my bill would allow folks to obviously 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. so madam chair, i just bring it up with the intention of just making sure that this issue is highlighted and i don't intend to ask for a vote on it. >> thank you so much for bringing this up. almost everywhere in michigan i go with our growers, i hear the very same thing, while we don't have jurisdiction within the agricultural committee, this is something i know we all need to be actively engaged in to resolve. so thank you for raising this issue. is there anyone else who would like to speak?

>> madam chair? i would like to call up nelson amendment number one, it's not germaine and it's essentially the same as the nelson number two which i won't call up. title 12 the existing grand

father clause, first enacted in 1990 and extend by congress in 2000 will expire. as a result, many communities will no longer be eligible for funding, none of these critical rural usda housing programs, cutting him off from what is often the only source of federal housing. both of these amendments seek to extend this grandfather clause through the 2020 census with different levels of community eligibility. i know both chairwoman stabinou and roberts, i know this is an issue to you as well. and i look forward to working with you in the banking committee in addressing the issue as we continue to move this farm bill forward and as such, i will withdraw my amendments at this time. and i thank my colleagues and friends for his support and he

may have some comments he would like to make. >> all i need to do here is to associate myself with the comments of senator nelson. i look forward to working with both members of the ag committee to work with our colleagues on the banking committee that this is a very needed change that must occur. >> okay, senator roberts? >> once again we go back to the kansas-nebraska act. we look forward to working with you, assessable and affordable

for all americans, especially low and moderate families. as we pursue these bills, while i'm out in other areas of the country, 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.

i withdraw the amendment, but i really would like your assurance and ranking member, and i know we have it in the rest of the committee to really address some of the problem of excessive regulation. and see if we can do some things

to work on. with that i yield. >> on this amendment, madam chairman. the regulations are written and they come back. and it's almost unrecognizable. from what we thought we were doing, and i actually naught at one time -- i actually had the bill drafted to require that once the regulations are written, that the whole thing has to be resubmitted for another vote.

>> we raise this and we sensitize the agencies. they got an obligation and they are not above congress in the agencies. so i'm glad you raised the issue. >> it's certainly something we could be talking about and working together later on. thank you so much for offering it and also withdrawing it given that fact. are there any other amendments to this title, to title 12?

>> i know the wants the best for the american children and wants to keep them safe. we don't need to regulate everies a picket of people's lives, i'm sure we all get our fair share of scrapes and bruises, playing with our friends at recess with our kids, 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 ranchers love their children as much as any other parent and 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 a letter to secretary solis expressing our concern to the recently proposed changes to the regulations regarding ag, furthermore, no less than 11 members of this committee were included in that total number. the department's under no obligation to issue new regulations and that according to the department, it had just been a while since they had been updated and they wanted to bring greater parody from the ag, nonag child labor provisions.

we -- run their farms the way they have been doing for generations. as all of us on the committee understand, we expressed concern about the way the proposal would affect existing preexemptions, regarding the way these regulations could affect agriculture and regulation. my girls were all state record book winners in 4-h and that was our tremendous part of our family. i don't think that there's problems with herding cattle, electric screwdrivers, it makes no sense. this is another one that, again, it offers, but i do think it's

something we need to address. >> thank you for rasing it. i never was a board member, but i know how important it was in my life and my family's life growing up in a rural community and we need to help people understand what it's like to grow up on a family farm. any other amendments? senator backus? >> thank you, madam chairman, i have an amendment that's backus number one. it's entitled cuba cast and advancement. excuse me. this amendment is designed to address the subject, frankly that senator conrad was discussing earlier. maybe senator boseman too, that is to fulfill congressional intent with the laws on the

books here. the book that cash sales to cuba, would be in advance of the title. it's the 2001 provision, with respect to this subject, that the cash in advance means just that. prior to transfer of title. then the treasury department in 2005 disregarded the law, changed the rule. they cashed in advance of shipments and what did that do? that allowed private interests in cuba to seize ships still in port. irrespective of the merits of the issue, that is agricultural products being shipped to cuba. well, it halted cash sales. let's not forget, everybody,

that we, the united states is one of the few countries that hasn't traded with cuba and we're losing out. canada, every other country does. but due to external irrelevant reasons, in 2005, this was changed, and 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. and i just think it's wrong. the law was passed in 2000. that law pass in 2000 has being thwarted as a rural place in 2005. i spent some time with olfat. you wouldn't believe, olfat got

exposed to -- for asset transfers that jeopardize national security. they have far more people looking at cuba than any other country in the world. in that part of the world. it's just ridiculous. and i challenge them on this as several years ago, they had no response. so this amendment goes to the long standing congressional intent so our farmers and ranchers can sell to cuba. it's been a sale in montana, producers to cuba at times, i wanted my good friend from kansas and i can just tell you that it's cubans that fought a

lot of agriculture products it. not now, it can't. because of this rule that's set up by olfat. big outfits can manage the credit. but medium sized small farmer ranchers, engaging in cash sales, it's just nuts. and i know this amendment is going to cause a lot of heartburn for members of this committee. but at the appropriate time, i'm going to push this bill because it's just makes sense for american farmers and ranchers to be able to sell to cuba. there's going to be suppleme

supplementasupplemen supplementary-amendments. >> i just want to associate myself with senator backus's remarks. the law is clear, we need to do it for that reason. the other thing is, i believe it's an important step in getting trade relations back with cuba. i had the opportunity of serving with tom osborne in the house when he was a congressman. and tom was very concerned about that because we're not consistent, we trade with a lot worse actors that cuba is. but tom used to get up and i can hear him say it like yesterday. he would get up and say, that as a young 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. meaning that was the year whenever that was that this was in place. our policies have not worked and if they need to be changed, it would be good for the american farmer, something we eventually need to get done. i yield back.

>> i watch to just add my support for what's been said and i these i mentioned before, before the committee, but when i was down in louisiana talking to rice growers, they said just open cuba and we'll be fine. it makes no sense for us to be stubborn about this and not be very smart about it. >> senator nelson? >> i want to include my comments about cuba, i think it's time to put aside the politics and look toward partnership with our neighbor 90 miles from our borders.

so i want to associate myself with those comments, thank you. >> thank you very much, are there other amendments to title 12?

>> by focussing on key functions we can save money. this title is now open for amendments. do we have any amendments from senators? >> thank you, madam chairwoman, i would like to call up bennett amendment number one. before i discuss this amendment, i just want to say that i think you and the ranking member have done terrific work on this title. it's been a great privilege to work with you on it and i thank you for accepting two of the amendments that i filed to the conservation file. the management package is bennett number two, with focus on water quality issues, and amendment number four to increase funding for the voluntary public access program. it provides volunteer access for our sportsmen and women and it gives them an opportunity to

hunt and fish and contribute to our local economy. thank you for working with me to accept these amendments. the amendment that's before the committee now that i will withdraw, will address an issue particular to the west. and i want to thank my fellow westerner senator backus from montana as a co-sponsor on this amendment. i have heard from proconservation groups who have concerns over the current financing requirements for some important conservation easements, namely the scenario where a man wants to 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 madam chairwoman, bennett number

one would give the secretary discreti discretion. the issue here is historically we have seen easement dollars that require nonfederal partners disproportionately go to eastern states. many eastern states have wide tax bases to support state programs and in turn help purchase conservation easements. senator backus knows in the west that with a lot less federal land that can be taxed, we see fewer of those dollars. the government received 31% less per state than nonwga states. the sentiments outlined in my amendment were broadly supported by western senators in the letter sent monday, i would like to submit the letter for the record. >> without objection. >> this amendment is also

supported bid t eed by the rang trust. soild like to thank you you and your staff for working with me on this important issue. easements are an incredibly important tool. chief white is here today and he told a panel out in colorado at a conservation hearing that these important programs are oversubscribed. so while i withdraw the bennett amendment for now, i hope the chairwoman and ranking member will work with me and senator baucus to address this issue going forward. with that i withdraw the bennett amendment and thank you for your help. >> i think we have got an excellent consolidated easement program but we're going to continue to work with you to make it better. thank you. are there other amendments?

>> if we have no other amendments in the conservation title, then the conservation title is closed. i will now move on to title 3 which is trade. >> excuse me, madam chair? >> yes, senator joehans. i would like to call up joehans amendment number four. this amendment i have described as the agricultural trade enhancement study and what it does is it calls for a study to consider reorganization of the trade function at the usda, trade is absolutely critical 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 of

production goes into the foreign marketplace. increasing population, afluns, 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 demand for ag products like nebraska beef, kansas wheat, 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 well the importance of the department responding quickly and aggressively to sbs and other nontariff trade barriers. if there was a surprise at the usda in my time as secretary, it was how much time i devoted to trade issues. for this reason, i have offered this amendment just requires a study of usda trade function,

covering both imports and exp t exports. as a part of this study, the secretary may included a recommendation of a standard for an undersecretary for trade in foreign agricultural affairs, that would be discretionary. the findings of this study will be submitted to the senate and house agricultural committees and the house and senate's appropriations committee. i think it's a good place to go, madam chair, i respectfully request that the ranking member respect the amendment. >> senator roberts? >> madam chairman, i support this amendment, i think my friend and colleague, senator johans, he comes at this issue from a very unique perspective having been secretary. it's been the same as senator

baucus on the finance committee in regards to trade for a number of years, and it would simply require the usda to study the reorganizationization. there are a lot of people that need to just go ahead and do this. but obviously we want to work with secretary vilsack. and the position would oversee the multitude of international trading functions that are 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 and departments with some international aspects and responsibility, but we're too into the job. we think trade is a top, vital priority at the department. and 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 this past 8 1/2 years and we don't need more of this type of thing. this isn't political, we have long needed a solid trade hand with the appropriate diplomatic title to increase interaction with our trading partners on these very technical issues and i thank my colleague for introducing this. >> i join with senator roberts in supporting the amendment. are there others who wish to speak about this? >> thank you, senator, for doing this, it goes without saying, the united states does not spend enough time thinking about trade. other countries do. in other countries, when trade issues come up, people in those countries deeply care about it, because their lively hood depends so much on trade. that's becoming more and more true in our country. more and more true.

and senator johans gave some of the reasons why. i just think we're missing the boat here, no pun, when we don't more aggressively market our products, spend more time working on trade issues because other countries are. you name it, brazil, as a potential and actual big exporter, many other countries do. it's probably too much of a diversion here. some time ago when i was in japan, members of congress met with head of sony. and i -- he was high on the hog. he was a big deal in japan back then. everybody was marching in japan, japan number one, how does japan do it and this and that. so i said to him, i said, if the

president were to give you cart blanch and you could come up with any policy that would help the united states of america be more competitive and do a better job in manufacturing and just be more competitive in the world, what would you recommend, without blinking an eye, he said you need a department of trade. he said you've got a department of education, you got a department of health and human services, you got a department of this and that, you need a department of trade. and it doesn't take rocket science to figure out what he was getting at. we have got to get very aggressive. so it's not just reorganizing, it's reorganizing for the purpose of being even more effective and aggressive in knocking down trade barriers. we americans tend to be the good buys. we tend to be the big brother that lets little brother nip at our heels. we can't keep doing that, those days are over and they have been over for some time.