[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 50 (Tuesday, May 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3898-S3900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Coleman, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Bond, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 2696. A bill to extend all of the authorizations of appropriations 
and direct spending programs under the Farm Security and Rural 
Investment Act of 2002 until after implementing legislation for the 
Doha Development Round of World Trade Organization negotiations is 
enacted into law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, America has the safest, most abundant, 
best tasting, and least expensive food supply not only in the world, 
but in the history of the world. There are a lot of good people in the 
food and fiber production industry who deserve credit for that. But the 
heart of food production in the United States and the world and the 
center of the rural communities that produce our food and fiber, is 
none other than the American family farmer and rancher.
  I want to assure everyone here of this. There are a lot of us in 
Congress and in the country that believe in agriculture; we intend to 
continue supporting policies that help farmers; and we're not going to 
apologize to anyone for doing it, especially foreign countries that are 
not negotiating in good faith with the United States through the WTO.
  When I am in Missouri, I hear strong support for the current farm 
bill. Producers all over the State tell me that they like the programs 
created in the farm bill and they want to see it extended, especially 
when we have the uncertainty of the current WTO negotiations hanging 
over the head of our domestic agriculture industry.
  It would be unfair to our nation's agriculture producers to write a 
new farm bill in the midst of ongoing international trade negotiations. 
Today, Senator Lincoln, and I, with a number of other members, filed 
legislation to extend the current farm bill until the Doha round of 
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations is complete.
  Our Nation's farmers and their lenders should not be asked to operate 
under rules that keep changing. We must have fair global trading rules 
in place before we write the next farm bill. A farm bill extension is a 
reasonable and sound approach.
  Everyone knows that safe food is abundant in the United States. 
Farmers and farm workers constitute 2 percent of the total workforce in 
the United States, yet they help feed the entire world. Unfortunately, 
some people in Washington believe that we spend too much in securing 
that safe and abundant food supply.
  What does this safe and inexpensive food supply cost the Federal 
taxpayer? In the United States, domestic support programs amount to \3/
4\ of one per cent of the total Federal budget. For \3/4\ of one per 
cent our farmers are able to sustain an agriculture industry that 
produces 25 million jobs and 3.5 trillion dollars in economic activity.
  For three quarters of one per cent of the Federal budget, Americans 
have a hedge against ever being held hostage to food imports the way we 
are now held hostage to energy imports. Where would our security be 
without the American family farm? What would it mean for the United 
States if our family farmers went out of business, and foreign powers 
could threaten our food as they now threaten our energy? Do we want to 
rely on Brazil for food the way we rely on Venezuela for oil?
  I believe the best way to continue support for this strong sector of 
our economy is to extend the farm bill until we have a WTO agreement 
that is good for American agriculture. I do not believe that we should 
negotiate with our trading partners and against ourselves.
  As George Washington wrote in 1796, ``Agriculture is of primary 
importance. In proportion as nations advance in population and other 
circumstances of maturity, this truth becomes more apparent, and 
renders the cultivation of the soil more and more an object of public 
patronage.''
  America will be more than ever what George Washington predicted in 
1788 it would be: the ``storehouse and granary for the whole world.''
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would extend the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill until our 
trading partners in the WTO have at least matched our commitment to 
level disparities in global agriculture trade. I would like to thank 
Senator Talent for working with me on this important piece of 
legislation to farm families in my State of Arkansas and across the 
Nation.
  This legislation would extend our current farm bill until one year 
after implementing legislation for a WTO Doha agreement is enacted. 
Then . . . and only then . . . will Congress know what to expect of our 
trading partners and what our trading partners expect from us.
  Four years ago, President Bush, after some noted reluctance, signed 
into law the 2002 Farm Bill. As a member of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee and a farmer's daughter, I played an active role in that 
debate and was pleased with the outcome, which I view as a compromise 
between many different interests. Most importantly, I view it as a 
contract between the farmers in my State of Arkansas and their 
government. It is meant to offer what little certainty can exist for 
those who choose to make a living providing the safe and affordable 
food supply which we as Americans depend on. Unfortunately, certainty 
is something that's hard to come by in farm country these days.
  This Administration has repeatedly asked Congress to cut funding or 
make structural changes to the 2002 Farm Bill, regardless of the fact 
that CBO estimates it has come in approximately $13 billion cheaper 
than anticipated.
  This Administration has also refused to provide emergency assistance 
to agriculture producers, despite the fact that farmers across the 
Nation faced weather-related disasters of all kinds and record high 
fuel and fertilizer costs in 2005. A wet spring, followed by extreme 
drought and rising fuel prices, cost farmers in my State $923 million 
last year. In Arkansas, where one in five jobs is tied to agriculture, 
this impacts the entire State economy.
  All the while, producers wait and watch as U.S. negotiators offer 
proposals in the WTO that would require drastic reductions and changes 
in our farm support, while our trading partners continue to protect 
their markets with tariffs and subsidies far higher than we have in the 
U.S.
  I am tired of waiting, and so are my farmers. Very little was 
accomplished at the WTO ministerial in Hong Kong, and trade officials 
recently announced that the April 30th deadline for reaching a 
negotiating framework would pass without progress. The 2002 Farm Bill 
is set to expire in September of next year, and we are no closer to an 
agreement in the WTO than we were one year ago.
  No doubt our trading partners are quite content to take the wait and 
see approach. This Administration has made it quite clear that it 
supports drastic changes to our farm policy, with or without an 
agreement in the WTO. Our trading partners are demanding that we 
dismantle our farm program . . . meanwhile they do little to nothing to 
show that they are willing to do the same. Why would they?
  This Administration is sending them the very clear message that they 
agree with them . . .  and envision 2007 as the year to make those 
changes. If that is the case, what incentive then do our trading 
partners have to come to the negotiating table at all? More 
importantly, what does it say about our negotiating priorities if we 
are simply negotiating with ourselves?
  Some may argue that we must change our agriculture policy to avoid 
further litigation against our farm programs by WTO countries. But 
without a completed WTO agreement, like the one negotiated in the 
Uruguay Round, how are we expected to write new farm policy that is 
compliant? Compliant with what?
  In my view, and I think many of my colleagues agree, the best course 
of action is to extend the current farm bill until we know the rules of 
the road. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, with 
jurisdiction over international trade . . . and as a farmer's daughter 
who understands full well the importance of international markets to 
the U.S. agriculture industry . . . I am introducing this legislation 
to send a message to our friends in the WTO. We will not negotiate by 
ourselves . . . we

[[Page S3900]]

will not make wholesale changes to our domestic policies until we know 
that you are willing to do the same.
  So long as we maintain the status quo in our international trade 
agreements, then we should maintain the status quo with regard to our 
domestic farm policy as well. That is the type of message that I wish 
our trade negotiators were sending to our trading partners. And that is 
the message that I hope our trading partners receive today. That is the 
type of certainty that America's farmers need and deserve.
  The legislation Senator Talent and I introduce today will provide 
this certainty to our farming communities and send a strong signal to 
our trading partners. Congress will not make drastic changes to our 
farm policy without a meaningful agreement in the WTO.
                                 ______