[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Page 32130]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the 
negotiations on the farm bill and to ask my Republican colleagues to 
think very carefully--especially the farm State colleagues--about the 
circumstance we face with respect to the farm bill.
  The majority leader made an offer to the Republican leader during the 
break that we would have a chance to move forward if they could do 10 
amendments on their side and we can do 5 amendments on our side; that 2 
of their 10 be unrelated to the farm bill, and that we have 2 
additional amendments, and the bipartisan amendments that have been 
filed would not count against either allocation. That offer was made to 
Senator McConnell, and Senator McConnell has not yet answered or 
counteroffered.
  I hope the Republican leader will indicate how we could proceed. If 
there is a need for additional amendments--apparently, Senator Harkin 
indicated it would be reasonable if there were 17 perhaps on their side 
and 14 on our side. Whatever the number is that would help us reach a 
conclusion would be very important for our being able to advance the 
legislation that came out of the committee, without a dissenting vote.
  There are 21 Members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Republicans 
and Democrats. This farm bill came out without a single dissenting 
vote. It is paid for, it is less costly than the President's farm 
proposal, and it has the beginnings of reform.
  This is a reasonable offer. Certainly, Senator Reid made it. If you 
look at previous farm bills, typically the number of recorded votes 
have been about 20 amendments, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit 
less. On average, there have been around 20 amendments that have 
actually been voted on. Senator Reid's proposal would have 17 rollcall 
votes before final passage. So that would be a bit below the average. 
The leader has made clear that if there are some additional amendments 
that are required in order to advance this proposal, he is open to 
doing that.
  The current farm bill expires this year. Farmers need to know and 
their bankers need to know what the rules of the road are going to be. 
So it is absolutely essential we get this legislation through the 
Senate and we have an opportunity to go to conference with the House to 
work out the differences in the early part of next year.
  Let me make one final point, if I may. Some are saying just extend 
the current farm bill by a year or two. First of all, we know that if 
it is a 1-year extension, it will be 2 years because next year is an 
election year. Beyond that, our colleagues should know the baseline for 
writing a farm bill is based on the last 5 years of experience with 
farm legislation. That baseline is already down substantially because 
the last farm bill cost $17 billion less than the estimates at the time 
it was written. That baseline is going to go only in one direction for 
the commodity provisions at least, and that is down.
  So anybody who is concerned about writing a farm bill that meets the 
needs of the American people--not just the commodity title but 
nutrition, conservation, research, and all the rest--should understand 
this noose is going to do nothing but get tighter. It is already very 
tight--very tight.
  I hope our colleagues on the other side bend their best efforts to 
come up with a response to the proposal the majority leader made to 
reach conclusion, and I hope they do it soon. The clock is ticking. 
American farm and ranch families across this country are waiting. We 
should not ask them to wait past Christmas. So much needs to be done, 
so many decisions need to be made, but Congress needs to act now.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________