[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 175 (Tuesday, November 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14254-S14257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of 
     agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin amendment No. 3500, in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid (for Dorgan-Grassley) amendment No. 3508 (to amendment 
     No. 3500), to strengthen payment limitations and direct the 
     savings to increased funding for certain programs.
       Reid amendment No. 3509 (to amendment No. 3508), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3510 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 3500), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 3511 (to amendment No. 3510), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry, with instructions to report back 
     forthwith, with Reid amendment No. 3512.
       Reid amendment No. 3512 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to commit to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry, with instructions), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3513 (to the instructions of the motion 
     to recommit), to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 3514 (to amendment No. 3513), to change 
     the enactment date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We have the farm bill before us. We have been trying for a week to do 
amendments on the bill. The Republicans have said that because this 
bill is being handled in such an unusual procedural way, they are not 
going to let us move forward on this bill.
  This bill is being handled similar to every farm bill in the last 30 
years. In that entire period, there has only been one time that a 
nongermane amendment was offered, and that was on the last farm bill 
when Senator Kyl offered an amendment dealing with the estate tax. It 
was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. That is it.
  So for the minority to cry about this is simply that they are crying 
about something there is no reason to cry about. We want to move this 
bill. I had a conversation this morning right over here on the floor 
with the distinguished Republican leader and the ranking member of the 
committee, Saxby Chambliss. At that time, as I understood the 
conversation, the Republicans had 10 amendments they wanted to do. 
Let's look at them. We have some we want to do. Let's pare them off, 
set very short time limits on them, and move this bill.
  This is an important bill. If this bill does not move forward--a bill 
that is being treated similar to every other farm bill in recent 
history--the reason it is not going forward is the Republicans. If they 
do not want a farm bill, why don't they say so. They can explain to all 
the farm organizations around the country that they did not want a farm 
bill, they wanted us to extend what is now in existence. If that is 
what they want, why don't they say so?
  It is unfortunate we have been unable to move forward on these 
amendments. The first amendment pending is a bipartisan amendment 
offered by Senator Dorgan. It is a good amendment. It is one that 
should be debated and voted on. Another amendment is a complete 
substitute--that is my understanding--and Senator Lugar and Senator 
Lautenberg want to do that amendment. Let's debate it, find out what 
the will of the Senate is, and move on. But to be in this position is 
really unfair to farm State Senators, to farmers and ranchers, to the 
Senate, and to our country. If you are unwilling to fight, just say so. 
If you don't want this bill to come forward, just tell us that. Don't 
play these games that they are not treating us right procedurally. This 
is the way this bill is always handled.

  So I just think it is something we need to do. It is an important 
piece of legislation. The committee, on a bipartisan basis, reported 
this bill out with an overwhelming vote. This is not a Democratic bill; 
it is a bill reported out by the Agriculture Committee on a bipartisan 
basis. So I hope this afternoon we can get some work done on the farm 
bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield to my friend, the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank our majority leader for all the support he has 
given us in getting this bill through even when we worked in committee 
and working with the Finance Committee to make sure we had the 
necessary money to meet our obligations and bringing it to the floor in 
a timely manner. We had all last week; we couldn't get anything done. 
We have this week before we go home for the Thanksgiving break. We 
could finish this bill, I say to our leader, we could finish this bill 
if we could just get the other side to agree to start the process.
  We have an amendment, I say to the leader, before us which we could 
debate. We could even put a time limit on it. We have another amendment 
on which we could put a time limit. We could get two or three or four 
amendments done today. But, I say to the leader, I am very frustrated 
that we have the farm bill out here, we are ready to go--we have been 
ready for some time--there are amendments filed, and we would like to 
get started on it, but we can't until the minority leader agrees to 
move ahead and says we can bring up some of these amendments and move 
ahead on them. I just hope we don't waste another whole day.

[[Page S14255]]

  I ask the leader, is there any way we can get the other side to kind 
of help move us along? I have talked to my ranking member, Senator 
Chambliss. He wants to move ahead. He has the desire, as I do. As the 
leader pointed out, this bill came out of committee on a bipartisan 
vote. There are going to be amendments, and I may support some and not 
others, and I am sure my ranking member will support some and not 
others, but that is the amendment process. I think we have a good bill 
that is going to wind up getting a lot of support on the Senate floor, 
and the sooner we get to it, the better off we are.
  So I am just kind of perplexed, I guess, as to why the minority 
leader won't let us move ahead or why we can't get some amendments and 
time agreements.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would say to my friend that we have, as I 
understand it, 22 amendments upon which the 2 managers have agreed.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
  Mr. REID. We could take care of those very quickly. There are 
amendments that, in the minds of the managers, improve the bill. We 
should get those done. We are unable to move on anything.
  The calendar dictates a lot of what happens here in Washington in 
Congress. We have a limited amount of time. We have 3 very short weeks 
when we come back after Thanksgiving before Christmas. I say to my 
friends, we are not going to have time to work on the farm bill when we 
come back after Christmas. We don't have time. We have to take care of 
all of our appropriations matters. The funding for this Government runs 
out on December 14. We have some must-do things that run out at the end 
of this year. So the record should be spread with the fact that Senate 
Democrats have been willing and terribly interested in moving this farm 
bill. If it doesn't go forward, the blame is at the doorstep of my 
Republican colleagues.
  We are in the majority. We Democrats are in the majority, but it is a 
slim majority. The way the Senate operates, the Republicans can stop us 
from doing a lot--not everything but a lot. But I would bet, if there 
were a fair vote and not some arm-flexing exercise, that a vast 
majority of Democrats and Republicans want this farm bill to move 
forward. Are they asking me--is this what they are asking--to file 
cloture on this bill so we can have a cloture vote on it Thursday? Is 
that what they want? Is that what we are going to be relegated to, 
filing cloture on this bill without having heard a single amendment? 
And why? Because they won't let us. Is that what they want? If cloture 
fails--I know it will fail, not because of Democrats but because of 
Republicans. We know we have broken records here in this year of this 
session of Congress by having to file cloture 52 times. Only one of 
those cloture motions was a bipartisan effort. We did it once. That is 
all. So I am very disappointed because I don't see what the Republicans 
are going to gain.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my leader, if he will yield 
again, I think we have set a record in committee. In a day and a half, 
we had a comprehensive, 5-year farm bill passed--in a day and a half. I 
don't think that has ever been done.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, that was the culmination 
of weeks and weeks----
  Mr. HARKIN. Months.
  Mr. REID. Of meetings between Democrats and Republicans to move this 
bill along.
  Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
  Mr. REID. I have great admiration for the Agriculture Committee for 
getting a bill out of that committee on a bipartisan basis. There are 
people who want very badly to try to improve this bill, but nothing 
will be done. It is Tuesday. We have this bridge thing coming, dealing 
with the Iraq war, tomorrow. Time is wasting. I am beginning to have my 
doubts, I say to everyone here, because of the intransigence of the 
Republicans, that we can do a farm bill.

  Mr. HARKIN. I hope we can overcome that because, as the leader said, 
we had great agreement in committee. He is right. We worked weeks and 
weeks and weeks in meetings with people in getting it all together, and 
in a day and a half we got it through on a unanimous vote--not one 
dissenting vote. So we have a good bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, on the floor right now 
are farm State Senators--Arkansas, Georgia, North Dakota, North Dakota, 
Iowa--and in the back of the room is a State that does a lot of 
agricultural products, the State of New York. Now, as I look around 
this room, Senator Dorgan is an example. Senator Dorgan's amendment is 
pending--a bipartisan amendment. He supports this bill. It came out of 
committee, but he thinks it would be an improvement. Why shouldn't he 
have an opportunity to offer that amendment and have a debate on it? 
That is what this is all about. It is unfair to everyone concerned, as 
I have mentioned before, that we are not able to move on this important 
piece of legislation. I am from the State of Nevada. We grow alfalfa. 
We are the largest white onion producer in America. We grow garlic but 
mostly alfalfa and white onions. This bill is important to those 
farmers out there. There are things from which they will benefit. I 
just think it is too bad we can't move forward. This is a bill----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. REID. Oh, I am sorry. And Kentucky grows things too.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would just say to my friend, the majority leader, I 
am on the Agriculture Committee. I am from a farm State. I want a farm 
bill. We have been discussing how to go forward. If I may be so bold to 
suggest--I know Senator Chambliss and Senator Harkin have been working 
on a list of amendments. I think we ought to see if we can lock in a 
list. It will be bigger than we would like, but that is the way it 
always starts. Most of those will go away in one way or another, but at 
least it would help define the universe. I think that is achievable, 
hopefully sometime this afternoon, and it will allow us to get started. 
That is what I would recommend.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it would be untoward on the Senate floor to 
walk over and hug the Republican leader, but that is what I feel like 
doing. I agree with him 100 percent. I think we should try to get a 
number of amendments locked in, whether it is 5 or 50, whatever it is. 
I think we should get it done and start moving on this bill.
  I have been, as my friend from Kentucky knows, in a minority position 
more than I would like to admit here in the Senate as the minority 
Democratic leader. I understand he has certain things to do within his 
caucus. Whatever was needed to be proven has been proven. Let's move 
forward on this bill as the Republican leader has outlined. We greet 
his suggestion with open arms.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, would the leader yield just one more time?
  Mr. REID. I yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to ask the minority leader if during this 
time we are trying to work out a set number of amendments, we know 
there are two or three amendments that are absolutely going to be 
offered. One is the one we are on right now. Then there is another one 
with I think Senators Lugar and Lautenberg. I am just wondering if we 
could get time agreements on those.
  Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, let's take one step at a time. He 
has made an offer, and let's see what we can do. He has indicated--the 
ranking member of the committee is here, you are here, and we will work 
on that and see if we can get something done in the next little bit.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the majority leader. I think that is a good 
way to go forward, and we will work on it this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, let me just say while the leadership is 
here, we appreciate their assistance in moving this bill. Senator 
Harkin, Senator Conrad, and I have taken our list of amendments we have 
out there and we are working through them to try to get down to a 
reasonable number. One problem, frankly, we are having--and I think 
maybe on the other side too--is we keep having people come forward with 
amendments. I would simply say to colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
that we are going to reach a limit with these amendments, and if you 
have an amendment, we need to know about it now so we can negotiate and 
deliberate in good faith relative to the number of

[[Page S14256]]

amendments that are going to be on this list so that we can pare those 
amendments down to a reasonable number.
  I thank the leadership for working with us.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Certainly.
  Mr. DORGAN. The important point here is that I think everyone on the 
floor wants to get this bill passed, and while there will be some 
amendments, my hope and my expectation--I have one amendment--would be 
that we would relatively easily get time agreements, have a reasonable 
number of amendments with time agreements. I think there should be a 
lot of cooperation on the floor because I think all of us want what you 
want, and that is to get a piece of legislation passed. This was not 
easy to get out of the committee. I support this bill. I am going to 
support a couple of amendments here and there, but by and large I think 
we are on the right track, and I appreciate hearing the words of the 
minority leader today on this subject because we need to get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I am enormously relieved to 
hear what has been discussed, and I hope in the next few moments that 
we could agree, first of all, on amendments that have to be voted on 
for both sides, No. 1; No. 2, that we would agree on time limits, and 
it is very clear that unless the time for the debate on amendments that 
must be voted on is limited to 1 hour apiece, on average--some could be 
a little more, some could be a little less, but if we don't on average 
have time agreements of 1 hour or less, we cannot finish the work this 
week; and finally, that we agree to an order. I have seen colleagues 
who are very interested in some certainty. For example, if we could do 
Grassley-Dorgan in an hour and a half and then go to Lugar-Lautenberg 
for an hour and a half to at least begin the process, that would be 
enormously helpful, and then establish a list in order with time 
agreements.
  I wanted to take a moment to respond, as leadership is working on 
that kind of proposal, to an article that appeared in the Washington 
Post this morning that I thought was not telling the whole story about 
this farm bill. They have asserted that there is all this new spending 
in the farm bill. They focus just on the spending side of the ledger; 
they didn't focus at all on how we pay for it.
  I want to indicate that it is true that there are increases in this 
bill. We have increased spending on nutrition by $5.3 billion; on 
conservation, we have increased resources by $4.5 billion; on energy, 
by $1.1 billion and then an additional $1.4 billion from the Finance 
Committee, for a total increase in energy of $2.5 billion.
  Where did we find the resources for those additional investments? 
Well, that is the uses on this side, and the sources are on this side. 
Over one-third of the money came out of the commodity programs. 
Commodity programs have been reduced. They have been reduced from the 
baseline. They have been reduced as a share of total Federal spending. 
The fact that the press--at least some elements of the press--seem 
unwilling to tell the American people is that the reduction in 
commodities--over a third of the money that has been used to give more 
money for nutrition, more money for conservation, more money for 
energy, a third of the money came out of commodities.
  Almost a third of the money came out of crop insurance. Now, if you 
are going to tell the story, Washington Post, tell the whole story. 
These are not just my estimates. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers, 
or the committee's numbers; these are the numbers from the CBO. They 
show, on the 2007 farm bill, commodity programs have been cut by $4.2 
billion, crop insurance by $3.7 billion, for a total savings out of the 
$7.9 billion. That is from these so-called baselines. These are facts.
  They also seem to overlook the fact that if you look back on the last 
farm bill, you will see that the estimate at the time was that the farm 
bill would take 2.3 percent of total Federal spending. The commodity 
programs were to take three-quarters of 1 percent. Look at the contrast 
with this farm bill. With this farm bill, the total share of Federal 
spending is down from 2\1/3\ percent to less than 1.9 percent, and 
commodity programs--the ones that draw all of the conflict and the 
controversy--have been dramatically reduced to one-quarter of 1 percent 
of total Federal spending. The Washington Post never mentions these 
facts.
  If we look at commodity program outlays on this chart, here is the 
baseline at the time of the farm bill. This is what it would cost into 
the future. Look at the estimates from the CBO on what the commodity 
programs will cost now. It is a very dramatic reduction in real terms, 
in relative terms--in whatever terms you want to use. If you are going 
to report honestly to the American people, then you need to tell them 
the whole story, not just the story that is the way you want to write 
it. You have an obligation to people to tell them the whole story so 
they can make a judgment about what is fair and what is right.
  This bill is fiscally responsible. It is paid for. It takes up a much 
smaller share of total Federal spending than the previous farm bill, 
and the commodity provisions have been cut by two-thirds as a share of 
total Federal spending. If you look at where the money goes--I will 
tell you, I sometimes read these articles and hear broadcasts, and I 
wonder why don't these reporters tell people where the money is going. 
You would think this is all for subsidies for rich farmers.
  The fact is, the vast majority of the spending in this bill is going 
to go to nutrition programs; 66 percent of the money in this bill is 
going to go for nutrition programs. Have you seen any article written 
by the major mainstream press that has told the American people that 
fact? Nutrition programs go to every corner of this country. They are 
66 percent of the money in this bill. Crop insurance is 7.6 percent. 
Conservation is 9 percent. Again, conservation is important to every 
corner of America. When you put conservation and nutrition together, 
that is 75 percent of the spending in the bill. Commodity programs are 
only less than 14 percent of what is in this farm bill.
  I hope at some point somebody will start to tell the American people 
the full story. I certainly don't read it in the Washington Post. I 
have not seen a single story in the Washington Post about agriculture 
that I thought was fair and balanced. I have not seen one. They are 
writing with a point of view. They are writing as advocates.
  When I grew up, news people felt an obligation to try to tell both 
sides of the story. But, apparently, those days are gone. Today, if a 
publication has a point of view, or your television program or 
television station or network has a point of view, that is how you 
report it. You report one side of the story. That is not responsible, 
and it is not telling people what they really need to know to make an 
informed judgment. It is withholding from people certain information 
they would need to make any kind of objective judgment. That is what is 
going on here.
  I don't want my colleagues to be fooled or to miss the point that 
this farm bill is taking much less of total Federal spending than the 
previous farm bill, and the commodity provisions that, in the last farm 
bill, were estimated to take three-quarters of 1 percent of Federal 
spending is down to one-quarter of 1 percent. Why do we need that one-
quarter of 1 percent? Very simply, because our major competitors, the 
Europeans, are providing more than three times as much support to their 
producers as we provide to ours. This is a fact. The Europeans are 
providing more than three times as much support to their producers as 
we provide to ours.
  So what happens if you yank this slim rug out from under American 
producers? Even though we are already outspent more than 3 to 1 by our 
major competitors, what would happen if we yank that rug out from our 
producers? Two words: ``mass bankruptcy.'' That is what would happen.
  Is anybody paying attention? Do these publications or these news 
broadcasts give one whit about what happens to the rural economy in 
America? Why don't they ever report that the Europeans--on export 
subsidies--are outgunning us more than 80 to 1? That is a fact. But 
they don't seem to care.

[[Page S14257]]

They don't seem to care because, I guess, it doesn't affect their 
economic lives directly. But I represent a State that has farm and 
ranch families from one side of our State to the other, from one corner 
of North Dakota to the other. The hard reality is they are out there 
competing against the French and German farmers, and they can do that. 
They are ready to do that, to take on a fair fight. But when you ask 
them to take on not just the French and German farmers but the French 
Government and the German Government, as well, that is not a fair 
fight. To say to our farmers and ranchers: You go out there and take on 
the French and German farmers, and while you are taking on the French 
and German Governments, your Government is going to be AWOL, absent 
without leave; your Government is going to declare unilateral 
disarmament; your Government is going to let you fend for yourself--
good luck, Charlie, because the other side is outgunning us more than 3 
to 1 already.
  But some here say, let's not even put up a fight; let's throw in the 
towel and let the Europeans take over world agriculture. They are 
already equal to us in world market share. They are already advancing 
every day, increasing their market share, while ours slips--they are 
not alone, by the way. It is also our friends in Brazil, Argentina, and 
other countries who manage their currencies to secure advantage in 
terms of agriculture.
  How long will it be, I ask these cynics, before America succumbs on 
the agricultural front the way we have on automobiles, electronics, and 
all the others, where our foreign competitors have taken the advantaged 
position? How long? We are right on the brink of it happening now.
  This farm bill is an attempt to meet many needs of the American 
people. As I said, if you look at where the money goes, the 
overwhelming majority of this money goes for nutrition; 66 percent of 
the money in this bill goes to nutrition. I hear some of my colleagues 
from nonfarm States saying, ``I don't have a dog in this fight; I don't 
really care what happens in the farm bill.'' Really? Then you don't 
know what is in the bill. Somebody from a nonfarm State who says they 
don't have anything in this fight simply don't know what is in the 
bill.
  Sixty-six percent of the money goes for nutrition, 9 percent for 
conservation, and more for research and trade. That is where the money 
goes in this bill. Commodity programs are a small minority of less than 
14 percent. As a share of total Federal spending, the commodity parts 
of this bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will be 
less than one-quarter of 1 percent of Federal spending. That is a fact. 
It is an important fact. It is a fact that the Washington Post, 
apparently, doesn't want people to know because they never report it. 
They also never report that the vast majority of this money goes to 
nutrition programs, or that the next biggest category is conservation. 
They have an agenda, and their agenda is to look down their nose at 
people who are in production agriculture, farm, and ranch families, who 
apparently don't have their respect.
  It is interesting, they don't write the same kind of article about 
any other industry that gets help from the Federal Government. 
Virtually every industry in America has some kind of Federal 
assistance, whether it is highways for the trucking industry or 
airports for the airline industry or any of the other things that are 
done for industry after industry. I don't see them come after them with 
this same sort of look-down-your-nose arrogance because that is what it 
is. It is incredible arrogance.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will have a chance to pay 
attention to both sides of the story in this farm program today. They 
deserve to hear both sides of the story.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________