[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 177 (Thursday, November 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14574-S14575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to take the opportunity to kind of 
make a little assessment of where we are with regard to the farm bill. 
I have listened throughout the course of the day as Members have come 
over and accusations have flown back and forth about why we are not 
making any progress on the farm bill.
  Frankly, it is unfortunate because we have a lot of farmers, the 
people who are actually out there working the land, raising the food 
that feeds our country and a good part of the world, who are depending 
upon the Senate to act.
  We have heard from farm organizations, as I am sure most Senators 
have, about the importance of getting this farm bill passed so they 
know what the policies are going to be, what the rules are going to be, 
what the programs are going to be as they begin to make decisions about 
the 2008 planting season.
  As I have listened to all the debate as it has gone back and forth, I 
have heard a lot of my colleagues, and my colleague from Colorado who 
is a valued member of the Ag Committee--we worked closely on the 
renewable energy provisions in the bill, and I think we produced a very 
good bill out of the Ag Committee.
  But there are 21 of us, 21 Senators on the Ag Committee, 21 members 
out of 100 Senators who serve on the Senate Ag Committee. We came out 
with a bill that we think makes a lot of sense. It was a balanced bill. 
It addressed the important issue of providing support for production 
agriculture for our farmers. It had a good strong conservation title 
that extends and expands in some ways the Conservation Reserve Program, 
the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Grassland Reserve Program, a number 
of conservation programs that are important to the way we manage our 
lands in this country and provide good environmental stewardship.
  It had, of course, a good strong energy title which I worked on a 
lot, along with a number of my colleagues on the committee, including 
the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson.
  We put together what I think is a good, strong energy title that 
provides incentives for cellulosic ethanol production. It also had a 
disaster title, something that we have not had for some time in the 
farm bill, that provides a backstop against those years when you have 
weather-related disasters and we have had to come to the Congress and 
try to get political support for disaster relief.
  Oftentimes it has been problematic there. This puts in place a 
contingency fund, an emergency fund, for those years in which our 
producers are not able to raise a crop for some reason, in most cases 
because of the weather.
  It has, of course, as my colleague from Colorado mentioned, about 67 
percent of the money in the bill going into the nutrition title, which 
funds many of the programs that help people across the country, whether 
that is the Food Stamp Program, a WIC program, all of those programs 
that provide support and food for people who need it.
  So it is, as we would say, a balanced bill, a bill that was debated 
back and forth. There were a lot of amendments offered. We spent a day 
and a half in the markup. But as I said, what is important to note 
about that is there are only 21 Members of the Senate on the Senate Ag 
Committee. That means there are 79 Members of this body who have not 
had any input in this process up to this point.
  Well, when the bill was brought to the floor last week on Monday, 
which is now 9, going on 10 days ago, the assumption was at that point 
those Members of the Senate who have not served as members of the Ag 
Committee may have a chance to get their priorities addressed in this 
farm bill, to offer amendments they think can improve it.
  In many cases a farm bill reflects regional priorities. Different 
people around the country look at these issues very differently. It 
obviously has a national priority as well. But I think it is fair to 
say that a lot of Members of the Senate would want to come down here 
and offer amendments.
  In fact, a number of amendments were filed, some 200-plus, almost 300 
amendments. Now I, for one, would like to see an agreement reached 
between our leaders that would end this bickering and this standoff and 
get us to where we can process some of these amendments and get them 
voted on so that we can move toward final consideration of this bill, 
which I noted earlier is so important to farmers across this country.
  But what happened very early on in that process was the leader, the 
majority leader, did what they in Washington in the Senate called 
``filling the tree.'' By that, for those who are not familiar with 
Washington speak, it essentially means it prevents others from offering 
amendments. All of the amendments that can be offered have been 
offered. The leader filled the tree and for the past 9 days now has 
precluded the opportunity for other Members of the Senate, those other 
79 Members of the Senate who do not serve on the Ag Committee, to be 
able to come down and offer amendments they think would ultimately 
improve the bill.
  What is significant about that is it is not unprecedented. It has 
been done. They said it was done when the Republicans controlled the 
Senate. I am sure it was--I do not believe very successfully because I 
do not think it is a tactic or a procedure that lends itself to the 
nature of this institution or how it works. The Senate is unique in all 
the world. It is the world's greatest deliberative body. We really 
value the opportunity to come and amend the bill that is brought to the 
floor of the Senate, which is generally open to amendment.
  So when the tree gets filled and amendments are blocked from 
consideration, it essentially shuts down the process that the Senate 
normally uses to consider and amend bills and ultimately vote on bills.
  So where are we today? We are almost 2 weeks into this now, and we 
have yet to vote on a single amendment. We have not had one vote on an 
amendment to the farm bill after now having it on the floor for almost 
2 weeks.
  I have to say, for those who would like to offer amendments and have 
those amendments voted on, it has been very frustrating. My own view is 
that we are not going to be able to debate 200 or 300 amendments, but 
we ought to be able to narrow that down, and our leaders could go about 
that process. But you cannot even do that when the tree is filled. You 
cannot even consider and vote on any amendments.
  So here we are. A farm bill is something that we do every 5 or 6 
years in the Congress. I was associated with the last one in 2002 as a 
Member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Ag Committee. 
In that particular bill, which was 5 years ago, we set policies that 
carried us to the end of the fiscal year 2007, which ended on September 
30 of this year. And we now

[[Page S14575]]

need a new policy to carry us forward to the year 2012.
  So the point is, this is something we do every 5 years. This is a 
significant and consequential event when it comes to the Congress and 
the policies that it puts in place with regard to agriculture in this 
country that our farmers use as the framework or the guideline to make 
their decisions.
  So when you do something every 5 or 6 years, the assumption normally 
is that you are going to want to do it right. I think we did do it 
right. I think we produced a bill out of the Ag Committee that, as I 
said, is very solid, very balanced. But I have a lot of colleagues who 
would like to have their voices heard in this process, offer amendments 
that they think would improve the bill.
  So where are we today after 2 weeks, after having debated this bill 
on the Senate floor, or at least talked about it? We have not taken any 
action. I think it is a real disservice to the farmers of this country 
and to our rural economy, those rural communities that depend upon 
agriculture for their livelihood, that we have failed to act because 
the leadership, the Democratic leader, decided when he called up the 
bill to fill the amendment tree so that amendments could not be 
considered.
  Two weeks on the bill, we have yet to vote on a single amendment on a 
piece of legislation that is 1,600 pages long and spends 280 billion 
tax dollars over the course of the next 5 years. Not one amendment has 
been voted on.
  Now, just to put it in perspective and provide a little bit of a 
framework for previous farm bills, as I said, I was associated with the 
farm bill in 2002 as a Member of the House of Representatives. During 
debate of the 2002 farm bill, there were 246 amendments that were 
filed. Democrats and Republicans came together and voted on 49 of those 
amendments, including 25 rollcall votes in the Senate.
  Before that, if you go back to the 1996 farm bill, there were 339 
amendments offered to that farm bill. In 1996, the Republican 
leadership--at that time it was under the control of the Republicans--
allowed 26 amendment votes, including 11 of those being rollcall votes.
  During consideration of the 1990 farm bill, there were 113 votes, 
including 22 rollcall votes. And, finally, if you go all the way back 
to 1985--I was actually a staffer here at that time--there were 88 
votes, 33 of which were rollcall votes. So 33 rollcall votes in 1985, 
22 rollcall votes in 1990, out of a total of 130 votes taken.
  As I said, in 1996 there were 26 amendment votes, including 11 
rollcalls. And in the 2002 farm bill, there were 49 amendments offered 
and voted on, I should say, including 25 of those being decided by a 
rollcall vote.
  My point, very simply, is, it is unprecedented what is happening with 
regard to the farm legislation, to a farm bill that has these kind of 
consequences, this kind of cost, and this importance to the Nation's 
farm economy. I would hope that as this moves forward, and when the 
Senate--I use that term loosely because it is not moving forward; we 
are not getting anything done. It is a great frustration to many of us 
who worked hard to produce a bill, to get it to the floor of the 
Senate.
  But I do not think you can take a piece of legislation of this 
consequence and try and ram it through without even allowing a vote on 
a single amendment. We have been here for 2 weeks. We have not voted on 
one single amendment.
  I understand that the majority leader wants to limit the number of 
amendments. That is why he filled the tree. He essentially wants to 
decide which amendments are germane and which amendments are relevant. 
Normally, that is a decision that is made by the Parliamentarian. But 
what he has said is: I want to choose for my side, for the Democratic 
side, as well as for the Republican side, which amendments we consider, 
if any, and essentially approve those, which completely undermines, as 
I said, the basic premise of the Senate, which is when a bill is 
brought to the floor, those bills are open to amendment.
  That has been the practice here for a good long time. It certainly 
has been the case on previous farm bills going back, as the numbers I 
just reported say, going back to 1985.
  I say all of that to, as I said, take a little assessment, back off a 
little bit from all the rhetoric that we heard on the floor today. I 
would like to see us be able to work on it in a bipartisan way because, 
traditionally, historically, agriculture in the Senate and in the 
Congress generally has not been a partisan issue.
  There are divisions that occur in agriculture but generally along 
regional lines. Those of us who represent the upper Midwest have 
slightly different priorities when it comes to a farm bill than those 
who represent the South or the West. You have special crop groups. You 
have your sort of base commodities--your corn, your wheat, soybeans, 
livestock, the things that we raise and grow in the upper Midwest. You 
have dairy and sugar.
  We have dairy, sugar, lots of competing interests, all which play out 
in a debate over a farm bill. But what is regrettable about that in 
this particular case is that we are seeing what appears to be for the 
first time partisan gridlock over whether Members of the Senate, the 79 
Members who are not members of the Ag Committee, will have an 
opportunity, as they traditionally do, to come forward to offer 
amendments they think will improve the bill. I express my frustration 
and the frustration of those farmers I represent. The organizations 
that have been in contact with my office are urging us to get on with 
this. I would love to be able to do that.
  I have an amendment that has been filed that is very important to the 
bill. It improves the energy title of the bill. We came out with a bill 
that was a good product. I was pleased and happy with what we produced 
from the committee. But when it came to the floor, it became clear to 
me we could improve upon that by adding an amendment, a renewable fuels 
standard that would further strengthen the energy title of the bill. It 
became even more important when we started to look at what is going to 
happen next year in 2008, if we don't increase the cap on the renewable 
fuels standard, the 7.5 billion gallon cap in the renewable fuels 
standard today. We will reach that by the end of this year. So we have 
2008, where we will be past the 7.5 billion gallons, and at that point 
there is very little incentive for oil companies to continue to blend 
ethanol. We need to get the statutory cap raised so we are at 8.5 
billion gallons next year, and those who want to make investments in 
this industry will feel confident that there is going to be a new 
renewable fuels standard that increases the level of renewable fuels, 
something which I believe every Member of this body supports.
  I believe when you are looking at $100 oil and looking at our 
dependence upon foreign countries for energy supply, it makes enormous 
sense to do everything we can to come up with homegrown, domestic 
sources of energy and supplies. I would hope that amendment will be 
able to be voted on at some point. But at this point we are shut down. 
We are locked down. That is unfortunate. My hope would be we can move 
very quickly in the days we have ahead of us this year--I hope by 
tomorrow--to achieve some understanding or agreement about how we will 
proceed to come to a final vote. I hope the majority leader will decide 
in the end to move away from the practice he has adopted on this bill 
of filling the tree and preventing amendments from being offered so we 
can get to what the Senate does, and that is consider, deliberate, vote 
on amendments, take a piece of legislation, allow those 79 Members of 
the Senate who are not members of the Senate Ag Committee to be heard 
in the process and to have their opportunities to improve the bill to 
their liking and according to the priorities their constituents want to 
see addressed.
  I hope as we come back tomorrow we will be able to make more headway 
on this issue.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________