Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 302 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation that improves certain services for and benefits to wounded or disabled military personnel and retirees, veterans, and their survivors and dependents. Section 302 authorizes the revisions provided that the legislation does not worsen the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. I find that the conference report accompanying H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for veterans and wounded service members. Therefore, pursuant to section 302, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, there would be no objection on our side.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, might I ask unanimous consent by both sides to make a unanimous consent request at this time on behalf of the leadership of both sides?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the combined leadership, that the Senate stand in recess today from 2 to 3 p.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to address the amendment of Senator Brown, the Senator from Ohio, proposing further cuts to crop insurance. First, I wish to acknowledge what a valuable Member Senator Brown is of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He has made a real contribution to the work of the committee in bringing this bill to the floor. I respect him for this amendment. He has offered this amendment because he thinks we need to beef up other parts of the farm program--nutrition and conservation--and at the same time he thinks there is more money going to the crop insurance industry than is warranted. Let me give an alternative view. The amendment before us would cut crop insurance by another $1.8 billion, in addition to the substantial reductions that have already been made in the committee bill. I would like to caution my colleagues about making even more cuts to crop insurance. As the bill stands now, we have already taken $3.6 billion over 5 years, $4.7 billion over 10 years from crop insurance to address other priorities in the bill. This amendment would increase those cuts by more than 50 percent. It would go well beyond what the House did, and it could have a very negative effect on producers' ability to insure their crops. Let's look at the reforms already contained in the committee bill. The committee bill reduces the loss ratio from 1.075 to 1; it reduces catastrophic insurance and noninsurable--or it has fee increases for catastrophic insurance and the noninsurable program; it has reduced reimbursement for area plans; it has a 2-percent reduction for administrative and operating expenses; and it has total crop revenue offsets of $3.6 billion. That is not insignificant in terms of savings out of this program. When I look at the proposals of this amendment, I am concerned about the unintended consequences. Specifically, if we act hastily and unwisely without benefit of hearings in the committees of jurisdiction, we could lose participation of private insurance companies, smaller crop insurance companies that rely on reinsurance could exit the business, and producers would have fewer choices. Rather than having competing companies delivering a product, we would be begging them to stick around. The loss of participating insurance companies is only one part of the story. Reduced reimbursement for delivery of the program would result in agents abandoning the program as well. Where and how far will our producers have to travel to obtain coverage? I don't particularly like the prospect of farmers and ranchers calling my office telling me their agent has quit and they can't find someone to explain to them crop insurance. I think that might be the outcome if we adopt this amendment. Proponents have been quoting the GAO's May report as justification for further reductions. I read the report. I also read a report completed by the respected accounting firm of Grant Thornton. Frankly, I am concerned that when GAO made its comparisons of crop insurance profitability to property and casualty insurers, they were comparing apples and oranges. The GAO compared profitability over 5 years, showing crop insurance at 17.8 percent return compared to 6.4 percent for property and casualty. Of course, that comparison included the only loss year for property and casualty and relatively good years for multiperil crop insurance. Grant Thornton instead looked at a 14-year period. Their analysis shows something quite different, with crop insurance profitability at 12.2 percent compared to 17.4 percent for property and casualty. Further, Grant Thornton notes that crop insurance expenses have fallen short of administrative and operating reimbursements since 1997. That is quite a different story. Grant Thornton's report suggests the GAO didn't make fair comparisons because they chose nonrepresentative years and did not account for significant differences between property and casualty insurance and crop insurance. Frankly, there is a dramatic difference between crop insurance and what is required in order to provide it and other insurance products. There are more administrative expenses to administer a crop insurance program than most of us understand. Agents are constantly being trained and retrained to keep up with the new Government rules we pass. They need to understand not only government regulations but company rules, loss adjustment, and maintain production history records. In addition, loss adjustments occur on a much greater frequency than for any property and casualty company. I have actually had perhaps the misfortune of studying insurance in college. Crop insurance is a totally different insurance coverage than other insurances that have been referenced on the floor. It is no wonder Grant Thornton reported crop insurance expenses have exceeded administrative and operating reimbursement every year since 1997. I might add, while the GAO outlined what they believe are vulnerabilities for fraud, waste, and abuse, this amendment doesn't do anything about those questions. In fact, because it reduces available resources for administration, I am inclined to think this proposal may make the fraud and abuse situation worse. While I applaud my colleagues for trying to increase resources for conservation and nutrition, I would point out the bill before us increased conservation by over $4 billion above the baseline, increased nutrition by $5 billion above the baseline, and we did it largely by taking money from crop insurance already. This is a double hit. We have taken nearly $7.5 billion from the commodity programs. We have taken $4.2 billion directly from commodities, and over $3.6 billion from risk management. Where did the money go? The money went to nutrition and conservation. They were the big winners. It is like people have completely forgotten what occurred. This is a chart that shows the sources and uses of funds. Thirty-four percent of the money--the new money--provided in this bill came out of commodities. Thirty-two percent--almost a third--came out of crop insurance. We have already tapped them. Where did the money go? Forty percent of it went to conservation, and 47 percent went to nutrition. Now, when is enough enough? When is there a fair balance? I wish to emphasize, we have hit the commodity title for $7 billion already. When does it stop? When is enough enough? When is fair fair? Sixty-six percent of this bill is going to nutrition. Sixty-six percent of this bill is going to nutrition. Nine percent of this bill is going to conservation. Commodity programs are less than 14 percent. Let's be clear. When we wrote the last farm bill, it was estimated that three-quarters of 1 percent of Federal spending would go to commodity programs. But that isn't what happened in the real world. We didn't get three-quarters of 1 percent of Federal spending; we got one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending in the current farm bill for commodities. You know how much we are going to get in this farm bill? Not three-quarters of 1 percent, not one-half of 1 percent, but one-quarter of 1 percent. That is what is going to go for commodities in this bill. This amendment says let's take another $1.8 billion and give it to the parts of the bill that have already been the big beneficiaries, the part of the bill that already has had the biggest increases-- conservation that got 40 percent of the new money, nutrition that got 47 percent of the new money. This amendment ought to be defeated. There are questions raised by it that are legitimate and they ought to be the focus of a hearing. The House already agreed to do so. The Senate ought to follow suit, but we ought not to make a rash, hasty decision that can endanger crop insurance, which is critically important for our producers. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to thank the leadership for taking this bull by the horns and dealing with a circumstance that changed rather dramatically in the last several hours. I know there are colleagues who are disappointed that they are not going to be able to offer amendments that are unrelated to the farm bill to this legislation. But if you put yourself in the position of the leadership, they were faced with an impossible situation, a situation that was made more difficult by the way events unfolded. We had 20 amendments on a side that were in order, 40 amendments in total. That could include amendments that were related to the farm bill as well as those unrelated. Amendments were filed. Not all 40 had been filed. There were still, I believe, at least eight slots. So when the leadership looked at the time--and the fact is, here we are, almost 9 o'clock on Thursday night--and they looked at the other business that has to be done, it didn't fit together. We could be in a circumstance in which things that must be done for us to conclude business for the year could not be concluded because it would take unanimous consent to go off the farm bill now that we are on it. Anybody could object. So they had to find a way to reach conclusion. The rules of the Senate required this circumstance. I know there is disappointment, but our leaders face a very difficult set of choices, and if they wanted to get the business of the Congress done this year by next Friday, they had no alternative but to do what the leaders collectively decided to do tonight. I know there is disappointment, but there was no choice, if the business of the Senate was to get concluded. I salute the leadership. I thank Senator Reid for his strong leadership. I thank Senator McConnell. I especially thank the bill managers, Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss, who have worked tirelessly to get this bill done and under extremely difficult circumstances where they have had the bill interrupted every few hours to handle other legislation, and we have Presidential candidates on both sides who are not here. So these managers are told: You can't vote now, you can't vote then, you have an event here, you have an event there. They were put in an absolutely unbelievably difficult situation, and they have handled it with grace. We should thank them for how well they have done to clear amendments. But they had no choice if this work was to get done. So thanks to the leaders. I know there are people who are upset, but I say thanks to the leaders.

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his vision and his leadership. This is a bill of which we can all be proud. This is a bill that strengthens the safety net. This is a bill that increases resources for conservation by $4 billion. This increases the resources over the so-called base line for nutrition by $5 billion. This increases the resources for speciality crops by $2.5 billion, an unprecedented commitment of resources for that purpose. This is a bill that has permanent disaster assistance. This is a bill that is paid for and paid for honestly. This is a bill that does not add a dime to the deficit or the debt. It deserves our vote for cloture tonight. All of those who are concerned about farm and ranch families, this is their opportunity to demonstrate that support and that concern by supporting cloture on this bill. I especially thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin, the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, and again the strong leadership of the majority leader, Senator Reid, for bringing cloture before the body tonight. This bill needed to end for the Senate to conclude its business for the year. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, earlier today, pursuant to section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, I filed revisions to S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. Those revisions were made for Senate amendment No. 3819, an amendment offered to Senate amendment No. 3500, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2419. The Senate did not adopt Senate amendment No. 3819. As a consequence, I am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the adjustments made pursuant to section 307 to the aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee for Senate amendment No. 3819. I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation, including one or more bills and amendments, that reauthorizes the 2002 farm bill or similar or related programs, provides for revenue changes, or any combination thereof. Section 307 authorizes the revisions provided that certain conditions are met, including that amounts provided in the legislation for the above purposes not exceed $20 billion over the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and that the legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. I find that Senate amendment No. 3819 offered by Senator Brown to Senate amendment No. 3500, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2419, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for the farm bill. Therefore, pursuant to section 307, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 308(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in the resolution for energy legislation that meets certain conditions, including that such legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. I find that H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for energy legislation. Therefore, pursuant to section 308(a), I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation, including one or more bills and amendments, that reauthorizes the 2002 farm bill or similar or related programs, provides for revenue changes, or any combination thereof. Section 307 authorizes the revisions provided that certain conditions are met, including that amounts provided in the legislation for the above purposes not exceed $20 billion over the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and that the legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. I find that Senate amendment No. 3551 offered by Senator Alexander to Senate amendment No. 3500, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2419, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for the farm bill. Therefore, pursuant to section 307, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, earlier today, pursuant to section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, I filed revisions to S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. Those revisions were made for Senate amendment No. 3551, an amendment offered to Senate amendment No. 3500, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2419. The Senate did not adopt Senate amendment No. 3551. As a consequence, I am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the adjustments made pursuant to section 307 to the aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee for Senate Amendment No. 3551. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I wish to be alerted by the Chair when I have consumed 10 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to respond to the proposal by Senator Lugar and Senator Lautenberg to substitute the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 with the so-called FRESH Act. Senator Lugar and Senator Lautenberg are senior Members of this body, very much respected by Members on both sides. I have enormous respect and admiration, and I even have affection for both of them. But I must say, when it comes to farm policy, we have a stark disagreement. Senator Lugar believes we would 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 specialty crop agriculture. I believe those are good priorities, in terms of where the money would go, but I remind Members of the Senate that the work of the committee--by the way, the bill came out of committee without a single dissenting vote. It is true we didn't have a rollcall, so I don't know how members might have expressed themselves, but nobody asked for a rollcall or asked to be recorded in the negative. The fact is we increased each of those areas that is addressed in the FRESH Act. We increased conservation over the baseline by $4.5 billion. We increased nutrition by $5.3 billion over the baseline. We increased specialty crop resources by $2.5 billion. Those are all very large increases. The biggest percentage increase went for conservation. When it comes to investing in the things Senators Lugar and Lautenberg care about, the committee did a good job. So if 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 have heard statements in support of the FRESH Act that amount to broadsides against existing policy. So let me respond to some of the arguments we have heard from the other side. Let's examine the attacks on the distribution of farm program benefits. The critics say only 43 percent of all farms received payments. The critics say that 57 percent of farms unfairly operate without a safety net. The critics say the largest 8 percent of all farms receive 58 percent of the farm program benefits. 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 misrepresent the reality of the farm program. Let's look at each of these claims in turn. According to the Economic Research Service, farming operations receiving no Government payments had an average household income of over $77,000 per year. But the farm income portion of that was only $1,000. So when the assertion is made that almost half of the farms get no farm program benefits, guess what. Those people are not farmers. They have an average income of $77,000, and only a thousand of it comes from farming operations. Those people are not engaged in farming in any meaningful way. What this tells me about the 57 percent of farms operating without a safety net is that a big chunk of them aren't much into farming at all. The largest portion of them farmed only marginally, or do so as a hobby. Our own son is in that category. They have a little farm, with over $1,000 in receipts. So they are counted in all of the statistics as being a farmer, because that is all it takes--$1,000 of receipts--and you are counted as a farmer. But he has a job in town, a full-time job. He is basically a hobby farmer. Yet they are saying he should be getting farm program benefits; that it is unfair because he is not getting farm program benefits. No. That applies to the first argument. The absurdity of trying to claim that these producers are terribly mistreated is the fact that the FRESH Act's own risk management accounts would not allow them to participate either. So I guess what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is because the eligible participant is someone with an AGI from farm operations of $10,000 or more. They would not count them as farmers at all. If the proponents do not call the majority receiving Government payments farmers, why should they be clamoring to find support for them in the commodity support provisions? Part of the problem is the way farmers are defined for statistical purposes. To quote from the Economic Research Service: Most establishments classified as farms are too small to support a household because the official U.S. farm definition requires only $1,000 of sales to qualify as a farm. So the first criticism we hear is without merit. I would like to think of farm households as those that actually obtain a significant portion of their income from a farming operation. When you look at those households, you get a completely different picture. This chart shows where 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 farm receipts above $50,000, you will see that only 23 percent of roughly 2 million total farms are responsible for 90 percent of farm receipts. But their share of Government payments is actually somewhat less, totaling just over 81 percent. So here is the reality. Those with receipts of over $50,000 account for only 23 percent of farms, but they do 90 percent of the business and they get 81 percent of farm program payments. Actually, it is somewhat less than their percentage of actual production. The group signified on the left, with sales less than $50,000, constitutes nearly 77 percent of farms, but produces about 10 percent of gross farm receipts. Yet their share of Government payments is nearly double their percentage of those gross receipts. Let me emphasize that: 77 percent of farms, as tallied by the USDA, are below $50,000 in receipts. They do about 10 percent of the production and get a disproportionate share of the benefits. It is amazing what different conclusion one reaches when one actually researches the underlying facts. I will repeat that first statistic again. Farms with gross receipts of over $50,000 account for only 23 percent of our farms, but they produce 90 percent of the foodstuffs we consume, and they receive 81 percent of Government payments. When you drill deeper into the data, farms with receipts of less than $10,000 constitute 58 percent of total farm numbers. Yet they produce less than 4 percent of total farm production and still receive 7 percent of Government payments. So the conclusion one reaches, if one actually examines these data, is totally different than the story being told by the critics. These statistics from USDA's Economic Research Service clearly show how Government payments go to those actually producing the food. That is what is happening. You get farm program benefits roughly in relationship to your share of production. That is the way it is designed to be. That is the way it is. 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 sales, this farm bill seeks to help them through investments in specialty crop agriculture and a broad-based disaster assistance program. But to suggest that the vast majority of farms is being mistreated by the farm program is simply false. It is not true; it is not fair; it is not accurate. In fact, the smallest producers get a bigger share of Government payments relative to receipts than do the largest producers. Also, I seriously question how replacing the marketing loan, 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 even more.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask to be alerted when I have taken another 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. The FRESH program would actually concentrate payments even more. Wouldn't that be ironic? The proponents of the bill are trying to make the case that the policy contained in the committee bill violates our trade commitments. All of this talk of trade violations or potential actions against the United States on trade can be a bit confusing for Members. Let me attempt to reduce the confusion. First, the current WTO rules limit our trade-distorting domestic support to $19 billion 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 United States by countries such as Brazil and Canada, it appears they are throwing the kitchen sink at us, hoping to make something stick. It has gotten so ridiculous that Brazil even claims that excise tax exemptions on off-road fuel are a trade violation. You have to admire them for their creativity. We cannot write a farm bill based on some agreement that has yet to be written. Sometimes we do a pretty good job of predicting the future here, but I don't know how we can direct what a future trade agreement might look like. To say we are violating an agreement that has not been written, made, or passed is an empty exercise. It is our responsibility to write a policy for agriculture that is in the best interests of America, not in the best interests 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 $25 billion from the crop insurance program will lead to companies simply walking away and crop insurance not being available when it is desperately needed. I believe crop insurance needs a serious look, needs reform, but taking an axe to it is simply, I believe, simplistic and counterproductive. I would rather 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 to the potential catastrophic impacts this bill would have on farm income if this amendment were adopted. Texas A&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 25-percent reduction in their cash income. Seventeen of the representative crop farms would experience more than a 25-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 2002 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 turn 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 if a proposal such as this is adopted and, God forbid, prices decline, and decline sharply, and we have seen that repeatedly in agriculture. Essentially, what this study says from Texas A&M is, if prices remain high, the impacts of this bill would be substantial, but when low prices return--and they have a bad habit of returning in agriculture-- proposals such as the FRESH Act would pull the rug out from under our producers and result in financial ruin for them. That is what the experts at Texas A&M have concluded. I don't think the American people are interested in mass bankruptcy in rural America. For those who would like you to believe that our farm policy has not benefited the people of our country and, indeed, the people of the world, I will leave my colleagues with the words of a recent Wall Street Journal article. I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. This is what the Wall Street Journal said: 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 seeds, synthetic fertilizer and more powerful farm equipment, the productivity of farmers in the West and Asia has stayed so far ahead of population growth that prices of corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation, had dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 1974. Among other things, falling grain prices made food more affordable for the world's poor, helping shrink the percentage of the world's population that is malnourished.'' We never hear it from the critics, but the Wall Street Journal is reporting that 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 75 percent and 69 percent since 1974. I think those words should be taken to heart. U.S. agricultural policy has provided enormous advantages to all of our citizens and to the world. I cannot imagine what would happen without it. I 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 more than 11 percent, to 13.6 percent of total outlays, while establishing many new programs to benefit speciality crop producers. Spending for nutrition programs remains at about two-thirds of total outlays. Let me repeat that. Where is most of the money going in this bill? Where is most of the money going? It is going to nutrition. That is 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 is a fact. Less than 14 percent is going for commodity programs, and that is an 11-percent reduction from the previous bill. This bill, the bill out of committee, represents a significant redirection of resources in areas we all know is necessary. And we didn't need to gut farm programs to make these investments. 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 is good for the economy, it is good for nutrition, it is good for conservation. It deserves our support.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation, including one or more bills and amendments, that reauthorizes the 2002 farm bill or similar or related programs, provides for revenue changes, or any combination thereof. Section 307 authorizes the revisions provided that certain conditions are met, including that amounts provided in the legislation for the above purposes not exceed $20 billion over the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 and that the legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. I find that Senate amendment No. 3711 offered by Senator Lugar to Senate amendment No. 3500, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2419, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for the farm bill. Therefore, pursuant to section 307, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, earlier today, pursuant to section 307 of S. Con. Res. 21, I filed revisions to S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. Those revisions were made for Senate amendment No. 3711, an amendment offered to Senate amendment No. 3500, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2419. The Senate did not adopt Senate amendment No. 3711. As a consequence, I am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the adjustments made pursuant to section 307 to the aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee for Senate amendment No. 3711. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee. I thank him for his leadership and the leadership of the Senator from Iowa in attempting to address the problem we confront. I rise today as chairman of the Budget Committee in direct contradiction of my colleague on the other side to say: When nobody anticipated using these revenues: Really? How it is then that all this money was in the President's budget? All this money was in every budget printed by Republicans and Democrats. The only way any of these budgets balance is with this revenue. Now, I would acknowledge it makes absolutely no sense to tax these people with the alternative minimum tax. It was never adjusted for inflation. That would not be a fair outcome. But it ought to be paid for. The revenue ought to be replaced, either by spending cuts or by other revenue. Because if we do not pay for it, we are going to borrow it. Where are we going to borrow it? Well, we are going to borrow about half of it from abroad, most of it from the Chinese and the Japanese. So while I very much recognize the difficult situation we are in, and I applaud the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member for grappling this, with trying to find a way to handle this problem, I cannot support providing this measure without it being paid for. That is what pay-go is about, to require that any new spending or new tax cuts or other revenue changes be offset. If we do not do it, we have to borrow it. We increasingly have to borrow it from abroad. That is not a wise course to pursue. Again, I recognize the extremely difficult situation we are in because some will resist doing anything other than allowing AMT to be eliminated for this 1 year without an offset. I, personally, think that is a mistake. I think it is a mistake for the country. I think that money ought to be replaced, it ought to be offset. Again, when people say: Well, nobody ever anticipated this revenue, that is not the case. Everybody who wrote a budget around here anticipated it. Every single budget, including the President's, including every budget written by Republicans or Democrats, included this revenue. While it would be a serious mistake to allow the AMT to go forward and hit 23 million American families, I believe the answer is to pay for it.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the negotiations on the farm bill and to ask my Republican colleagues to think very carefully--especially the farm State colleagues--about the circumstance we face with respect to the farm bill. The majority leader made an offer to the Republican leader during the break that we would have a chance to move forward if they could do 10 amendments on their side and we can do 5 amendments on our side; that 2 of their 10 be unrelated to the farm bill, and that we have 2 additional amendments, and the bipartisan amendments that have been filed would not count against either allocation. That offer was made to Senator McConnell, and Senator McConnell has not yet answered or counteroffered. I hope the Republican leader will indicate how we could proceed. If there is a need for additional amendments--apparently, Senator Harkin indicated it would be reasonable if there were 17 perhaps on their side and 14 on our side. Whatever the number is that would help us reach a conclusion would be very important for our being able to advance the legislation that came out of the committee, without a dissenting vote. There are 21 Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Republicans and Democrats. This farm bill came out without a single dissenting vote. It is paid for, it is less costly than the President's farm proposal, and it has the beginnings of reform. This is a reasonable offer. Certainly, Senator Reid made it. If you look at previous farm bills, typically the number of recorded votes have been about 20 amendments, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. On average, there have been around 20 amendments that have actually been voted on. Senator Reid's proposal would have 17 rollcall votes before final passage. So that would be a bit below the average. The leader has made clear that if there are some additional amendments that are required in order to advance this proposal, he is open to doing that. The current farm bill expires this year. Farmers need to know and their bankers need to know what the rules of the road are going to be. So it is absolutely essential we get this legislation through the Senate and we have an opportunity to go to conference with the House to work out the differences in the early part of next year. Let me make one final point, if I may. Some are saying just extend the current farm bill by a year or two. First of all, we know that if it is a 1-year extension, it will be 2 years because next year is an election year. Beyond that, our colleagues should know the baseline for writing a farm bill is based on the last 5 years of experience with farm legislation. That baseline is already down substantially because the last farm bill cost $17 billion less than the estimates at the time it was written. That baseline is going to go only in one direction for the commodity provisions at least, and that is down. So anybody who is concerned about writing a farm bill that meets the needs of the American people--not just the commodity title but nutrition, conservation, research, and all the rest--should understand this noose is going to do nothing but get tighter. It is already very tight--very tight. I hope our colleagues on the other side bend their best efforts to come up with a response to the proposal the majority leader made to reach conclusion, and I hope they do it soon. The clock is ticking. American farm and ranch families across this country are waiting. We should not ask them to wait past Christmas. So much needs to be done, so many decisions need to be made, but Congress needs to act now. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.