[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8631-S8632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             The Farm Bill

  Mr. President, I wish to talk about the farm bill, specifically about 
reforming payment limits for farm programs, something this Senate 
agreed to in a bipartisan way.
  Beyond saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payments go to 
those for whom they were originally intended, small- and medium-size 
farms. In addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so 
nonfarmers cannot game the system.
  Supporters of the farm bill need to take a hard look at what 
challenges were presented last year to getting a bill done. We need to 
forge ahead knowing some tough decisions need to be made.
  There are more reforms we need to make in programs such as food 
stamps, and they are reforms that can cut down on waste, fraud, and 
abuse in the program but also safeguard assistance to the people who 
actually need it.
  While I support closing loopholes in the food stamp program, I 
believe the farm bill should also close loopholes for farm programs 
that are so absurd they are just so obvious.
  As we move forward on finalizing a new farm bill, I wish to state 
clearly that sections 1603 and 1604 relating to the farm payments--
which are in both the House farm bill and the Senate farm bill--should 
stay in that bill. There should be a ``do not stamp'' on those 
provisions under negotiation now between the House and Senate. Most 
important, for House conferees, they should remember that these 
provisions were put on the floor of the House of Representatives in an 
amendment sponsored by Congressman Fortenberry of Nebraska, with an 
overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives. So this is a case of 
where the majorities of both bodies support these provisions. Yet they 
are under attack by House conferees.
  These farm payment reforms strike a needed balance of recognizing the 
need for a farm safety net, while making sure we have a defensible and 
responsible safety net. In case there is any doubt, we do need a farm 
program safety net. For those who argue we do not need a safety net for 
farmers, I argue they do not understand the dangers to a Nation which 
does not produce its own food.
  For all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject 
to conditions out of their control. While farmers need a safety net, 
there does come a point where a farmer gets big enough that he can 
weather tough times without as much assistance from the government. 
Somehow, though, over the years, there has developed this perverse 
scenario where big farmers are receiving the largest share of the farm 
program payments.
  We now have the largest 10 percent of the farmers receiving 70 
percent of those farm payments coming out of the Federal Treasury. 
There is nothing wrong with farmers growing an operation bigger. But 
the taxpayers should not be subsidizing large farming operations to 
grow even larger, making it very difficult for young farmers to buy 
land or to rent land to get into the operation.
  By having reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any 
one farmer can receive, it helps ensure the program meets the intent of 
assisting small- and medium-sized farmers through tough times.
  My payment reforms essentially say that we will help farmers up to 
250,000 per year, but then the government training wheels come off. 
Those new caps will also help encourage the next generation of rural 
Americans to take up farming. I am approached time and again about how 
to help young people get into farming.
  When large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up 
the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting 
those they are intended to help. It is simply good policy to have a 
hard cap on the amount a farmer or farm entity can receive in farm 
program payments.
  While both bodies of Congress have decided to cap farm payments, crop 
insurance is still available to large operations, no limits on 
indemnity. Section 1603 and 1604 which I authored and which Congressman 
Fortenberry authored, in our current farm bill, set the overall payment 
caps at $250,000 for a married couple.
  In my home State of Iowa, many people say that is still too high. On 
the other hand, other farmers in other parts of the country say it is 
way too low. But I recognize agriculture can look different around the 
country. So this is a compromise. Just as important, however, to 
setting a hard cap on payments is closing loopholes that have allowed 
nonfarmers to game the farm program. The House and Senate farm bills 
also end the ability of nonfarmers to abuse what is known as the 
actively engaged test. In essence, the law says one has to be actively 
engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments.
  Is that not common sense? However, this has been exploited by people 
who have virtually nothing to do with farming or with a farming 
operation and yet receive payments from the farm program. Not citing 
myself, but the Government Accountability Office issued a report I 
released in October outlining how the current actively engaged 
regulations are so broad that they essentially are unenforceable. Those 
comments came from the USDA employees who administer the program.
  The report illustrated that one farming entity had 22 total members 
of which 16 were deemed contributing ``active personal management 
only'' to the farm. What does ``active personal management only'' mean? 
That means they are becoming eligible for farm programs because of one 
of the eight overly broad and unenforceable eligibility requirements 
that currently exist. More simply put, they likely are not doing any 
labor and are nothing more than a participant on paper to allow the 
entity to get more government payment.
  Our Nation has over a $17 trillion debt. We cannot afford to simply 
look the other way and let the people abuse the farm safety net. I 
mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas 
of farm policy as we look to pass a 5-year farm bill. Some tough 
decisions need to be made.
  However, my reforms to payment limits do not pose a tough decision. 
They are common sense. They are necessary reforms that are included in 
both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill. I wish to take 
this opportunity to thank Senator Stabenow, the chairman of our Senate 
committee, for fighting for these Senate provisions. You see, these 
provisions were part of the Senate bill, representing a majority of the 
Senate.
  More important, these same provisions were added on the House floor 
by Congressman Fortenberry of Nebraska by an overwhelming majority. So 
Senator Stabenow has the high

[[Page S8632]]

moral ground in conference with the House conferees in fighting for 
payment limitation. She represents a majority of the Senate; whereas, 
the House conferees, in opposing her, represent a minority of the House 
of Representatives.