out of the year. i don't pretend to have all the answers to agriculture labor. i think this ought to be discussed on the floor at the time the bill comes to the floor. ild intend in all probability bring this bill back up at that time. but the purpose of it, madam chairwoman is just to bring to the attention of our colleagues who are not on the ag committee, the real seriousness of this issue of a lack of labor supply. we're about -- i don't know, 60 days away from harvesting vidalia onions in georgia. that commodity depends on the workers who do the type of work that frankly most american workers don't want to do. you have to bend over and cut the onions. you have to dig them up.

this is just an example of within form of specialty crop farming in georgia that relies very heavily on imported workers. my bill would allow those to come in in a legal way and our farmers would have less expense involved in getting those workers here and at the end of the day, know that they have a quality supply of workers that they're not using false documents or the other issues that our farmers currently run into. i bring it up with the intention of making sure that this issue is highlighted and i don't -- >> thank you very much for bringing this up. everyone in michigan i go with our growers i hear the same thing. i know this is a very serious issue. we don't have jurisdiction within the agriculture committee, this is something i know we all need to be actively

engaged in to resolve. so thank you for raising this issue. >> madam chair, i'd like to up nelson amendment number one. it's almost the same as nelson number two. i'd like to talk about them. we're going to have to deal with this issue. >> excuse me, senator nelson, is it amendment one or two? >> amendment one. >> one, thank you. >> but they're essentially the same. i'm only going to call up one. the amendments which are based on stand alone legislation that i've introduced and are both sponsored by my friend and colleague senator johanns. the amendment and its companion amendment seek to address a situation facing more than 500 communities nationwide without congressional active.

by october 12, 2012 the usda must redefine rural. at that time the existing grandfather clause first enacted in 1990 and extended by congress in 2000 will expire. as a result these many communities will no longer be eligible for funding under these critical housing programs cutting them off from what is often their only source of federal housing funding. both of these amendments seek to extend this grandfather clause through the 2020 consensus -- census with different levels of community eligibility. i know both chairwoman staub nau and chairman roberts i know this is of interest to you. i look forward with working with you and the banking committee as we continue to move this farm bill forward and if such will

withdraw my amendments at this time. i thank my colleague and friend for being supportive and he may have some comments he would like to make. >> senator. >> thank you, madam chair. my comments will be brief. all i need to do here really is associate myself with the comments of senator nelson. this impacts really all of our states. and ill imagine every member of the ag committee has heard about this issue. as one of only two members i believe who serves both on the ag committee and on the banking committee, i look forward to working with members of the ag committee to try to convince our colleagu colleagues. >> thank you, senator. >> once again, we look forward to working with you.

i know this is an issue very important to kansas. so we look forward to working with you. >> thank you. ill just echo na as well. it is banking committee jurisdiction. they asked us not to ard this here. we certainly have the opportunity to do that on the floor. and appreciate your leadership. are there other amendments for this title? >> i'd like to bring up bozeman one. please. thank you madam chair and i'll be really brief. i offer this in a sense of frustration. we want all our food to be nutritional and accessible for all americans specially low and moderate income families. as we per sue these goals as i'm out and about is all i hear about is the heavy handed regulations that really have a negative impact on the variety,

quality, availability and affordability of food for the american family. again, the kpoeszive regulations. this would allow the secretary to determine if the regulation would have negative impact to affordable food. if the secretary made the determination that such a view would take place. again, i won't go through it. it outlie ins the process such that there would be congressional oversight. i do this out of frustration because of the situation that we have and i understand that, you know, this is going to probably be ruled out of order, i do with that in mind, i do withdraw the amendment. but i really would like your assurance and ranking member, i know we have it in the rest of

the committee to really address some of the problem with excessive regulation which is so costly. and see if we can do some things to, you know, again, move forward would make it such that we wouldn't be burdened with this. with that, i look frd to working with you all and yield back. >> thank you, senator conrad. >> just very briefly on this amendment, madam chairwoman. i've served on this committee for 26 years. i've got to say senator, you've touched a chord that is something i've experienced many times here. we pass legislation the regulations are written and they come back, it's almost unrecognizable from what we thought we were doing. and i actually thought at one time i had the bill drafted to require that once the regulations are written that the

whole thing has to be resubmitted for another vote because, you know, i know there are a lot of well meaning people in the agencies, but there are people who have their own agenda. those agendas turn up all too often in the regulations and aren't what the agenda was by the members of this committee or the members on the floor. so i do think it's important that we raise this and that we sensitize the agencies they've got an obligation to capture what was intended here. they're not above congress in the agencies. so i'm glad you've raised the issue. >> thank you very much. i appreciate very much senator, raising the issue and also understanding this is within the jurisdiction of homeland security and government oversight, but certainly something that we can be talking about and thinking about further

on. thank you very much for offering it and withdrawing it given that fact. are there any other amendments to this title to title 12? we're on title 12 miscellaneous titles. i wonder if there's any other amendments to this title? if there are not -- >> yes, ma'am. >> senator bacchus. >> again, this is in the same vein as the other amendment it is out of a sense of frustration. i'd like to call up bozeman three. >> amendment number three. >> yes, ma'am. first of all, i know every member of the senate wants the best for the american children and wants to keep them safe. at the same time we don't need to regulate every aspect of people's lives. i'm sure that we all got our fair share of broken bones, playing supports, playing with

our friends at recess. sometimes tragedies do occur. but we should do our very best to be responsible for our children's safety and provide them with the safest environment as reasonably possible. farmers and rachblers love their children as much as any other parent. i'm not sure we need the government to go any further beyond how much they already dictate in raising children. late last year a bipartisan group of 30 senators including myself sent our concerns to the regulations. no less than 11 members of that committee were included in that total number. the letters expressed concerns regarding just to name a few, the department is under no obligation to issue new regulations and according to the department it had just been a a while since they had been

updated. they wanted to bring greater parity between the ag regulations. we expressed our concern about the way that these proposals would affect the ability of families to run their farms the way they have been doing so for generations. as all of us on the committee understand. we expressed concern about the way the proposal would affect the existing parental exemptions. significant concern regarding the way the regulations could impact agriculture education it relies heavily on experiences. my girls were all state record book winners in 4 h. that was a tremendous part of our family. i don't think there's problems with herding cattle, electric screwdrivers. it makes no sense at all. this is another one that again offers to put that sort -- the child labor laws under the agriculture department. again, i know there's a problem

with that. i just wanted to bring it up and highlight the issue that we're dealing with. this is another thing as i travel throughout arkansas and throughout the country, i hear all about. so again, i withdraw the amendment. i do think it's something that we need to address. >> thank you very much for raising it. it is not within our jurisdiction. as a lifelong 4 her i never was a state award winner. i know how important that was in my life and my family's life growing up in a rural community. we definitely have to make sure folks understand what it's like to be in a family farm. i think that's a very important job of this committee to make sure they understand that. any other amendments? senator bacchus. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i have an amendment bacchus number one it's entitled cuba cash and advance amendment. this amendment is designed to address the subject that senator conrad was discussing earlier,

boozman two, that is fulfill congressable intent. there's a law on the books here. the law is that cash -- cash sales of agriculture products to cuba be in advance of transfer of title. that's the 2000 law. the 2000 law provision called respect of the subject that the cash advance means just that the transfer of title. then the treasury department 2005 disregarding the law changed the rule. the cash in advance of shipment. what'd that day? that allowed private interests in cuba to seize ships still in port irrespective of the merits

of the issue that is agriculture products being transferred and shipped to cuba. what else did it do? it halted cash sales. let's not forget, everybody that we in the united states one of the few countries that doesn't trade with cuba and we're losing out. canada, every other country does. due to external irrelevant reasons -- in 2005 this was changed. we all know the reasons why it's a reason that disrupts the trade. it's not a reason that has anything to do with trade. it's a reason that frankly has to do with the presidential politics. that law is being thwarted by a rule that was put in place in

2005. i spent some time in ofac. it's supposed to attract -- for asset transfers that jeopardized national security they have far more people looking at cuba than any other country in the world in any part of the world. it was just ridiculous. and i challenge them on this several years ago they had no answer, no response. this amendment again fulfills a long standing congressional intent to facilitate a cash advance so our farmers and ranchers can sell to cuba. i've been with several montana producers to cuba several times. one of my good friends from kansas and i can just tell you that it's cubans like and did

buy during the period when cash was in advance of passage of title bought a lot of agriculture products. not now. can't. because this rule is set up over the department of treasury. it's just nuts. big outfits can transfer. they have letters of credit. average and medium sized small farmer and rancher. it's just nuts. is i'm going to push this tradition. it's the right thing to do to be able to sell more products to cuba. it's my understanding it has to be with more extreme issues.

it's nuts. we should be able to sell agriculture products on a cash basis to cuba. >> i just want to associate myself with senator bacchus' remarks. i believe it's an important step in getting the trade relations back with cuba. i had the opportunity of serving with tom in the house. tom was very concerned about that. we're not consistent. we trade with a lot worse actors than cuba is. tom used to get up. i can hear him say it like yesterday. he'd get up and say that as a koung coach, he figured out pretty quickly if you ran the same play 40 times in a row and it didn't work, you needed to run something different. means that was the years whenever that was that this was

in place. our policies have not worked. if they need to be changed it's something that's good for the american farmer and something we need to eventually get done. i yield back. >> i want to just add my support for what's been said. i think i mentioned before the committee when i was in louisiana talking to rice growers they said just open cuba and we'll be fine. it was important to them. but i share the concerns and hope we can address this. >> it's going to happen. i just think earlier is better than later. that micks no sense for us being so stubborn about this. and be not very smart about it. >> senator nelson. >> i want to include my comments in a comparable way about cuba. i think it's time to put aside

the politics and look toward a partnership ultimately with a neighbor 90 miles from our border. so i want to associate myself with those comments. >> thank you vchl. are there any amendments to amendment 12. >> i think senator roberts is in favor of this. he didn't say it, but i think he's in favor. bl it's the new program. >> any other amendments? going once, going twice. if not, then seeing no more amendments this title is closed and we will move on to the next title on our list. that is conservation title two. our rapidly growing population demands that america's farmers double their production over the next few decades and use fewer acres to do so. our conservation programs ensure we have a safe and abundant food supply, clean water and thriving wildlife populations.

our bill streamlines 23 existing conservation programs into four fundamental functions. working lands, easements, crp and regional partnerships. by focussing on key functions we can get better results while saving taxpayer money. this title is now open for amendment. do we have any amendments from the senators? senator bennett? >> i would like to call up ben it amendment number one. before i discuss this amendment, i just want to say i think you and the raking member have done terrific work on this title. it's been a great privilege to work with you on it. i thank you for accepting two of the aems that i filed to the conservation title. and bennett number four increasing funding for the

voluntary public access program. it helps provide funding for our sportsmen and women. so thank you for working with me to accept these important amendments. to the amendment that's before the committee now would address an issue particular to the west. i want to thank my fellow committee senator boozman for joining me. i've heard from groups who have concerns over the current financing requirements for some important conservation easements. namely the scenario with a landowner wants to voluntarily donate and i underscore voluntarily donate part of the development value of their land to help finance an easement, but the law limits their ability to do just that. this recognizes the part be in part by granting the secretary

the ability to provide a match for sensitive grasslands. i thank you for that inclusion. i think this amendment builds on your good work. et number one would give the secretary discretion to allow the private landowner to donate the land. the issue here is historically we've seen easement dollars that require nonfederal partner disproportion ally go to eastern states. many eastern states have wide tax bases to support state programs that in turn help purchase conservation easements. senate bacchus knows in the west with less population density and a lot of federal land that can't be taxed. we see fewer of those dollars. in 2009 the 19 states the western governor associated represented received 31% less per state in farm and ranch side protection program funding than nonwga states. the sentiments were broadly supported by western senators in the letter sent monday.

>> i'd like to submit the letter for the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. this amendment is supported by the nature conservancy, and the partnership of rangeland trusts. i'll submit their membership for the record. i'd like to thank you and your staff for working with me on this important issue. i know the question of achieving regional equity in terms of conservation dollars is a complex one. easements are an important tool. while i withdraw the ben it amendment for now, the i hope the chairwoman and others will work to address this issue. thank you for your help. >> thank you very much for your leadership as chair of our conservation subcommittee, i think we have an excellent program that we're going to continue to work with you to make it better.

are there other amendments? no oraems in the conservation title? the conservation title is closed. we'll now move on to title three, which is trade. >> madam chair. >> excuse me. >>. >> madam chair, thank you. i'd like to call up johanns aem four. this amendment i have described as the agriculture trade enhancement study, what it does is it calls for a study to consider a re-organization of the trade function at the usda. trade is absolutely trittical to american agriculture. the u.s. exported $136 billion last year over $5 billion of

that was from nebraska. one out of every three acres is of production goes into the foreign marketplace. increasing population, affluence, urbanization it's going to require our farmers to grow more and it's going to require our farmers to do it more efficiently and put tremendous pressure on our trade functions. there will be increased dmabd for ag products like nebraska beef, michigan cherries. thus it's increasingly important that usda ensure that our trade is open and it is based on science. as a former ag secretary i know while the importance of the department responding quickly and aggressively to sbs and other nontariff trade barriers, if he was a surprise that the usda in my time as secretary was

how much time i devoted to trade issues. for this reason i've offered this amendment just requires a study of usda trade function covering both imports and exports as a part of the study the secretary may include a religious for the establishment of an undersecretary for trade in foreign agriculture affairs. that could be discretionary. the findings of this study will be submitted to is the senate and house agriculture committees. and the senate and house agriculture appropriations subcommittees within six months after the establishment of the act. i think it's a good direction to go. madam chair i respectfully request that the chair and ranking member accept the amendment. >> senator roberts. >> madam chairman, i support this amendment. i thank my friend and colleague senator johanns who comes from a -- he comes at this issue from

a very unique perspective having been secretary. but this has been an issue the same i can say for senator baucus for a number of years. i would simply remember the usda to study the organization. we obviously want to work with the secretary and the position would oversee the multitude of international trading functions that will currently spread across several agencies within the department. that's the problem. we have a long standing challenge at the department. we have several agencies in the department with some international aspects or responsibility that we're too thin at the top. the senator's amendment suggests that we think trade is a top vital priority at the department. we want them to take a hard closer look and consider such a position. there's always a laundry list of

trade issues in agriculture they pop up almost every moment. hopefully we didn't add to the list yesterday with the announcement out of california. goodness knows our cowboys have been through a lot in the past eight and a half years and we don't need more of this type of thing. this isn't political. we've long needed a solid trade hand with the appropriate diplomatic title to increase interaction with our trading partners on these technical issues i thank my colleague for introducing this. >> thank you. i join with senator roberts in supporting the amendment. are there others who wish to hear about this? >> thank you senator for doing this. it goes without saying, the united states does not think enough time thinking about trade. other countries do. and other countries, you talk about when trade issues come up, people in those countries know

what the issue is. their looifl hood depends so much on trade. that's becoming more and more true. senator johanns said he gave some of the reasons why. i just think and we're just missing the boat here, no pun, when we don't work aggressively market our products and spend more time on trade issues. orcountries are. you name it. brazil is a big exporter. many other countries, too. it's probably too much of a diversion here. some time ago when i was in japan with some members of congress making rounds, met with head of sony. can't think of his name. he's a big deal in japan.