[Pages S15412-S15421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

Amendment No. 3810

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of amendment No. 3810.
Who yields time? The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Without objection, the time will be equally divided between the two
sides.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I am here to address my amendment,
No. 3810, and I want to talk about the importance of reform to this
farm bill.
I was disappointed today when the amendment of Senator Dorgan and
Senator Grassley was defeated. It was a very important amendment. In
other years, we actually had enough votes for this amendment, before I
was here, but we weren't able to muster the votes necessary to block
the filibuster. Well, we have one more opportunity, and that
opportunity is this afternoon.
America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as
an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect
struggling family farms from the financial shocks of volatile weather
and volatile prices. I believe after 75 years, the reasons for that
safety net still exist, and I believe the farm bill that came through
our committee has some very good things in it. It is forward thinking;
it is about cellulosic ethanol. It is about finally having some
permanent disaster relief. It is about a strong safety net for
America's farmers. But there is one thing missing from this farm bill,
Madam President, and that is the kind of reform that we need to move
forward.
I want to demonstrate what we are talking about here with our
amendment, which is cosponsored with Senator Durbin and Senator Brown,
and why I think it is so important to this bill. As you know, I come
from a farm State. It is sixth in the country for agriculture. I am
proud of the work our State does and our farmers, and we have diverse
farming. I know some of the farmers in my State may not like this, but
the vast majority of them support this reform because they know if we
don't reform ourselves, someone else will do it for us.
What I am talking about is farm subsidies going to people who
shouldn't have them, such as Maurice Wilder, who is a guy that is very
wealthy, and who was the No. 1 recipient of commodity payments from
2003 to 2005. He has collected more than $3.2 million in farm payments
for properties in five States, even though his net worth is more than
$500 million. We also have $3.1 million in farm payments going to
residents of the District of Columbia, $4.2 million going to people in
Manhattan, and $1 million of taxpayer money going to Beverly Hills
90210.
Now, what can we do to change this? The first thing we are doing is
we are getting rid of the three-entity rule, which cuts down on abuse
and allows these payments to go to the people they should go to, and
ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple

[[Page S15413]]

corporations so that they get multiple payments.
The second thing we could have done--and sadly we defeated it today--
was the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, which would have put a limit on the
actual payment at $250,000. That is a lot of money where I come from.
But there is a third thing that we still have the opportunity to do
today. I ask my colleagues, those who are fiscal conservatives and who
really care about fairness in this country, to look at this amendment
and think about what we are doing. Right now, under existing law, no
matter how much you net in income--and I am here talking about
deducting expenses because expenses don't count. So when my colleagues
talk about farms that might have higher expenses, those are out of it.
This is just adjusted gross income.
So for full-time farmers who have unlimited incomes, they can be
making millions and millions and millions of dollars. They still
qualify for subsidies. And because we weren't able to get it passed and
put a limit on subsidies, they do not have that $250,000 cap. Part-time
farmers right now, under existing law, can make $2.5 million, and they
get subsidies and marketing loans, since we were unable to pass this
limitation today.
The President's number, which came with the administration's
suggested agriculture proposal, was a $200,000 limit--a $200,000 limit
for both full and part time. The Agriculture Committee in the House is
chaired by Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and I wouldn't call him a
radical guy. He has been a friend of farmers forever. He put the limit
at $1 million for full-time and $500,000 for part-time farmers. And he
has recently been saying publicly that he thinks it should go lower
than that, especially since we do not have the total limit on subsidies
that was contained in the Dorgan-Grassley amendment.
Now, what does the Senate bill do--the bill that came out of our
committee? It has not changed for full-time farmers. No reform for
full-time farmers. For part-time farmers, very slowly, it gets to a
$750,000 limitation in income--for part-time farmers.
This amendment says $750,000 for full-time farmers should be the
limit--$750,000 in income on top of expenses. Now, if you have a bad
year and you are a big farmer, you are still going to qualify. But if
you make over $750,000, that is where there is a cutoff. It is great
you are making money--you should put it in the bank--but then you don't
qualify for the subsidies. If you are a part-time farmer, under our
amendment you can make $250,000 or under, and then you will qualify for
the subsidies. And here is where we are talking about these investors,
the people who aren't full-time farmers, people making less than 66
percent of their income from farming.
Now, what does this amendment do? Let's consider what it means. If
you live in a city, and you have a job as an investment banker and make
$2 million a year, you don't get the government checks. Right now you
can, but under our amendment you won't be able to. And if you are a
full-time farmer, meaning more than 75 percent of your income comes
from farming, under current law there is absolutely no limit on your
income, and you will still get those government checks. This puts some
reasonable limits on the income when you qualify for the government
farm subsidy checks. That is what it does.
I have to tell you this: With the kind of budget battles we have
ahead of us, we have to look at what we are doing and we have to be
thinking: Is this fair? When we have a limited amount of money, Madam
President, and we are going to have to deal with Social Security and
Medicare and all these issues, if we can't even say, for farmers making
over $750,000, we are not going to put some limit on these government
checks, I really don't understand how we are going to grapple with
these tougher issues. It is a matter of fairness because I believe this
money should be going to family farmers.
That is what this system was set up to do. It should be going to the
hard-working farmers in this country, not to art collectors in San
Francisco and not to real estate developers in Florida. That is all we
are trying to do with this amendment. So I would appeal to my friends
on both sides of the aisle and suggest that this is our opportunity to
act. We have the chair of the House Agriculture Committee already
putting in their bill some limits and indicating they may want to go
lower. We have an opportunity to be part of that change.
I am going to give the other side some opportunity to speak and save
the rest of my time, but I will end with a little holiday story. I
thought we needed a little holiday cheer today, on a very difficult
day.
My daughter and I, when she was 9 years old, went to see the movie
``Polar Express.'' We watched this fanciful movie, and after we came
out, she said to me: Mom, you know, there was one thing in that movie
that wasn't true.
And I looked at her and thought, what could it be? Could it be when
this big body of water froze over so the train could go over it? Was it
when a million elves suddenly appeared at the North Pole? Was that the
one thing that wasn't true?
She said: You know, Mom, at the end, when the conductor--who was
played by Tom Hanks--says to the little boy: Come on, kid, get on the
train. It doesn't matter what direction the train is going, just get on
the train. And she looked at me and she said: Mom, it does matter what
direction the train is going.
Well, that is what I would say to my colleagues today. It matters
what direction the train is going. Are we going to be putting money
into the hard-working family farmers in this country or are we going to
spend it on real estate developers in Florida who have $5 million to
their name or art collectors in San Francisco?
Are we willing to say, change is afoot, and then be agents of change.
People in this country want to see change. We heard that in this last
election. This is our opportunity; it is our chance to go in the
direction of reform. We have done that with so many different parts of
this farm bill, and that is why I supported this farm bill in
committee, but this is our chance to go in the direction of change. It
is a very small incremental step, but it will start us going in the
right direction with this farm bill--a direction of reform.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I ask how much time I have
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes remaining.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Klobuchar
amendment.
Let me say first that I am disheartened that farm program critics
continue to try to lead the general public and our elected officials
into believing that there is a vast army of farm program participants
who are receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. Stories
about people living on the east and west coasts and everywhere in-
between receiving program benefits continue to make the headlines. They
are used as the poster children of those who do, but should not receive
farm program benefits because they are wealthy landowners or
millionaires, but more often than not there is no explanation or
concrete definition of either.
Home prices have spiraled over the last decade and many families have
homes, usually their single largest asset, worth hundreds of thousands
of dollars. Individuals receiving farm program benefits obviously have
an interest in an agricultural holding somewhere in the country.
Hopefully, they also have a 401(k) or some other savings plan that will
allow them to retire one day.
More often than not, the type of individual I just described is not a
wealthy landowner. They have a home, a farm--which by the way, they
might have inherited--and hopefully a retirement plan. They also have
jobs and use the income to pay their mortgage, purchase a vehicle,
raise their family, and save for college and every other imaginable
cost associated with living. Most of the people I know in these
situations don't consider themselves wealthy. Most of them will tell
you that the adjusted gross income at the bottom of page 1 on their IRS
form 1040 doesn't reflect what they would consider to be a wealthy
landowner.
Another class of individuals that draws a lot of attention is
millionaires. It is pretty hard to figure out who

[[Page S15414]]

those individuals are unless you are their accountant. More
importantly, I would hope that we all know there is a significant
difference between having a million dollars in assets and having an
annual income in the millions. In the vast majority of cases, most
individuals receiving farm program benefits do not have anywhere near a
million dollars in assets or income.
But as I will point out momentarily, it is not about wealthy
landowners and millionaires receiving program benefits, it is really
about farmers in general, regardless of their economic situation,
receiving program benefits.
Let me back up for a moment, and provide some historical context to
where we find ourselves today. Prior to the 2002 farm bill there had
never been an income test with respect to the eligibility of
individuals and entities to receive program benefits. Congress
acknowledged those concerns and addressed adjusted gross income--AGI--
in the 2002 farm bill. Beginning with the 2003 crop year, any
individual or legal entity with an AGI of $2.5 million or more for the
3 prior years was not eligible to receive farm program benefits, unless
at least 75 percent of their income came from farming, ranching and
forestry operations. We believed that was a good first step and
recognized that when it came time to write a new farm bill, as with any
provision, we would take another look to see if the limits were
appropriate.
The ink was hardly dry on the 2002 farm bill when the ``reformists''
started shouting once again that individuals and entities otherwise
eligible for farm program benefits shouldn't receive farm program
assistance because they were millionaires or wealthy landowners.
The bill passed by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry took a positive step to address the issues surrounding AGI.
The Committee adopted an AGI provision that reduced the limit to $1
million dollars in 2009, and to $750,000 in 2010 and beyond, unless at
least two- thirds of a person's income came from farming, ranching and
forestry.
The reform minded AGI provisions adopted by the committee directly
answered the calls to ensure that payments don't go to millionaires. We
didn't go to $750,000 in the first year--not a reflection of resistance
to change, but rather, recognition that land lease arrangements have
already occurred with respect to the 2008 crop payment year because
here we are in December of 2007, with farmers and ranchers all across
America already in the final stages of planning for their 2008 crop
year. In some instances--for example winter wheat--they have already
got seed in the ground for the 2008 crop year.
In the 2002 farm bill we added a provision referred to as ``tracking
of benefits''. This provision required the Secretary to attribute all
payments to an individual, a partnership, or another legal entity back
to a natural person or what some referred to as a ``warm body.'' The
intent of this provision was to provide transparency and allow the
agricultural community, general public, media and other interested
parties to trace benefits paid to entities, partnerships, et cetera,
back to a ``warm body''.
During the committee markup, Senator Klobuchar said she wanted to
stop millionaires from receiving payments. She mentioned the names of
several persons that had received payments with the obvious reference
to laws that needed to be revamped. That might be true if you are
referring to the 2002 farm bill, but not when compared to the
provisions adopted by the committee to keep these individuals from
receiving payments.

I am pleased that there is acknowledgment that the tracking of
benefits provision worked as it was intended, as it is obvious she and
her staff have researched a certain database Web site that is
accessible to the general public. I am equally pleased that the
adjusted gross income provision that was included in 2002 also worked
as intended.
What I am not pleased about is the mischaracterization that people
who are no longer eligible for payments because of the provisions
contained in the 2002 farm bill are somehow skirting the system and
still receiving payments.
One name that frequently comes up is Scottie Pippen, whom we all know
to be an outstanding NBA basketball player. When you look through a
certain Web site database you will notice that Mr. Pippen received
Conservation Reserve Program payments, CRP as it is commonly referred
to, for the 2003 through 2005 program years through an entity named
Olympic Land Company Incorporated.
USDA tells me that Scottie Pippen owns 100 percent of Olympic Land
Company Inc. Olympic Land Company purchased a farm in 2003 that had an
existing CRP contract. Because the contract was in existence prior to
the 2002 farm bill, the new AGI limits did not apply. The CRP contract
expired on September 30, 2005 and Olympic Land Inc. did not enter into
a new contract with the 2002 farm bill AGI provisions obviously playing
a role in the decision.
Another name used frequently is Ted Turner, who has extensive
agricultural holdings in Montana, New Mexico and other States. Mr.
Turner bought property in Stanley County, SD, that had several CRP
contracts initiated prior to the 2002 farm bill AGI limitations
becoming law. Once again because these were multiyear contracts and
entered into prior to the 2002 act, AGI provisions did not apply to Mr.
Turner until the contracts expired. These contracts expired on
September 30, 2007, and Ted Turner did not enter into a new contract
with the AGI provisions obviously playing a role in that decision.
I believe these are just two of many examples where the AGI
provisions contained in the 2002 farm bill worked as intended, and what
we have done in this bill is reduce that limit by an additional 70
percent. There isn't anyone who can stand before this body today and
say that a 70-percent reduction in the AGI test is not real reform.

Landowners and producers often jointly share in the risk and
production of the crop in a manner that is normal and customary for the
area. When the landowner shares in the production risk, by covering
costs such as fertilizer or harvesting, the producer benefits from: No.
1, reduced risk in producing the crop, No. 2, reduced capital
requirements, and No. 3, a landowner's greater general appreciation of
the operation.
I can tell you what is going to happen as we continue to lower the
AGI and it is very simple. Landowners intend to capture a return on
their assets and unless there are special circumstances, the landowner
is going to change from a share lease to a cash lease. Instead of
participating in the risk of producing the crop this policy will shift
all of the production risk and input costs onto the back of the
producer. The landowner will cash lease the land and walk away with a
guaranteed lease payment and the producer comes away from the deal with
higher production costs and more risk. Do we really want to make it
more difficult for the folks who are actually out there getting dirt
under their fingernails, driving the tractor and caring for the land?
I want to repeat again what I said earlier, this debate is not about
wealthy landowners and millionaires receiving program benefits. It is
really about farmers in general, regardless of their economic
situation, receiving program benefits. A few short months ago the
debate was about making payments to millionaires and now we are at
$750,000 and people want to go even further. This amendment is actually
an assault on everyday farmers; but is disguised as an assault on
wealthy landowners and millionaires.
I am urging my colleagues to vote no on the Klobuchar amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, why are we here today? We are here today
because we are writing a farm bill. We do that every 5 years--1,360
pages. Why are we doing this? We are doing this because in 1932 a
President named Franklin Delano Roosevelt looked out at the farmers of
America and said: We have a serious problem. These poor people are
going bankrupt and losing their farms because of circumstances beyond
their control, because of weather, because of terrible prices. He said:
We are going to step in as a government and make a difference. We are
going to provide a

[[Page S15415]]

safety net so that families who are farming do not lose their farms.
Thank God he did it, and thank goodness we continue this tradition
through this farm bill.
Every time we argue or debate a bill such as this, we debate it in
the poetry of family farms and the heart of American values. But when
you take a look inside this bill, you will not find poetry; you will
find the prose of corporate farming and people who have decided to use
this farm bill to make a fortune. That is the reality.
Many of these so-called farmers are more adept at reaping Federal
checks than they are reaping and harvesting any crop known to man. Is
what they are doing illegal? No. This bill makes it legal, legal for
them to use these Federal farm programs, designed to help the
struggling farmers, to make a fortune personally.
I listened to Senator Chambliss talk about the struggling farmers
with dirt under their fingernails. Listen, many of the people who are
making a fortune off of this farm bill end up at the end of the day
with the ink from corporate annual reports on their hands and no dirt
under their fingernails--trust me. What Senator Klobuchar and myself
and Senator Brown are trying to say is, shouldn't there be a bottom
line where you say: Listen, you are doing quite well in life; the
Federal Government is no longer going to subsidize you.
Here is the bottom line. If your adjusted gross income is over
$750,000 a year, we say: You are on your own. Good luck. We hope life
continues to be very good to you. And we go on to say that the income
limit for those who earn less than 66 percent of that income from
farming would be $250,000. We will give no more than a quarter of a
million dollars of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to those who are
doing very well in life.
Is that an unreasonable standard? At a time when we are waging a war
at $14 billion a month, that we do not pay for; at a time that we
cannot fund our schools under No Child Left Behind; when this President
will not increase Federal research to find cures for diseases facing
American families, is it unreasonable to say we should have limits to
the amount of money we should pay those who call themselves farmers
but, in fact, are just investors?
I do not think it is unreasonable. This amendment is the same as the
issue I raised this morning. This morning, by one vote, the Senate
decided to continue the subsidy to oil companies in America making
record-breaking profits.
The question on this amendment is, Will we continue to subsidize the
rich who are using the farm program to get richer?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Can I ask the Senator to yield me time?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Two minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. How about 3.
Madam President, I am very proud of our bill. We worked very hard to
craft a bill. But, you know, any bill needs to be improved when it
comes to the floor. I think this is one item where we need to fix it.
The bill that came out of committee, we did not do our job in this
respect. I wish to echo what the Senator from Illinois said. I think of
it this way. If you are a bona fide farmer, more than two-thirds of
your income, it could be 70 percent of your income comes from farming,
you have no limits. There are no limits. You could have an adjusted
gross income of $10 million and you will still get Government benefits.
There are zero limits.
Now, again, if your income from farming is less than that, less than
two-thirds, then you have an income limit of $1 million, then it goes
down to $750,000 in 2010.
The Senator from Minnesota is on the right track. There is absolutely
no reason why someone whose bottom-line adjusted gross income, bottom
line after they have taken all their depreciation, all their expenses
and everything else, bottom line of $750,000, they do not need free
Government money.
But I can understand why they are fighting this amendment. Who wants
to give up free money? This is free money. Well, if you are going to
give free money, then how about giving it to people who deserve it?
That is what the Klobuchar amendment does. It takes this savings of
$355 million and puts it into the Beginning Farmer Development Program,
the Individual Development Accounts Pilot Program for beginning
farmers, rural broadband grants, organic agriculture research and
extension, Grasslands Reserve Program, community food projects, things
that go to help rural America and help our legitimate small family
farmers.
So that is why I feel this is one amendment I wish to speak out on as
chairman of this committee. As I said, I am proud of this bill. We have
put a good bill together. But there is one hole in it we need to patch
up, and we need to have at least this amount of reform in this bill, or
else people will continue to say: Well, there they go again. They are
taking care of the richest and the biggest, the richest and the
biggest.
Do you know what is happening now with farm programs? It is similar
to a black hole. Do you know what black holes are in astronomy? Those
are the things in space where there is so much gravity that nothing
escapes, not even light. If anything gets near it, it sucks it in and
nothing gets out.
Well, this is akin to what is happening in our farm programs now with
this kind of a situation. The bigger you are, the more you get. That is
what is happening here. The bigger you are, the more you get from the
Government.
Now the more you get from the Government, the better able you are to
bid up the price of land around you and buy it. Therefore, you get
bigger. Now that you are bigger, you get more Government money, and you
can buy up more land, and you get more Government money.
That is why it is similar to a black hole. We have to stop this. This
is not in the best interests of rural America. What is in the best
interest is the Klobuchar amendment. I mean $750,000, quite frankly,
personally I think it ought to be lower. I think if you had an adjusted
gross income over $500,000 or $300,000, you ought not be able to get
Government programs.
But at least $750,000 is a lot better than what is in the bill.
Because the bill says there are no limits, none, $10 million, you still
get Government payments, if two-thirds of your income is from farming.
That is why the Klobuchar amendment ought to be adopted.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa and the
Senator from Illinois. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I have one comment on the statement
the Senator from Illinois made. Let me make sure there is no
misunderstanding because he misstated something. This amendment has
nothing to do with amount of payments. This has to do with the
eligibility of payments.
I assure you, anyone who has an adjusted gross income of $750,000
from a farming operation, which is required under the bill that is
before this body, has invested millions and millions of dollars into
their trough in order to be able to achieve that goal, and they
probably had a pretty good year to do that.
There is nothing in this amendment that says to that farmer, if you
lose all those millions of dollars, that we are going to do something
for your benefit. That is what our safety net is all about. That is why
this is such a bad amendment.
I yield the balance of the time remaining on this side to the Senator
from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Madam President. I thank my colleagues for
the work we have done on this farm bill. I come to the floor today to
urge my colleagues to oppose the Klobuchar amendment.
Listening to my colleague from Minnesota, her description about
directions being important does matter. That is why it is important for
us to look at the direction we are going in this farm bill. This
underlying farm bill that we brought together in the Senate Agriculture
Committee has the most substantive reform in the history of a farm
bill.
It stands for farmers, for family farmers. It stands for a safe food
supply which is absolutely critical. It is a bill

[[Page S15416]]

that ensures that in future generations we will have a safe food
supply. But we can also go too far in the one direction. I think that
is important for us to take a look at.

The Senator from Georgia talked about the fact that these individuals
have large operations. Well, if you are farming 1,000 acres of cotton,
you are going to have to sign an operating loan at the beginning of
your crop year to the tune of about $5 million. That is tremendous
risk. How important would it be to have a brother or a son who is going
to also cosign that note, who is also going to have access to the
ability of allowing the Government to provide those two a safety net,
of being able to provide that safe and affordable food supply.
If those individuals are farming and they are getting payments, it
means they are getting those payments because prices are low. One year
it may be good, the next year it may be bad. We do not need to go in
the wrong direction.
The millionaire Senator Klobuchar references from Florida, he should
not be out there. If he is worth $500 million, he should have been
caught by the last farm bill's initiative. He would certainly be caught
by the limits that are in the committee bill we bring to the floor.
I might suggest that from the GAO study we have seen, much of what
gets underneath what actually exists is because the existing
administration is not implementing the current law. The GAO study tells
us that. Well, if they are not implementing the current law, why would
we go further in that wrong direction? We have gone critically in the
right direction. We have lowered by 70 percent the AGI means test. That
is what it is, a means test.
As I stated on this floor so many times during the consideration of
this legislation, the underlying bill already contains the most
significant farm program reform in the history of a farm bill. We have
already included the dramatic reform to this adjusted gross income
means test that unanimously passed the Senate Ag Committee.
Prior to the 2003 farm bill, there was no means test that existed for
farm programs. However, we knew it was important to eliminate loopholes
that nonfarmers used to receive program payments. During the 2002 farm
bill debate, we instituted a $2.5 million test. Well, I would ask my
colleagues from Iowa and Minnesota, the gentleman who was referenced by
the Senator from Georgia, he is not going to be caught if he were to
reinvest.
We have not extended this means test to anybody else. The
conservation programs are not--I hope the chairman will correct me--the
conservation payments will not be corrected by this, they will still
remain under the current law at $2.5 million. So they will not even be
lowered to what we have lowered it in the committee bill, to 750.
So if we are going to do this, if we are genuine about wanting to put
this strong means test and go down that severe direction, then why are
we not doing it across the board? Why are we not making that
difference? If what we want to do is to create all those savings, then
why are we not being fair about it and making it across the board?
In the underlying bill, we have gone further and lowered the
threshold to 750,000, and that is a 70-percent reduction, a 70-percent
reduction in the AGI test. Before we go further, let's see if that does
not work. We went to 2.5 in the last bill, we have gone consistently
lower now. If the President is not going to implement the law as it
exists, what good would even taking it more extremely down that road
do?
I hope we will not forget we have also significantly reformed
individual program payment limits on top of which we will sharply
reduce benefits to producers who remain eligible under the AGI test.
This is already historic reform. There is no need to hit these
farmers with a double whammy. It is also vitally important to remember
the purpose of the AGI test we included in the committee bill is to
keep rich nonfarmers, the ones my good friend from Minnesota and others
continually cite, from receiving farm bill benefits.
But, unfortunately, the Klobuchar amendment would not just ratchet
down the AGI limits to rich nonfarmers, it would also sharply ratchet
down the support to family farmers, families who come together to farm
because they want to share the risk, they want to be able to share the
ability to sign that operating loan note or to share the cost of what
it costs to purchase that equipment, that seed and that fertilizer, the
enormous expenses that go into a capital intensive farm. They want to
share those risks.
It would sharply ratchet down their ability to do it. That is not the
purpose of an AGI test. That is not the purpose of means testing.
Ironically, while the amendment before you would do this to farm
families, it leaves wide open another loophole that lets rich
nonfarmers continue to collect those huge conservation payments to the
tune of $2.5 million, which is the existing law. We do not even correct
that.
That is right. It is not across the board. The big elephant in the
room no one wants to talk about, that while folks hammer away at farm
families in this country trying to make ends meet, other wealthy
nonfarmers, such as Scottie Pippen, who was mentioned earlier from my
State, who often gets cited, will continue to collect conservation
checks.
I do not know why we continue to talk about how we want to ratchet
down on family farmers, but we do not want to talk about it across the
board in other programs where we are seeing large payments going to
very wealthy millionaire nonfarmers.
So I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, vote no on this
amendment which hurts family farms while letting some of those rich
nonfarmers completely off the hook. If the Senator from Minnesota wants
to rid the country of all the sensational stories based on half-truths,
I would advise her to apply her test in this proposal across the board
to all the commodities and not just target Southern growers yet again.
I would advise caution, though, because I do not think we fully
understand the ramifications of true means testing to that degree. On
one hand, once we have set the precedent of implementing a means test
on farmers, who is to say we will not begin tying a means test to other
sectors of the economy that receive Government subsidies and tax
breaks, perhaps those who deliver health care, maybe those who receive
health care, capital investments, the list could go on and on.
If we are going shortly to means testing where the Government is
going to investigate, I would suggest we stop for a moment and pay
caution and remember these are the hard-working farm families who
provide us a safe and abundant supply of food.
Senator Durbin continues to talk about unsafe foods coming in. What
happens 10 years from now if we put farmers out of business and all of
a sudden we are dependent on foreign food just as we have become
dependent on foreign oil?
Second, we don't know what our neighbors make. I don't want to know
what my neighbors make. If we start seeing our rice and cotton
outsourced to foreign countries, we will see the full effect of this
means test. The consequences of enacting a means test that is too
stringent and disqualifies certain farmers' crops is very dangerous to
our farm families. It is like playing with dynamite and seeing how
close you can stand to the blast without getting hurt. I ask my
colleagues to oppose the Klobuchar amendment.
I do know one thing. If we go too far in the wrong direction without
being given the opportunity to better understand what we have done and
why certain people are not coming under that test, as a country we are
going to regret it. We are going to regret that we have put out of
business southern growers who provide 85 percent of the rice we consume
in this country. The American people are going to hold us accountable
when we become dependent on foreign food that comes from countries that
have no regulation on how it is grown, on what is used, no regulation
on the water source that may be used, how they fertilize, no
regulations such as our farmers adhere to, producing the safest, most
abundant, and affordable food supply in the world.
One of the things you can definitely say of the underlying bill that
passed the Senate Agriculture Committee unanimously is that millionaire
nonfarmers need not apply where this bill is concerned. Going too far
in the direction that Senator Klobuchar wants

[[Page S15417]]

to take us without understanding what we have already done and how it
will have unintended consequences could be dangerous for this country
and the families of this country who depend on these working farms for
the safe and abundant supply of food they so desperately need.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, how much time remains on my side and
the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 3\1/2\ minutes. The
opponents have 2 minutes 40 seconds.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the average farmer in my State makes
$54,000 a year. I think you see family farmers like that all across
this country. That is what this amendment is about. There has been
debate about Scottie Pippen and all these people. The USDA has looked
at this, the Government has looked at this, and this would save about
$355 million. Where is that $355 million coming from? It is coming from
full-time farmers who are grossing $750,000 or more, into the millions
a year, and part-time farm investors who are making over $250,000 a
year. That is where this is coming from.
There has been discussion, which I think is smoke and mirrors, about
expenses. Let me make clear, farmers can deduct their operating
expenses such as seed, fertilizer, fuel, and labor from their adjusted
gross income. When it comes to investment in buildings and equipment,
these are capital expenses, and they depreciate over time. That
depreciation is deductible. When it comes to land, it works like it
does a home mortgage. Your interest is deductible, but your land is
something you have that you get value from. When it comes to rented
land, the rental cost of the land is fully deductible from adjusted
gross income.
I didn't come up with these laws. They are in the Tax Code. They are
the law. What this is about is making sure we have some real reform.
Because if we don't do it in the farm States, it is going to happen to
us. I have said this before, and I truly believe it will happen.
There has been some discussion about what our existing bill does. Let
me explain again. The House-passed bill sets it at $1 million for full
time, $500,000 for part time. My colleagues have been saying: We have a
70-percent reduction for a part-time farmer. That goes to say, if you
start high enough at $2.5 million, anything like 70 percent sounds
good. But instead, in fact, the actual Senate bill is only at $750,000
for a part-time farmer.
I have visited hard-working farmers all over my State, visited all 87
counties 2 years in a row. I have talked to them and to farm groups
across the country. Do they like this? Well, not totally. They get
concerned. What does that mean? I think many of them understand--and I
know Senator Grassley knows this in Iowa and Senator Dorgan understands
this in North Dakota--that at some point the Government has a limited
amount of money. We have to make some decisions. What I am saying is,
let's make a decision to help the hard-working farmers of this country
to move in that new direction, to cellulosic ethanol and energy
independence and good conservation and making sure we have a strong
safety net that this farm program deserves. Let's go in that direction
to the future and not stay here where we increasingly, as our economy
has changed, are giving a larger amount of money to the wealthiest
investors. Beverly Hills 90210, $1 million in payments.
I believe in this safety net. I support this farm bill. I will
support this farm bill, because I believe in a safety net. But I
believe it is time to move to some reform. The people of this country
are ready for this reform. The people in our rural communities are
ready for this reform. Now, my friends, we have a chance to do it.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Madam President, as we close this debate, I want to say
thanks to so many Senators who have worked hard to come up with
particularly what we brought out of the Agriculture Committee which was
an enormously well-balanced bill. We eliminated loopholes that people
had complained about. We eliminated the three-entity rule, the generic
certificates. We put in transparency that people have been clamoring
for in the direct attribution. I remind people that these are all
things that apply to the basic commodity programs. Here we go again
with going farther in something we have already reformed.
Senator Klobuchar wants to go one step farther in lowering that AGI.
But you have to ask the question: Why is it we have to cherry-pick
lowering that means testing and AGI just for the commodity programs, so
it hits the capital-intensive crops that southern growers grow? Why
does it not apply to the conservation payments that go out that are in
large numbers? Why doesn't it apply to the sugar program or the MILC
program or the ethanol tax credit? It simply cherry-picks those
individuals whom they can cherry-pick. That is the commodities program.
My argument to my colleagues is, we have lowered the AGI means test
from the 2002 farm bill by 70 percent. Some of the people who were used
as examples should be caught. I am not sure why they are not. Maybe it
is the reason the GAO study tells us this administration doesn't
implement the existing law. But we should make sure that what we are
doing in this bill is working before we begin to take a further step
and suffer the unintended consequences of putting out of business those
farmers who use these programs when prices are low, cherry-picking
those commodities that are capital intensive and will suffer the most
from this, and not extending this across the board so that everybody
feels the pain, so everybody understands what it means when you start
putting means testing on programs, when you are dealing with
circumstances that are beyond our farmers' control, when you are
dealing with weather, trade, global competition?
I ask my colleagues to think twice before they support this amendment
and remember that we have done 70 percent in terms of lowering the AGI
test. I hope they will oppose the Klobuchar amendment.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, again, trying to work this through and
get our amendments lined up, I have a unanimous consent request, and
then we will be on our way to four votes in a row.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment
No. 3530 be modified with the changes at the desk, and that the
amendment then be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table; that upon disposition of the Brown amendment, the Senate
then return to the Craig amendment No. 3640, and that there be 2
minutes of debate prior to the vote, with the time divided between
Senators Craig and Leahy, and that the Craig amendment be subject to
the same 60-vote threshold as is provided for in the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I say
to the chairman of the committee, I think you alluded to the Craig
amendment as 3640. It is 3630.
Mr. HARKIN. It is 3640.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3530), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

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

SEC. ___. PAYMENTS TO DECEASED INDIVIDUALS AND ESTATES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall not provide to any deceased
individual or estate of such an individual any agricultural
payment under this Act, or an Act amended by this Act, after
the date that is 2 program years (as determined by the
Secretary with respect to the applicable payment program)
after the date of death of the individual.

[[Page S15418]]

(b) Report.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate, and post on the website of the
Department of Agriculture, a report that describes, for the
period covered by the report--
(1) the number and aggregate amount of agricultural
payments described in subsection (a) provided to deceased
individuals and estates of deceased individuals; and
(2) for each such payment, the length of time the estate of
the deceased individual that received the payment has been
open.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, here is the situation, for all Senators.
We are now going to be having a series of votes. The first vote will
occur on the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar.
That will be a 15-minute vote. The next three votes will be Senator
Tester's amendment, then Senator Brown's amendment, and then Senator
Craig's amendment. Those will be 10-minute votes. Each one of these has
a 60-vote threshold.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I support the Klobuchar amendment because it
moves farm policy in the right direction. It would limit commodity
program payments for those farmers who earn more than two-thirds of
their income from farming, after expenses are deducted, to $750,000.
The amendment, however, has a number of problems. For example, rather
than applying the savings achieved by tightening the payment
limitations to deficit reduction, it applies most of the savings to
other farm programs. It also does not apply the stricter income test to
conservation program payments. Nevertheless, the amendment takes a step
forward in reining Federal spending on farm subsidies and, therefore,
warrants my support.

Vote On Amendment No. 3810

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 426 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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

NAYS--47

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

NOT VOTING--5

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

Amendment No. 3666

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 427 Leg.]

YEAS--40

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

NAYS--55

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

NOT VOTING--5

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

Amendment No. 3819

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 3819 offered by the Senator from
Ohio, Mr. Brown.
Who yields time?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, this amendment threatens to undermine
and kill the Crop Insurance Program so vital to farmers and ranchers.
The amendment does not take into account the real world expenses of
industry, including the list of the private reinsurers which ensures
that the taxpayers do not pick up the risk.
If we endanger this program, many farmers, especially young farmers,
will be in danger because their lenders and their landlords demand they
sign up for crop insurance.
This is a genuine Kent Conrad chart, the veracity of which is
unquestioned. If we look back to 1980, when I first had the privilege
of coming to Congress, we had 64 crop insurance companies. We can see
what has happened every decade as we further cut investment in crop
insurance. We are down to 16. We had a reform with Bob Kerrey in 2000.
We expanded it all over the country.

[[Page S15419]]

If this amendment is adopted, I am telling my colleagues, it isn't
going to be 16, it is going to be 5. Don't support this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
bipartisan Brown-Sununu-McCaskill RESCU amendment.
This amendment significantly improves the way we target Federal
resources to agriculture--eliminating waste and providing additional
investments in important programs. The amendment also redirects
hundreds of millions of dollars into deficit reduction that would
otherwise subsidize large insurance companies.
As my colleague, Senator Brown, points out, in the last 7 years crop
insurance companies have received 40 cents out of every dollar that
Congress has appropriated for the crop insurance program--that is $9
billion out $19 billion for the program. This is billions of dollars
meant for farmers that ended up in the pockets of insurance companies.
The Brown amendment cuts $2 billion of that spending by lowering the
subsidy rate for insurers.
Currently, that subsidy is calculated based on crop prices. As crop
prices rise, so does the subsidy--even though the work burden stays the
same. Rising commodity prices have driven up premiums so that these
subsidies are now over three times what they were 10 years ago, even
though the cost of administering the policies has stayed the same.
In other words, it makes no sense.
This amendment reduces the reimbursement rate to the 2004-2006
national per policy average. This level is still higher than any year
prior to 2006 and is quite fair to the companies.
A recent GAO report showed that compared to other insurance sectors,
crop insurance companies earn profits that are more than double
industry averages. I don't have a problem with industry profits, but I
don't think those profits should come right out of the pockets of U.S.
taxpayers.
This amendment would require that insurers share a portion of their
underwriting gains or losses with Federal taxpayers by increasing the
Federal share of risk from 5 percent to 15 percent.
The $2 billion in savings would fund over $1 billion in improvements
to the Food Stamp Program, $400 million for conservation programs, $200
million for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program, and over $600
million for deficit reduction.
Through these changes, we will be able to conserve soil and water
quality on millions of acres of farmland, provide real food benefits to
a countless number of less fortunate Americans, and make a significant
investment in the lives of millions of children from some of the
poorest corners of the world.
Farmers will not pay more for crop insurance. This amendment does not
reduce premium subsidies to farmers. Premium subsidies are set by law.
This amendment does not change them.
I thank my colleagues, Senators Brown and McCaskill, for their hard
work assembling this language.
Now, let me just say a few words about the McGovern-Dole Program,
which would enjoy increased funding under this amendment.
The amendment would provide enough mandatory money for the McGovern-
Dole International School Feeding Program to provide nutritious meals
to millions of children each year who would otherwise go hungry.
The McGovern-Dole Program is based on a simple idea that I first read
about in an op-ed written by former Senator George McGovern in 2000.
The op-ed was titled ``Too Many Children Are Hungry. Time for Lunch,''
and it argued that the fastest way to alleviate poverty in less
developed countries is to provide healthy, nutritious meals to children
attending school. The principle is simple--by linking school attendance
with nutritious meals, you provide an incentive for families to send
their children to school to become educated, rather than keeping them
at home to work. And as children become more educated and better fed,
they grow up smarter, stronger, and better able to earn a living and
make positive contributions to their societies.
The statistics are startling. Since it was founded in 2000 by
President Clinton as the Global Food for Education Initiative, GFEI,
the program has provided healthy meals to more than 26 million boys and
girls in 41 countries around the world. Through the program, American-
grown wheat, rice, peas, corn, and other crops have been provided to
young children in countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Chad, Nicaragua,
Nepal, and Senegal. More than 500,000 metric tons of commodities have
been distributed since the program's inception.
In communities that have benefited from the McGovern-Dole Program,
school attendance rates have increased 14 percent on average and 17
percent for girls compared to similar communities that have not
benefited from the program. What is even more amazing than the
statistics are the stories about what this program enables in some of
the world's poorest communities.
Take my friend Paul Tergat. Paul Tergat is the current world record
holder in the marathon. He ran the 26.2 mile race in 2 hours 4 minutes.
When Paul was a child living in Kenya, he received free lunches through
a World Food Program school feeding program. Without the program, he
says he would not have been able to go to school because his parents
were too poor. He says it is likely he never would have trained to
become an athlete were it not for the generosity of the program.
Like many of my colleagues, I have seen school feeding programs like
these in person, and I can tell you they have a transformative effect.
I saw the program when I traveled to Kibera in Kenya--it is one of the
world's largest slums. Over 1 million people. It is the slum that you
see if you have ever watched the film ``The Constant Gardener.'' When
you visit, there are people as far as the eye can see, kids playing in
the streets, in railway yards, everywhere.
We visited a school in Kibera and saw a feeding program in action. At
lunch time, the students were provided with what looked like gruel or
porridge--it was a highly nutritious enriched food provided thanks to
the productivity of U.S. farmers and the generosity of U.S. taxpayers.
The children stood in line patiently, and you could just tell this was
going to be their one meal of the day. And they were there in school so
they could get that meal. It is these types of stories that make you a
believer in the power of school feeding programs. This program is
transformative in the lives of vulnerable children around the world.
And it promotes U.S. interests around the world. Delivering bags of
food labeled as gifts of the people of the United States is a public
diplomacy tool that demonstrates the good will and generosity of the
American people. It represents the best of our values, and it tells
people all over the world who we are and what America stands for.
Imagine the possibilities for shaping perceptions of the United States
if we significantly increase our investment in the McGovern-Dole
Program--the millions more children we could touch at an early,
impressionable age and give the most basic gift of a healthy,
nutritious childhood.
The McGovern-Dole Program is also good for American farmers and the
agriculture industry. In 2005, the program distributed approximately
120,000 metric tons of U.S. commodities. The McGovern-Dole Program is
also good for related industries, including processors, millers,
packagers, freight forwarders and shippers, as well as U.S. port
facilities.
The program serves as one more market for U.S. commodities, which is
one reason the program has the support of a wide range of industry
groups, including the American Soybean Association, the North American
Millers Association, and the National Farmers Union.
This is a strong amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill-McCain-Durbin-
Schumer amendment will make the Crop Insurance Program work for family
farmers and work for taxpayers. In the last 6 years, $10.5 billion in
benefits through the Crop Insurance Program have gone to farmers. It
took 19 billion taxpayer dollars to deliver that $10 billion in
benefits. Farmers get less than half of the crop insurance money. Of
the crop insurance dollars, more money goes to insurers than it does to
farmers. We want to take a very small

[[Page S15420]]

amount of that and move it to deficit reduction and move it to the
conservation programs and move it to the McGovern-Dole Program,
something I know Senator Roberts supports.
This is not going to mean the Crop Insurance Program is in jeopardy.
This will make the Crop Insurance Program work better for family
farmers and work better for taxpayers.
I ask for my colleagues' support of the Brown-Sununu-McCaskill-
McCain-Durbin-Schumer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 32, nays 63, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 428 Leg.]

YEAS--32

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

NAYS--63

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

NOT VOTING--5

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

Amendment No. 3640

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

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

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

[Rollcall Vote No. 429 Leg.]

YEAS--37

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

[[Page S15421]]

Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter

NAYS--58

Akaka
Alexander
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Collins
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Martinez
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stabenow
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

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

____________________