[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 31338-31341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 2419, which the clerk will report.
  The 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 Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see my friend, Senator Chambliss, is on 
the floor. I think we are both very frustrated. I don't think, I know 
we are both very frustrated that we are stymied on this farm bill. We 
are not moving anywhere. But in hopes that maybe we can get something 
moving, I am going to propound some unanimous consent requests to see 
if we can't break out and move ahead.
  So I inquire of my colleague, Senator Chambliss, as to whether we can 
agree to a time limitation for debate with respect to the pending 
Dorgan-Grassley amendment. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that 
there be 60 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the Dorgan 
amendment No. 3508, with the time equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote 
in relation to the amendment; that no second-degree amendment be in 
order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, unfortunately, based upon the status of 
the amendments at this point in time and based upon the comments by the 
majority leader this morning, at this point in time I am going to have 
to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we 
proceed to the Lugar-Lautenberg amendment regarding farm program 
reform; that there be 2 hours of debate with respect to the amendment 
prior to a vote; that no amendments be in order to the amendment prior 
to the vote; that the time be equally divided and controlled in the 
usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again, as much as I would love to 
accommodate the chairman of the committee, based upon the status at 
this time and the comments of the majority leader this morning, I will 
have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in light of that objection, I would 
inquire as to whether we can enter into an agreement on the Roberts 
amendment No. 3548; that there be 90 minutes for debate prior to a vote 
in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of 
time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-
degree amendment in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, again, based upon the process that we 
are now involved in and the comments of the majority leader this 
morning relative to the farm bill, I will have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let's see if there can be agreement to 
consider the Stevens amendment No. 3569; again that there be 60 minutes 
of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no 
amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and the time be 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, once again, based upon the process we 
are now engaged in and the comments of the majority leader this 
morning, I will have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to 
the Allard amendment No. 3572; that there be 60 minutes of debate prior 
to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided 
and controlled in the usual form, with no second-degree amendment in 
order prior to the vote; that upon the use or yielding back of the 
time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Reserving the right to object, I would say there may 
be some common ground.
  I ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent request of the 
chairman be modified and that the pending amendments and motion to 
recommit be withdrawn and the only amendments in order be the 
bipartisan list of first-degree amendments I have sent to the desk and 
that all first-degree amendments be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. HARKIN. I do not modify my request.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Then, Mr. President, I will have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am certain the Senator will have another 
unanimous consent request of his own very shortly, as he just 
enunciated. I just proposed five requests for votes in relation to 
amendments that are relevant to the farm bill. As we just heard, there 
are objections to each one of those.
  We are ready to move ahead. We have been here now a week, over a 
week, on this farm bill, and we are stuck, dead in the water. Again, my 
friend, Senator Chambliss, said he wanted to send to the desk a list of 
amendments that have been looked at. Not all of them have been filed, 
as I understand, but they have been talked about. As I understand it, 
there are 255 amendments. That is ridiculous. Of course, we are not 
going to have 255 amendments. But at least we could work. We are here; 
we could be working now. We could debate the Dorgan amendment and vote 
on it today. There are five requests I just offered right now, five 
amendments we could dispose of this afternoon. The other side objected 
to each one of those.
  Again, I am extremely frustrated, as the chairman of the committee. 
We got a bill through. We worked very hard on it. Senator Chambliss 
worked very hard on it. Yet we are stuck. We got it through committee. 
There was not one dissenting vote in the committee, not one. It is a 
good bill.
  As Senator Lincoln said--I heard her speech this morning--it is 
bipartisan, it is multiregional. There are a lot of

[[Page 31339]]

compromises in it, as is true in any bill. But we got it through 
without a dissenting vote. Yet we cannot even work on it on the Senate 
floor? We cannot even work on it. Forget about passing it, we can't 
even work on it.
  I just propounded five requests to have debate and votes on 
amendments, relevant amendments to this farm bill, and every time it 
was objected to.
  I don't know. I just want to make it clear that we on this side are 
ready to do business. We have been for a week. We could have been 
debating relevant amendments. We could have almost--we could have been 
done with this bill by now.
  I want to point out a little bit of history. On the last farm bill, 
when I was privileged to chair the committee at that time in the 
Senate, in 2002, we had 10 days of consideration in December and 6 days 
in February. That was it. Mr. President, 53 amendments were considered, 
not 255.
  In 1996, we had 4 days of consideration, 24 amendments to the bill; 
in 1990, 7 days of consideration, and we proceeded to vote on it. This 
is very frustrating. We are here. We are ready to do business. We are 
ready to debate and vote. Yet the leadership on the other side says no. 
The leadership says no.
  I wanted to make it clear, fundamentally, basically clear to all 
Senators and anyone watching: We on this side have been ready, are 
ready, are willing to debate and vote on these amendments. It has been 
objected to on the other side.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is almost unbelievably disappointing. 
This is the second week we are on the farm bill. We have people in the 
Senate who believe, apparently, they are trying to imitate a set of 
human brake pads and stop everything. We haven't even started. How can 
you stop it? I don't understand this at all. If family farmers farmed 
like Congress legislated, there would be no food.
  When it comes spring you have to plant the seeds. You have to do it. 
It is not an option. When it comes harvest time, you have to take it 
off the field. When the cows are ready to milk, you have to milk. We 
have a few people in Congress who believe you don't have to do 
anything. All you have to do, as I said, is imitate a set of human 
brake pads and just stop everything. I guess maybe that is a successful 
strategy for some, if you do not believe anything ought to get done.
  The chairman of this committee, Senator Harkin, and the ranking 
member, Senator Chambliss, worked hard on this. I understand Senator 
Chambliss has been objecting as a result of the minority leader's 
position. I understand that. But my colleague from Iowa just propounded 
a series of unanimous consent requests. He said let's just start. This 
isn't rocket science. How do you get this bill done? First, you start 
the bill.
  As I understand it, my colleague proposed a couple of amendments from 
each side, Democratic amendments, Republican amendments. Just start, 
have some time agreements, have a debate, have a vote.
  If there are some who do not want a farm bill to be passed in this 
Congress, I understand. They have a right to vote against and speak 
against the farm bill. But why on Earth should they hold this bill 
hostage to their whims? We take for granted, every single day in this 
country, what family farmers do. They get up out there in the country, 
living under a yard light, get up, often very early, and do chores. 
They work hard. They take a lot of risks. They have big dreams. They 
live on hope. They must live on hope. They hope there is going to be a 
better crop, a better year. They hope they are going to be able to make 
a decent living. We take all of that for granted.
  What we try to do in the Congress is to write a farm bill that says 
family farmers are important--yes, for economic reasons but also for 
cultural reasons, to have a network of families out there producing 
America's food. Family farmers are important, and we understand 
families can't survive some tough times, so we create a safety net, a 
bridge over price depressions. And we say: We want to help you. That is 
what the farm bill is about.
  There are other pieces of it, nutrition and other issues, but the 
centerpiece of a safety net for family farmers is very important. I 
guess I don't remember a time when we had a farm bill on the Senate 
floor that has been held up. I voted against some farm bills I didn't 
like. But, you know, I didn't like the so-called Freedom to Farm bill, 
which I thought was a disaster, so I voted against it, but I didn't 
come down to the floor to try to prevent it from moving. I just said 
this is something I will not support, so I voted against it.
  In this case, and in the previous case with the farm bill we operate 
under currently, I support it. I really want this to move forward. I do 
not understand. I do not understand at all. We could compare, perhaps, 
the Senate to a glacier, but the difference is a glacier actually moves 
from time to time. This Senate, on this bill, is going nowhere because 
of a couple of people who decided we are going to stop it.
  The majority leader has brought this bill to the floor of the Senate, 
allowed 2 weeks for it. Both colleagues, Senator Harkin and Senator 
Chambliss, have worked hard. My colleague, Senator Conrad, has been out 
here working hard to see if can we get a list of amendments we can 
begin working through. Apparently, we now know there are something like 
250 amendments that have been noticed. Obviously, we are not going to 
have 250 amendments on this bill. We don't have time for that. Some of 
these amendments, a good many of them, have nothing at all to do with 
this subject at all--going back into immigration and a whole series of 
tax issues that have nothing to do with farming, agriculture, family 
farms.
  So the question is, Can we find a way to reduce that number of 
amendments and then just start?
  The first amendment Senator Grassley and I have offered is an 
amendment that would, I think, improve the bill. But we have not been 
able to even begin the first 5 minutes of debate on that amendment. 
There are many others.
  My colleague offers a proposal: Let's at least start on two 
Republican and two Democratic amendments. The first step of any journey 
is the most important step. Let's just begin. Here it is, a week and a 
half after the bill comes to the floor of the Senate, and this Senate 
is at parade rest. I do not understand it.
  One of my great concerns at the moment is that the time has been set 
aside to try to get this farm bill done. Senator Harkin and Senator 
Chambliss wrote a farm bill that came out of the Agriculture Committee, 
as I understand, unanimously. You would believe, then, that represents 
bipartisan agreement on the central portion of a farm bill. Can we 
improve it a little bit? I think so. There are some amendments back and 
forth that perhaps will improve some portions of it. But the fact is, 
they wrote a bipartisan bill that had very strong support, in fact, 
unanimous support in the committee.
  How on Earth do we get to a point where a bill that comes out of the 
committee unanimously, a bill that is as important as this one is to 
every region of the country, sits on the floor of the Senate at parade 
rest, and we cannot even get to debate on the first amendment? I do not 
understand that at all. That makes no sense to me.
  The fact is, time is running out. I worry if we do not get this bill 
done this week--work late tonight, late tomorrow night, into Friday, 
get this bill done--I worry that this bill is not going to get done in 
any timely fashion. What an awful message for us to send to family 
farmers. The message in this bill is, we think they matter. We think 
they are an important part of this country's economic strength. Family 
farmers have always been the economic All-Stars.
  But it is beyond me to understand what is going on here. We have 
amendments. My amendment is pending, but we can't even begin the first 
minute of debate. I don't understand it at all.
  I have said before on the floor of the Senate that family farmers in 
this

[[Page 31340]]

country produce a lot more than crops and food. They produce 
communities. They are the blood vessels that create the strength for 
these small towns. I grew up in one of those towns. We raised some 
cattle and some horses. The fact is, family farmers are very important 
to the economic strength and to the culture of this country. They do 
not expect much. They don't ask for much. They are an independent bunch 
of people. They are people who try to raise a family and raise a crop, 
way out in the country, in many cases. They are not asking for anything 
very much except that this country has believed for a long while that 
all of the uncertainties, all of the risks that accrue to family 
farming in many cases just wipe them out unless you have some kind of 
safety net. That is why we have created a safety net.
  They plant a seed, hope it grows, hope it rains enough, hope it 
doesn't rain too much, hope it doesn't hail, hope the insects don't 
come, hope there isn't any crop disease. Then they hope they have a 
chance to harvest it in the fall and then hope when they harvest it and 
truck it to the elevator, it is going to have a decent price. All of 
that risk, all alone.
  So we create a safety net to say we are going to try, if we can, to 
provide some strength to that hope because we want family farms to 
continue to exist in the future because we think it strengthens our 
country. That is why we write a farm bill. All of us come from 
different points on the compass, but we all believe basically the same 
thing: family farming matters for this country.
  How on Earth have we gotten to the point where, on a Wednesday, a 
week after we start the debate on the farm bill, we have not been able 
to consider even one amendment?
  Now we risk not getting the farm bill done. How we have gotten to 
this point, I don't have the foggiest understanding, but it is not 
healthy and not good.
  I hope we can persuade the minority leader and others to let us 
proceed. Just start. We are not asking for the Moon. Just start 
discussion, debate, and vote on amendments, and let's see how quickly 
we can move through these to try to get a bill done before the end of 
this week.
  Let me finish, as I started, by saying I know a lot of people have 
worked for a long time on this bill. There are a lot of people on both 
sides of the political aisle who want this bill to get done. I am among 
them. But there are some who have decided we ought not move forward, 
and they have decided the only way they would allow us to move forward 
is to allow all kinds of amendments that go back and recreate the 
debates on immigration, and you name it. The fact is, all that means is 
we will not get this bill done, never get this bill done. So let's go 
back to the tradition.
  The tradition has been, with respect to farm bills, we have had farm 
bills on the floor of the Senate in which we debate and vote on 
amendments. We do not, in most cases, see amendments that have nothing 
to do with agriculture load down this bill and decide we are going to 
try to stop it from moving. I hope we can get back to that tradition. 
That is the tradition I think farmers would expect of us.
  Let me again say, as I started, if families out there in the country 
farmed like we legislate--or at least like a few people in this Chamber 
want to legislate--there would be no food because they would never 
plant the grain. It wouldn't matter, timing doesn't matter, they 
wouldn't harvest the grain, timing doesn't matter; they wouldn't milk 
the cows because they wouldn't care whether the cows are fresh or sore.
  This Congress can do a whole lot better than this, and my hope is, in 
the coming couple of hours, we can reach agreement and begin debate on 
the amendments. Let's follow this trail until the amendments are done, 
and I think that farm bill will get a resounding vote on the floor of 
the Senate. I think the farm bill will get two-thirds or perhaps three-
fourths in favor of it.
  I yield the floor. I know we have two other Members on the Senate 
floor. The Senator from Colorado had indicated he wanted to speak, but 
I know the Senator from Georgia is on the Senate floor as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for his comments. He is exactly right. There are a lot of us in this 
body who wish to see this farm bill move. I actually came back a day 
early last week thinking the farm bill would be up the next day.
  I was prepared, as ranking member, to move ahead with the farm bill. 
When I got here, I found out we all of a sudden were going to be caught 
in a process that is unique to the Senate, and that is a process where 
the majority leader has the right--and I understand he has the right; I 
understand that we did that when we were in the majority--to fill the 
tree, and he did so. And when he does so, it kind of brings things to a 
halt. That is the purpose in doing that, in trying to control what 
amendments may be filed. I thought after a week's time, yesterday, 
rather than us debating amendments, moving through, which in all 
likelihood we conceivably could have been through this bill by now--but 
instead of being able to call up amendments, debating them and voting 
on them over the past week, we have been stuck in this process now that 
requires a unanimous consent by both sides before we can move forward 
with the process of dealing with amendments.
  Yesterday I had some hope, because Senator Harkin and I agreed that 
what we thought we ought to do would be to come up with a list of 
amendments that are relevant, and as always is the case on any major 
piece of legislation, some were irrelevant amendments. I would hope we 
could agree on a number. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do 
that. As of yesterday we had about 140 Democratic amendments that were 
filed, and about 120 Republican amendments that were filed.
  Most of them are relevant to the farm bill, but some of them are not. 
But it is always the case that we deal with some nonrelevant 
amendments.
  But instead of allowing Senator Harkin and me to move through the 
process of taking the amendments--the first one we had agreed to take 
was Senator Dorgan and Senator Grassley's amendment. Instead of 
allowing us to move ahead and debate that amendment, and possibly have 
already voted on it, if we had taken it up this morning with the time 
agreement we had tentatively agreed to, a decision was made that we are 
not going to be allowed to do that, and nothing is going to happen 
until there is a definite agreement by both sides on not just the 
number of amendments but what nonrelevant amendments will be 
considered.
  It will happen. I know this is not the first time this situation has 
happened in this body with a farm bill. I would remind those who were 
here in 2002, at that time there were 246 amendments filed; almost 
exactly the same number of amendments were filed to the farm bill while 
the Democrats were in charge in 2002. There were at least two, and 
there may have been three, cloture votes. I am not sure because I was 
not here then. But there were two or three cloture votes asked for and 
made on the farm bill before cloture was invoked. Those cloture votes 
originally were made in December of 2001. When cloture was finally 
invoked in February of 2002, the farm bill sailed through in a matter 
of a few days. So we are basically in exactly the same position we were 
in 2002.
  But here is the problem. 2002 was an entirely different atmosphere in 
American agriculture. Farmers and ranchers need to be discussing next 
month with their bankers and their insurers and landowners from whom 
they lease property, or farmers whom they lease property to; they need 
to be talking to their equipment dealers about how much they are going 
to plant of what respective crops; how much insurance they are going to 
need; how much in the way of financing they are going to need; how much 
in the way of new equipment or repairs or replaced equipment they are 
going to need, so that come next March, in the whole Southeast, not 
just in my State, but in

[[Page 31341]]

March we start planting crops. Early corn goes in in March or the first 
part of April. In 2002, I was a Member of the House, and I was a member 
of the conference committee on the farm bill that was delayed until 
final passage occurring sometime in March. Obviously when farmers do 
not know what to anticipate from the standpoint of farm policy, do not 
know what type of programs they are going to have available to them, it 
is difficult for them to make any decision regarding how much money 
they are going to have to finance their crops, how much insurance they 
are going to need, or how many acres of what crops to plant.
  So here we are stuck in a process. I am not saying one side or the 
other is more to blame than the other. I think it is more the rules of 
the Senate that have got us locked into this situation. I am ready to 
go. I was ready to go last Tuesday morning or actually last Monday 
afternoon. But, unfortunately, we are in a situation now where we 
cannot move ahead.
  I did have to object to Senator Harkin's request. There is nothing I 
would rather do than move on the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, although I 
am strongly opposed to it. I am going to advocate a ``no'' vote on it. 
But I think we ought to move and get this process going and start 
winnowing down these 260 or so, whatever the number of amendments is we 
have filed, or that we have been notified that either are filed or are 
going to be filed.
  We can do that. It was done in 2002. We can do it now, and we are 
ultimately going to have to do it. Whether we do it now or whether we 
do it in January, whether we do it in February, we are going to do it. 
It is a bullet we are going to have to bite.
  I regret very much having to object to Senator Harkin's request. But, 
by the same token, he had to not agree to amend his unanimous consent 
request to comply with what I asked for, which would allow us to move 
ahead right now with amendments.
  Those folks who are out in ag country are depending on the Congress, 
the Presiding Officer being one of those members who sits on the Ag 
Committee who has a significant interest in agriculture. My friend 
Senator Salazar, a member of the committee, comes from a strong 
agricultural State. Folks are depending on all of us as policymakers to 
get our work done, and yet here we are stuck by the rules of the 
Senate.
  As I said in the press yesterday, I would simply say again, if we do 
not get this bill done this week, we do not have the opportunity to 
work with our colleagues in the House over the next 2 weeks while we 
are gone to get ready for a conference in December, it is going to be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get a farm bill passed by 
both bodies, on the desk of the President before the end of the year.
  That does not handicap us, but it surely handicaps those folks we 
represent; that is, the great men and women who are the farmers and 
ranchers of America. So I am hopeful that over the next several hours--
I do not how long it may take, but I hope in the short term we are able 
to reach some agreement. Particularly it boils down to the nonrelevant 
amendments. If the other side would be lenient with us in trying to let 
us get those amendments up, debate them, get them voted on, we can move 
this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I came here this morning, now afternoon, 
to talk about the importance of this farm bill and for us to get off 
the dime and get us moving forward on the farm bill. I am going to make 
a statement on that in a few minutes.
  My friend from Utah has asked if he can go ahead of me to speak on 
another subject for about 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from Utah be recognized for 10 minutes to speak on a subject 
that he will address; then, following the Senator from Utah, that I be 
recognized for up to 20 minutes; following my statement that Senator 
Durbin be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________