[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 170 (Monday, November 18, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6590-S6594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Farm Bill
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, for more than 2 years, I have been
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass my sixth
farm bill, the third one that I have either been chair or ranking
member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
I have met with farmers across the country who have made clear that
crop insurance is their No. 1 risk management tool, farmers who made
clear that the farm safety net must be the backbone of support for all
farmers and not just a handful of mostly southern commodities.
I have met with families who are finding it harder and harder to make
ends meet as food insecurity in our country continues to grow.
I have met with rural communities who are struggling to access the
basic things they need to thrive, like access to healthcare, including
mental health,
[[Page S6591]]
childcare, clean drinking water, and high-speed internet that we are
all working to address.
The farm bill has always been the place where we put the power of the
Federal Government at work in a bipartisan way to support farmers and
families and communities. That is the coalition that has always been
the foundation of a successful, bipartisan farm bill.
In May, the House released a proposal that would put immense taxpayer
resources into a handful of mostly southern commodity programs. I am
not saying that these farmers don't need support--they do--but it can't
be at the expense of millions of other farmers and ranchers in this
country, farmers in the middle of the country, farmers who grow fruits
and vegetables, who run smaller and diversified operations or lack
access to the tools and support that are overwhelmingly favored in the
House bill. The large increases in farm subsidies should not be paid
for on the backs of families in need or the broader needs of our small
towns and rural communities.
In the spring, I unveiled our Democratic proposal, a 90-page,
section-by-section bill to try to refocus our negotiations on holding
the farm bill coalition together and actually getting a bill passed,
not robbing Peter to pay Paul but instead taking a balanced approach
that supports all of agriculture, our friends, our families, and rural
communities across the country.
But unfortunately this did not spark the serious negotiation I had
hoped for in order to put forward a bipartisan farm bill that can both
pass the House, pass the Senate, and be signed by the President of the
United States. So today I am introducing my Rural Prosperity and Food
Security Act, a 1,397-page bill. This is it. This is a tremendous
amount of hard work that has gone on, both from my staff--and I want to
thank a really incredibly smart, creative team of people--and great
staff on both sides of the aisle that have worked with us and
colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
This particular farm bill has over 100 bipartisan bills incorporated
in it, and this is the full text of the farm bill that I believe should
pass and can pass and needs to be passed for our farmers and for others
so impacted by the farm bill.
It is a robust bill. It includes $39 billion in new resources above
the farm bill baseline--$39 billion more in funding above the normal
farm bill baseline. It puts more farm in the farm bill for all of our
commodities, not at the expense, though, of rural communities or
American families that are critical to holding the farm bill coalition
together.
It provides farmers with the certainty of a 5-year farm bill, and
this is really important. We can do ad hoc help, but our farmers need
the certainty of a 5-year policy so they can go to the bank, so they
can get the financing they need, so they can know how to plan. This
does that and at the same time responds to current needs. We are going
to move up payments so that we can respond now, to more urgent needs
right now that need to happen.
It also authorizes a permanent disaster program to ensure we have a
process in place when disasters like Hurricanes Helene and Milton
strike. This new program will put a consistent process in place so
farmers have certainty and the USDA can get the money out the door. No
more scrambling. No more leaving farmers behind. Our farmers deserve
this.
It also makes a significant investment in title I for the 22 row
crops that receive the lion's share of the resources available in the
House proposal. We know--I know Republican colleagues primarily are
focused on title I, and so we do a number of things to be able to
increase support.
We move up the Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage
Programs' payments by 6 months so that farmers receive assistance
faster so they can keep their operations going. One of the things I
have been concerned about, with so much reliance on ARC and PLC, is it
doesn't pay out for a year and a half or 2 years. We have farmers that
need help now, and we can fix that by putting dollars into speeding up
the payments, and that is what we do in this bill.
It also increases the effective reference prices that trigger help by
as much as 15 percent, with all 22 commodities getting at least a 5-
percent increase for the first time in a decade.
The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act continues to include crop
insurance. Again, the No. 1 risk management tool that farmers have told
us they want--crop insurance. It makes it more affordable and ensures
that all farmers have access to this critical tool. It provides more
coverage to more farmers at a lower cost. This crop insurance responds
much more quickly than the ARC and PLC Programs, and it is important
that we continue to make that as affordable as possible.
Importantly, I include a provision that will partially reimburse
farmers' crop insurance premiums and what is called NAP fees to put
cash in people's pockets who urgently need it right now.
Again, we can use the structure and policies of a farm bill rather
than ad hoc assistance and just move up the payments, provide more
assistance right now, and do it while we are passing a 5-year farm
bill. That is what we should be doing.
The bill also strengthens support for specialty crops, which are
almost half of what we grow--our fruits and vegetables and horticulture
in this country. It strengthens support for specialty crops and ensures
that farmers have the support they need to make sure we have American
fruits and vegetables on our tables.
This is a significant investment in all farmers and all of
agriculture because, frankly, farming is one of the riskiest businesses
out there--maybe the riskiest. I don't know if other people get up and
look at the weather every day to try to figure out what is going to be
happening for them. But it is getting even riskier now because of what
is happening with the climate crisis, and we know that.
The majority leader was talking about disaster assistance being put
out. It is critical. I strongly support it for farmers as well as for
communities. But that is going to get more and more and more because of
what is happening in the atmosphere and what is happening with climate
change. How many once-in-a-generation storms or droughts need to hit
our farmers over the head before we take this crisis seriously?
This bill will roll the historic investment we made in the Inflation
Reduction Act into the farm bill baseline for the future. We take
dollars for voluntary conservation programs that farmers are using,
that farmers want. Right now, that funding is outside the farm bill
baseline. We can make a tremendous, tremendous move forward for farmers
by moving it into the farm bill baseline while keeping the language
regarding climate.
Popular voluntary conservation programs that go directly to farmers--
that is what we are talking about. This will make our farmers more
resilient, because it is very simple: You put more carbon in the
ground, you have healthier soil. You take more carbon out of the
atmosphere, it is healthier for everybody. So this is a win-win, and we
need to continue to support our growers and embrace the investments
that we have already made.
I also am including new investments in biofuels. I see our Presiding
Officer, who has been such a leader in Illinois and across the country.
So important for jobs. So important as another place in which we can
have a cleaner environment and cleaner fuels and more jobs.
We put more into the loan programs and local foods, trade. The list
goes on and on, including a downpayment on a much needed ag research
moonshot. We need reinvestment in the future of agriculture, in the
future of our food supply.
But a farm bill is not just about investing in our farmers and
ranchers--of course that is critical--but it is also about investing in
the communities they call home. We know that rural communities are
shrinking, and it is getting harder and harder to pass the farm on to
the next generation.
In this bill, we are betting that rural prosperity is American
prosperity. It improves quality of life for rural families by improving
rural healthcare, including mental health services, and also childcare,
rural childcare, which is so critical and so often not available.
It grows the middle class by creating good-paying jobs in
manufacturing and entrepreneurship and small businesses in rural
America.
[[Page S6592]]
It increases our investment in connecting communities to high-speed
internet, which everyone in this Chamber agrees is essential to our
success in the world. Whether it is a child being able to do their
homework or a farmer being able to see a doctor or small businesses
being able to access new markets beyond their rural Main Street, that
all starts with reliable, high-speed internet. We have made major steps
in the infrastructure bill that we passed; but, frankly, there is more
to be done, and there is more focus that needs to be put on our rural
communities to get that done.
And, importantly, this bill makes sure that rural communities are not
left behind when it comes to accessing the resources of the Federal
Government. When it comes to securing Federal grants, I know my
hometown of Clare, MI, can't compete with Detroit or New York City when
it comes to staffing. So we leveled the playing field by investing in
the resources rural communities need to compete for hiring grant
writers and planners and advisers to provide technical assistance so
they can get the resources that they need.
And, finally, it is discouraging to me that the needs of families
have been lost in this debate over the last 2 years. Yes, the farm bill
must be the backbone of support for farmers and ranchers across the
country. Yes, the farm bill must ensure that farming and a rural way of
life can thrive today and into the future. Yes, the farm bill is where
we put the support of the American people behind the men and women who
feed and clothe and fuel this country.
And I would challenge anyone to look at my record as the leader of
the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and say with
a straight face that I am not a stalwart champion for farmers and
ranchers.
But a farm bill must also be about the single mom in Michigan working
two jobs who just needs a little bit of extra help to put food on the
table for her kids so her children can thrive. At a time when food
insecurity rates in our country have increased for the second year in a
row, it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to attempt to cut SNAP
and other nutrition programs. I refuse to leave this mom behind. Not on
my watch.
We should be investing in the farm bill nutrition programs that are
the heart of the family safety net in this country. Our Rural
Prosperity and Food Security Act does that. It does that and lays the
groundwork to see a future where we could actually end hunger in
America. It protects nutrition assistance and draws a clear line in the
sand that we will not walk away from the progress we have made to keep
families fed in this country.
This is a bill that keeps farmers farming and families fed and rural
communities strong, all of which are critically--critically--important.
And it is a robust bill that is paid for by using the same resources
our Republican colleagues in the House used to pay for their bill, but
we don't divide the broad bipartisan coalition that is the foundation
of the farm bill to do it.
In my time leading Democrats in the community, I have locked arms
with Republican leaders like Senator Pat Roberts to defend programs
that may not have been my priority, but it meant holding the coalition
together. That is how you get legislation done. That is how you do it
on a bipartisan basis.
You know, farm bills failed to pass the House in 2012 and 2018
because Republicans included cutting food assistance in their bill, and
they didn't have the votes to pass it. They couldn't pass it.
In 2018, the farm bill passed the Senate with a historic 87 votes,
and the only no votes were 13 nays by Republicans--just want to
underscore that. So we know how to do this and get a bipartisan bill
done that is robust support for our farmers and ranchers and
communities and our families.
Now, frankly, today, as I look to the future and what comes if we
don't get a farm bill done, I have a lot of question marks because
Project 2025, the roadmap for the incoming Trump administration,
actually proposes eliminating ARC and PLC--the very programs the House
Republican bill makes their top priority. It would also gut crop
insurance. It would terminate U.S. sugar production, and slash trade
promotion programs.
Now, I don't know what is going to happen to that. Maybe nothing. But
it should worry everybody that that is the vision that is out there.
And, frankly, I think that is why it is no secret why the House farm
bill that came out of committee on a primarily partisan vote last
spring has not yet been put up for a vote on the House floor, because I
don't think--and everyone tells me--there are not enough Republican
votes to pass it. And the last time I checked, the Chamber will be
similarly divided next Congress in the 119th.
So I would encourage my Republican colleagues to join with us, to
join with me, to get this done now, to do what we need to do for
farmers: provide them certainty, provide them more immediate help, and
to do it right now.
I would encourage Republican colleagues to rethink their proposal to
make the largest cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
in more than 30 years. That is not the way we get a bill done. I would
encourage them to join us to pass a meaningful 5-year farm bill now--
there is no reason we can't--and a bill that provides immediate
assistance, within the farm bill, for what our farmers need.
The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act is robust, adding $39
billion to the farm bill baseline. It is bipartisan, with over 100
bipartisan bills included, and it balances the needs of farmers,
ranchers, families, and rural communities. It holds the broad farm bill
coalition together, which is critical for the future of any farm bill,
and I firmly believe that it is the best--and probably only--path to
pass a 5-year farm bill this year. I urge my colleagues to come
together and consider this bill seriously.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I hope that many people tuned into the
presentation that Senator Stabenow just made. Those of us who serve in
the U.S. Senate know that as Chairman of the Senate Agriculture
Committee, she not only walks the walk, she talks the talk. She has
passed a farm bill; no mean feat. She has shown her own expertise in
achieving that goal and her understanding of a very complex piece of
legislation.
Would the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?
Ms. STABENOW. Yes. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. DURBIN. Could you be kind enough to say for the record when the
current farm bill expires?
Ms. STABENOW. The current farm bill expires at the end of December.
So we have to do something before we leave in December.
Mr. DURBIN. Would you explain to those who are not familiar with it
what happens if we do nothing.
Ms. STABENOW. Well, if we do nothing, then a number of programs
revert to what is called a Depression-era policy, and there is
something called the dairy cliff that everybody is always worried about
because it goes back to a pricing structure that would completely throw
the dairy industry into upheaval. And so this is not OK.
Mr. DURBIN. And when you say ``Depression-era programs,'' are you
literally talking about the 1930s?
Ms. STABENOW. Yes, yes. It throws it back to policies of the 1930s.
Mr. DURBIN. And there are consequences for dairy interests, for
example.
Ms. STABENOW. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. So if we fail to come together on a bipartisan basis
before the end of the year, that is the reality that will be faced by
the new administration?
Ms. STABENOW. Yes. Now, we could pass an extension again and throw
this into the lap of everyone next year. That doesn't create any more
certainty for farmers. Those who want to just do some ad hoc payments,
you know, that is not going to work.
And so the reality is we have short-term help in our bill. We have a
5-year farm bill, and we can get it done now. One hundred bipartisan
bills that are included in our bill--this is a bipartisan effort, even
though at this point not endorsed on a bipartisan basis. But our
farmers and ranchers would be a whole lot better if we could get this
done.
[[Page S6593]]
Mr. DURBIN. Well, currently, under the Senate schedule which we have
been told, we literally have until a little past the middle of next
month to do our business.
Ms. STABENOW. Right. This means now.
Mr. DURBIN. Yes, of course. I would add to that we have many worthy
judicial nominees on this calendar to consider too. So there is work to
be done.
Ms. STABENOW. There is. And thank you so much. And thank you for
being a valuable member of the committee.
I would just say where--we know and you know leading the Judiciary
Committee, where there is a will, there is a way. If people want to
come together, we can get something done and get it done by the end of
the year. But people have to decide they really want a bipartisan bill
and are willing to come together to do that.
Mr. DURBIN. And the key to that, I think, goes back 60 years ago
where we married nutrition programs and agriculture programs so that
people living in the city of Chicago, for example, who hear over and
over ``Illinois is an agricultural State'' but don't have any evidence
of it other than what is on the table for their family to eat will have
as much interest in passing the bill as my farmers down State. I am
sure the same is true in the State of Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. There is no question. And we also have extensive
evidence that when a bill is put forward on the floor that cuts the
nutrition title, it never passes--2012 in the House, 2018 in the House.
When Republican colleagues only put a bill on the floor that cuts
nutrition, they do not get the bipartisan support, and it fails every
time. This feels like Groundhog Day to me every single time.
And so I would hope that we would learn from those lessons and do
what we did in 2018 in the Senate and come together and get a
bipartisan bill.
Mr. DURBIN. So we all know that the cost of food has gone up, making
it more difficult for families to keep food on the table, and we also
know that low income people face that. What are the nutrition programs
that are part of this farm bill that will help them?
Ms. STABENOW. Well, first of all, let me say the basic program is
called SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is about $6
a day for an individual. So a mom gets $6; her child gets $6.
Mr. DURBIN. That is not a lot.
Ms. STABENOW. Not when you go to the grocery store, no, that is
certainly not.
And then we add support for food banks. We add additional assistance
and incentives if you are buying fresh fruits and vegetables. We do,
you know, some other kinds of things, but the basic is SNAP.
And going forward, we gave an update that hadn't been done in 50
years in SNAP in the last farm bill, and it added--that $6 now includes
$1.35. That was an update based on cost over a 50-year basis, and that
is what folks are arguing about. And going forward, CBO says there
would be an update every 5 years of about 2 percent for SNAP, and that
is what our Republican colleagues are fighting about.
Mr. DURBIN. I see my colleague from Minnesota is on the floor, and I
just want to say that this exchange is the reason why we are going to
miss Senator Stabenow of Michigan when it comes to the Agriculture
Committee and many other areas. She does her homework. She understands
that in the complexity of a big bill, that there are real-life human
issues that face us, and there are real people who are waiting for us
to get our job done.
Thank you for doing this and doing the committee. I sincerely hope we
can get this done before the end of the year and the disastrous
consequences that you described.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I just wanted to reiterate what the
chief whip has said here: that Senator Stabenow has, over and over
again, against all odds, been able to negotiate a bipartisan bill. And
when you look at these past bills--and you can correct me if I am
wrong, Senator Stabenow--it has been, actually, majority Democrat in
the Senate vote on these bills, well represented by the two Senators
from Illinois, who are both in this Chamber today. But I just think the
fact that you have over 100 provisions in here that are bipartisan--it
is really important to note--because there is absolutely no way we can
do this unless we do this together.
And the other thing, while we are going to miss you dearly, as we go
into next year, we know there is going to be a major debate on tax
reform--which, of course, there should--that will be dominating a lot
of our Senate time, and other issues. And, you know, my concern--and
you can address this--is that we not let this important bill, which, as
you have pointed out and Senator Durbin has pointed out, is so
important for ag--and when we see the input costs, when we see the
weather conditions that our farmers have been suffering through--but
also important for conservation efforts, as well as nutrition for this
Nation, and there is absolutely no way we are going to be able to do
this unless we have those three legs in this bill, not to mention the
economic development and research.
So I want to commend you and just ask you that one last question
about how important it is that your bill includes 100 bipartisan
provisions and that we continue that work and do anything we can to
finish this by the end of the year.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you so much. And thank you, Senator Klobuchar,
for your current leadership and future leadership on the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
You know, I would say that, at any other time, putting forward a bill
would be a starting point, and that then we would negotiate and work
together, which I have been trying to do for 2 years. We put something
out in May. We have been working and negotiating, but, now, here we
are. And so the bill is more like the end, not the beginning. It is
like: This we could pass, 100 different provisions that are
bipartisan--and more than that.
There are a lot of titles. There are 12 titles of the farm bill, as
you know, and a number of them we have negotiated. That is what is so
frustrating. We have a number of those where we have a lot of
agreement. There has been a lot of good work that has come together.
But in this one area, in terms of who gets the bulk of the resources,
where they go--do we continue to honor what we did on conservation as
it relates to climate, which is hitting farmers over the head? And do
we try to pay for what farmers need? And I agree. I agree on what they
need. But do we then say to the mom who is getting $6 a day: You are
going to pay for that.
And that is when I go: No.
And I know you feel the same way--that we have never said that. We
have never said that. We have always said the resources in nutrition
stay in the nutrition title.
We have also always said that, if you wanted to expand that, then you
look for savings within the title. And so we don't put money in or out
in the nutrition title. But, somehow, we see this sense of being stuck.
So next year--you mentioned next year. And I would just say that I
think this is incredibly risky for our colleagues from agriculture
States that want very much to get a bill done, and I know there are
many. I look at the fact that the House has not been able to bring
their House Republican bill to the House of Representatives, which has
a majority of Republicans. They can't pass it.
And what happens next year with that?
I mean, at some point, it has to be bipartisan, and it has to be
balanced and hold the whole farm bill coalition together.
The only question is, is it now or are you in a situation, in the
midst of tax cuts and everything else next year, to try to put this
back together to get it done? I would say farmers need certainty now.
We can move up payments and get them more help now. There are
legitimate concerns that farmers have in terms of costs. We need to do
that now.
And I would love it if all the ag groups came in and said: We want to
get this done now.
Now, I am not naive enough to assume that is going to happen, because
of the politics of the world that we are in. But from an ag standpoint,
it should.
So I appreciate both of you very much.
[[Page S6594]]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I just want to add my voice of support.
Why do we need a farm bill? Because we need farmers, and we need food.
And one of the wonderful things about our farmers is they do a job that
is incredibly hard to do.
It is a job that is filled with uncertainty. What is the weather
going to be today? What are the prices on the futures market tomorrow?
What is going to happen in our neighborhood?
It is incredibly uncertain, but the farmers love the work.
And who among us works harder than farmers? Maybe coal miners, but
not many more. So they stand for hard work and feeding America.
The second thing is farmers need stability because they have no
control over things that profoundly affect them. But the other thing is
farmers actually are the custodians of our landscape. And they, in all
of our communities--whether it is dairy, say, in Vermont, or it might
be wheat or corn in Illinois, or cherries in Michigan--they are
providing a benefit to all of us who are not farmers and can't take on
the courage they have to do that work.
And on the conservation title, I have talked to a lot of farmers in
Vermont. They are so appreciative that, in addition to feeding us with
nutritious food, they have a chance to actually get some income to help
us conserve the land. That is a good thing because that is another
income stream for the farmers.
So this should not be a fight among opposing sides. What do we have
to do to provide stability to farmers? They have to get a fair price
for their crop. And then, if they are going to make contributions on
the whole issue of conservation in reducing carbon emissions, they have
to get some income for that. And that is in the farm bill.
So let's pass the farm bill because we need farmers, we need food,
and we need a clean and healthy environment.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Vermont
and remind people that his comments make it clear this is not just a
Midwestern issue. It affects the whole Nation, from one side to the
other.
As I said, Senator Stabenow has been our leader. I hope we can get a
breakthrough in the coming days and weeks.