now we have a classic chicken and egg situation i say to my friend for it you can't get investors to invest in  bio refineries for silos because they ask a very important question where's the feedstock well then you go to farmers and say we'd like you to grow bio mass for say a loss to get them all and they ask a very important question where is the market on the one hand you've got investors and words of feedstock yet farmers say we're the market we've got to get these two together well in the farm bill that we have before us i say to my friend mor us very well we have very good provisions in there for loan guarantees for bio refineries so on the investor end i think we've done a really good job in this bill of looking at  now on the other end that is providing the transition payments and other things to farmers to get there this amendment fills in that gap that's what this basically does this says to farmers look you can go ahead and you can have  you can transition to to a biomass crops especially perennials things like that and you can do it without having a long term financial commitment to a bio refinery and you can do it by adhering to conservation goals now that's the other part of this amendment that's so important  what this amendment basically says is that look we'll we'll we'll be glad to give you we'll give you money an individual farmer for establishment now if you're going to transition from row crops to perennials or something for bio mass production that may cost money maybe you have to buy some new equipment you have to change your practices that type of thing maybe have to take off a certain section of your land well that's a transition this provides for a fifty percent matching money for those transition costs the other thing is to provide for a rental payment a rental payment to a farmer to make up for revenues lost on the land while the crops being established for example if you've got a row crop or something now but you want to say take a certain part of your land and and you'd like to start growing biomass well your income from that will probably be a little bit less for the first few years so what the member does is it provides for a rental payment for that period of time and then the other key thing it provides for a preference for the enrollment in the conservation stewardship program now again in order to get this then the contract that the farmer would sign would require them to limit their plannings to non invasive species enrollee land that was previously used for agricultural purposes including grazing and  p you couldn't take land out of the dep the r p program or that type of thing you have to meet the stewardship threshold of the c s p program by the end of the contract period and you have to limit the harvest of your biomass crops to outside of the major brooding and nesting season for wildlife and bird life in your area so again this is a this is a very good amendment and i say to my friend from oregon very well i didn't hear all of his remarks but we have a letter here from the national wildlife federation that include ninety four different groups that support the wyden amendment everything from the this we have not put it in the record so if you would to do that that would be very helpful when we spread out ask and to put in the record this time the letter and the signatories the groups from the national wildlife federation supporting the of america pheasants forever forever trout unlimited and again a number of groups with a letter again supporting the wide to mehmet i asked that this letter and the signatories there to be pr so again it's broadly supported this is a member that's good for the entire country not just oregon but also for iowa for the plains states for the southeastern part of the united states th is good for america this is good for our farmers it will get us moving on the right path towards bio mass production at the same time protecting our environment protecting our wildlife habitats and making sure that  we do it right then we'll see the say last week last spring up all over the country will have better wildlife we'll have more ducks more pheasants borges we'll have more hunting grounds for for hunters and fishermen will have better and cleaner water and we'll have the energy that we need here in america growing here in this country so i get i applaud the center for going to very thoughtful amendment very farsighted very meaningful and i hope that we can adopt it overwhelmingly i thank the senator i yield the floor he's president i'm going to wrap up very briefly and then the senator from alabama was waiting the senator from north dakota wanted to do a very brief you see and i think that's  acceptable to all of all senators i simply want to thank the senator from iowa for all of his assistance and i think what the senator from iowa has essentially described by way of bringing together people like wheat growers and corn growers and conservation groups in the wildlife federation the league of conservation voters this is the future of modern agriculture bringing all these folks together so that we can take steps that will ensure that farmers grow their incomes because we want farmers to prosper on the land we want to make sure that their kids have a future in agriculture and to do it we are going to have to adopt as the senator from iowa has pointed out an approach that encourages more sustainable agriculture and so we think this is a winner for farmers income we think this is good for the environment we think it's going to promote conservation senator from georgia has left the floor but it's my intent with the senator from iowa to work closely today and over the next day or so to make an agreement that will be acceptable all around i think we're capable of doing and i thank the senator from iowa once again for his support all amendment i've cleared this with senator chambliss and senator harkin i ask for the regular order of my men at thirty six ninety five for the purpose of modifying us the senator has a right to call for regular order mr president the modifications at the a pending without objection of the amendment will be once again the pending question my friend i believe i will have an hour debate on this thirty minutes on each side i'd ask that i be recognized for ten minutes tonight and be notified when that ten minutes has run without objection and that is recognized for ten minutes much production they will allow and the reason they do that is to control the price of all on the world market place and back and following the amount they produce they control the price and it is a cartel because the value of the all on the world marketplace is greatly disconnected to the cost of its production throughout the globe and so i think that we should do what we can without in his later ship as chairman of the agriculture committee he's been courteous to me and other senators and in a number of ways i thank senator chambliss for his leadership and his expertise particularly in to matters in our region the country ma'am and it has to do with crop insurance our really truly believe it's an amendment that will be a good government amendment that will allow us to cast an idea that came from farmers themselves and could indeed create a situation in which crop insurance works better in america than it currently does crop insurance alone has not worked as well as we expected many members don't sign up many farmers don't one farmer told me today that alone should tell you something is that farmers a pretty clever i know a good idea when they insured how we get there is a question but the volume insurance program that the government funds and help support at least has not ended the periodic disaster payment bills that have come forth since the year two thousand one point three billion dollars per year has been appropriated by this congress disaster relief indicating that the crop insurance  deal that we had is not yet covering the losses that farmers are sustaining in addition we we are finding as a support payment to the crop to the crop insurance companies and supporting the premium prices to the tune of three point two five billion dollars a year that's a lot of money there so walking away do i suggest it we should listen to the farmers and nine hundred ninety nine alpha they al peanut farmer in in south alabama concluded that farm savings accounts could do that and that's what they recommended it him would create and allow the department of agriculture in fact to create insurance savings accounts for farmers the federal government subsidies been going t insurance premiums would go into this account and the farmers part of the framing would go into this account and it would be their controlled insurance find a doctor secretary joe hands about this when he was  secretary and he really like the ideas and work it been done in that he thought it was premature to try to mandate this around the country and we discussed a pilot program and he thought that was a good idea and that's what i'm proposing in this a the concept of a father to department of agriculture to create regulations for the private the pilot program it would be limited to just one percent of farmers throughout the country that's all a twenty thousand farmers nationwide  it would a whole farm risk accounts all the farming activities not just the ones you tend to get insurance on but farmers often have multiple crops and the combination of two or three failures of a small nature can put the farm in critical condition and often they're not able to collect on their crop insurance because no one particular crop has been badly damaged but if we give more flexibility eighty percent obvious three year farm income average unless there were a change in his activities he would be able to draw money out of that a camp but the farmer also must have catastrophic insurance  an insurance company they got it's still possible that there would be a catastrophe and he would have a total loss and would need are they canned coverage that this farm saving account could not protect him from it would be totally voluntary no farmer would be required to participate and i believe the results of this farm good could could be substantial it would certainly release overhead save overhead  it would make it would create a situation where the farmer could decide how to utilize is resource a day if a farmer blaze's crop is a total loss because in an adjuster our long it takes to come who knows the adjustor asked to look at the crop and ask to certify that this crop is likely to be a failure at the time it's harvested and  would not they weren't carrying forward this will allow farmers in many circumstances to plow under that crop and replant another crop but until he gets that certification that his insurance is going to pay he's delayed from doing that re planning and on occasion that can be crucial because it is a weeks go by the season gets shorter and the farmer as last and last build did to replant those are things that i hear about a lot they come to me and complain to me i've called insurance companies on behalf of farmers so it's a difficult situation for both sides really the insurance companies have legitimate reasons to be cautious and responsible with their money and farmers have a legitimate reason to seek prompt repayment so they can move forward so it could reduce the amount of disaster relief that our nation is paying out each year and i believe it's an amendment that my colleague says jin's should sincerely consider so in conclusion let me say this about it and we'll talk about it more tomorrow farm bureau association itself has not taken a position on it they are not opposing this legislation it would apply only to one percent of the farmers it would be a voluntary they would no farmer would have to sign up for it  decision making for how to utilize the monies when our disaster occurs would be given to the farmer and not an insurance adjuster and we can see how it works maybe it won't work and maybe we'll realize this is not the way to go but again but then again it might work in fact i think it will work in fact i think our farmers are very smart when they ask for this avidly of that quite a number of farmers not all of them maybe not even a majority but quite sizable number of farmers may find this is far more effective for them than the present system that we're utilizing ours one can conjure up objections that might occur certainly for some farmers this would not be something they would want to opt for but i believe that a bombing of agriculture  can work through this and create some guidelines and regulations that would work so i say let's try let's give this idea a chance let's see if we can create a better way of handling insurance for a number of farmers and after a few years we'll have learned something arch my colleagues to consider this legislation and as we go forward with this farm bill and we'll probably have a vote on tomorrow truly are examined to let's try  and mr president i just want to say it looks like we're probably wrapping up here for the day i don't know of any other speakers that want to come to the floor we are now working i might inform the senators we're now working on a unanimous consent agreement that we hope to propound shortly that will set up some votes for tomorrow i think about maybe hopefully about five votes that have been agreed upon and we're working on  consent to get those lined up right now so that we can have those first thing tomorrow and quite frankly i'm very optimistic mr president i thank all the senators who came here today that debated their amendments  i thank my ranking member senator chambliss we've been working together on this i if we get these amendments agreed to to dispose of early tomorrow and then we work through some other amendments tomorrow and hopefully we can work a little bit later and perhaps what we did today i can see that we could have a lot of votes tomorrow we have two or three amendments on the farm bill that we by mutual agreement we're going to bring up on thursday without objection i'll just read i just want to take this opportunity to just say a few words about a couple of amendments that are offered and are offending that we may have votes on t w first i would do the alexander amendment number thirty five fifty three that the senator from tennessee was here over here talking about earlier they have a tax package that was added to the farm bill small wind tax credit of up to thirty percent or four thousand dollars