[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8401-8403]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          FARM BILL CONFERENCE

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have 20 minutes, and I wish 
to cover two topics during that period of time.
  First of all, the topic of this week and the topic for me for the 
last year

[[Page 8402]]

and a half has been the molding, shaping, putting together, and finally 
passing, going to conference, and having in conference for about 3 
months the farm bill, or what is presently called the farm bill. Later 
this week, hopefully on Wednesday, the Senate will take up and 
hopefully pass by a wide margin the final farm bill conference report, 
which we have called the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. I 
wish to briefly go over why this bill is so critically important to 
farming families, to rural communities, and to the Nation as a whole.
  This is a strong, bipartisan farm bill. It benefits every American 
from my hometown of Cumming, IA, population 162, to New York City, 
population 8 million. This bill provides a strong farm income safety 
net, so it is good for our farmers, ranchers, and producers. Consumers 
will like it because it will increase the number of farmers' markets 
and ensure a safe, dependable supply of high-quality, affordable food. 
It expands the initiative providing fresh fruits and vegetables to 
America's schoolchildren, while reforming and expanding other Federal 
nutrition programs. As production increases, the farm bill will ensure 
that our precious land and water resources are protected.
  The final farm bill conference report significantly reforms 
traditional farm income support programs.
  First, it eliminates the direct payments to producers with high 
adjusted gross farm incomes and it eliminates all payments to those 
with high nonfarming incomes.
  On Wednesday, when we get to debating this bill, we will probably get 
into more, but I wish to point out that we have come a long way on this 
farm bill, although maybe not as far as some people want. In fact, I 
initially voted for the Grassley-Dorgan and Klobuchar amendments on the 
Senate floor, but they didn't win. These amendments would have cut the 
level of support to high-income farmers even more. So we had to work in 
a spirit of compromise with the House, and I believe we have come up 
with a good compromise.
  Think of it this way: Prior to this farm bill, if you had $2.5 
million in income, but 75 percent of that income was from farming, you 
would still qualify for farm programs. It was only after you had over 
$2.5 million that you wouldn't qualify. This bill reduces that to 
$500,000 of nonfarm income. That is a substantial cut, I would submit 
to anyone. In previous years, if you had farm income, there was no 
limit. You could have $5 million, $10 million, $20 million in farm 
income or whatever, and you would still get payments. This bill reduces 
that to $750,000. So if you get over $750,000 of farm income, you don't 
get any more direct payments. I submit that is significant, significant 
reform.
  It also improves transparency and accountability. We directly 
attribute each farm program payment to an individual--direct 
attribution. That means no more hiding behind shields or any kind of 
partnerships, multiple entity rules, that type of thing. We have done 
away with the three-entity rule. No more three-entity rule, which has 
been in existence for 20 or 25 years. So again, direct attribution, 
plus we put some pretty tight payment caps in there.
  The conference report also includes a new option for farmers, 
beginning with the 2009 crop year, to choose to participate in a State-
level revenue protection system. This is a new option for farmers. If 
you want to get in it, participants will take a 20-percent cut in 
direct payments and a 30-percent cut in loan rates. In return, they 
will be eligible for a State-based revenue guarantee equal to 90 
percent of the State average yield times the national average price. 
Now, this was an ingenious proposal that was first brought to us by the 
National Corn Growers Association. We worked it over in our committee 
in the Senate. We took it to conference. I believe we have a good 
option here for farmers. I also add that Senator Brown from Ohio, a 
valuable member of our Agriculture Committee, proposed this in our 
committee. It was at his urging--and I know also Senator Durbin's. 
Although not a member of the Committee, he was also instrumental in 
proposing and pushing for this option.
  The farm bill also strengthens the Milk Income Loss Contract Program 
and continues it for the duration of the farm bill. Again, here I have 
to thank the former chairman of our committee, Senator Leahy, who has 
been on this Agriculture Committee since before I came to the Senate--
now over 25 years ago. Senator Leahy has been the point person in 
making sure our family dairy farmers are protected and to make sure 
they have a seat at this table. In the previous farm bill, in 2002, we 
had set the percentage of support under the Milk Income Loss Contract 
Program at 45 percent--45 percent of what, I can tell you later. That 
was knocked down to 34 percent. We have brought it back up to the 45-
percent level in this bill, where it was, by the way, 6 years ago. We 
didn't increase it; we just brought it back up to that level it had 
been. We also used an existing formulation the Department of 
Agriculture uses for the average monthly cost of dairy rations, to 
adjust this in the future, so we won't have to have these erosions in 
the future, so if the price of feed goes up, that support for dairy 
producers will go up. It makes eminently good sense. I think it is 
reasonable in terms of economics, and also I think it is supportable in 
terms of having a reasonable price when the feed prices are low. So it 
is, in a way, kind of a counter-cyclical program for dairy farmers. I 
thank Senator Leahy for making sure we included that.
  The new farm bill includes two new titles focusing on livestock and 
specialty crops. In the last farm bill--which I was privileged to chair 
in 2002--we added a new title on energy. We added two new titles this 
time, livestock and specialty crops. This bill provides $1 billion for 
specialty crops in this title, and much more for specialty crops 
throughout the rest of the bill, investing more in the promotion of 
specialty crops than any previous farm bills, including funding for 
market research as well as supports for producers who transition from 
conventional production into organics. Organic agriculture is one of 
the fastest growing sectors of American agriculture. We have recognized 
that by putting more funds in there for transition support for farmers' 
markets, and for aggregation of commodities from small farmers. The new 
livestock title promotes animal health, market opportunities, 
contracting fairness, and stepped-up enforcement and oversight under 
the Packers and Stockyards Act. So it is good for our livestock 
producers.
  In a time of economic downturn and rapidly rising prices for food 
staples, millions of low-income Americans have joined the ranks of the 
hungry and ``food insecure.'' For that reason, basically, all of the 
money we added on this goes to the nutrition title, bringing the new 
money into nutrition, which is nearly $10.4 billion in this bill. We 
are $10 billion over baseline.
  The new money we basically got through the Finance Committee--$10 
billion--basically was all put into the nutrition program. We took 
another $400 million from inside the farm bill and added to it. I can 
honestly say all the new money we put in the bill went into nutrition.
  This new funding will reform and strengthen nutrition assistance. We 
raised the standard deduction. Keep in mind the standard deduction was 
frozen in 1996, and has wreaked havoc on our low-income people since 
then. So the standard deduction in 1996 was $134 a month. If it had not 
been frozen in 1996, the standard deduction today would be $188 a 
month, not $134 a month. We could not go to $188. We didn't have enough 
money. So we raised it to $144 a month, but we indexed it for the 
future so we won't have this benefit erosion in the future. It gives 
you some idea of what is happening to low-income families.
  Think about this. If we had not frozen that benefit level in 1996 at 
$134, it would be $188 a month right now. Yet, we could only raise it 
to $144. We did our job with the money we had. We also provide more 
money to families with childcare expenses by removing entirely the cap 
on childcare deductions. We also raised the minimum benefit by almost 
50 percent and indexed that also to future inflation, and the asset 
level is indexed forward. We were

[[Page 8403]]

unable to raise it because of money concerns, but we did index it for 
the future. No longer will erosion take place because of inflation.
  We increased the food bank supplies by adding some $1.2 billion to 
the Emergency Food Assistance Program. We provide $1 billion in new 
funding over the next 10 years for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable 
Program for kids in schools. This program, which I started in the 2002 
farm bill, when fully implemented, will serve nearly all children in 
our poorest elementary schools--that is, the schools that have at least 
90 percent of their kids eligible for free and reduced-price meals. In 
those schools that would fully implement this, almost every poor kid 
will get free fresh fruits and vegetables during the day.
  To meet the soaring worldwide demand for food and energy crops, 
millions of acres of land are being brought into production. A lot of 
this land is environmentally fragile. To address that challenge, we 
authorize nearly $4.5 billion in additional funds for the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program 
over the next 10 years. Again, these are payments to farmers, to 
incentivize and encourage them to be even better stewards of our soil, 
water, air, and wildlife habitats on working lands--rather than taking 
land out of production. Combined spending for these two programs, the 
EQIP program and the CSP program, will total more than $27.7 billion in 
the next 10 years.
  With this support, the Conservation Stewardship Program will enroll 
nearly 13 million acres each year. To participate, producers will have 
to maintain and expand environmental benefits by adopting rigorous 
conservation and management practices.
  The Wetlands Reserve Program also gets a number of improvements, with 
an additional $1.3 billion to implement those improvements. We have 
simplified and streamlined the process of valuing property and getting 
into the Wetlands Reserve Program. Over the next 5 years, this money 
will provide for a total enrollment in the Wetlands Reserve Program of 
over 3 million acres.
  This bill also creates a new and interesting focus on restoring the 
Chesapeake Bay. This money covers the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This is 
very important to Members of Congress and the Senators from Virginia, 
Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. We put $438 million of new money 
into the environmental and conservation needs of the Chesapeake Bay 
Initiative.
  On the energy side, all-time gasoline prices, as we know, are 
wreaking havoc with family budgets. But as studies have shown, without 
the inputs of ethanol, prices at the pump would be as much as 40 cents 
a gallon higher. Well, this new farm bill will dramatically ramp up the 
agricultural sector's capacity to produce clean, renewable energy. We 
provide more than $1 billion to expand the supply of biofuels made from 
biomass and crop byproducts other than grain. We also provide new 
assistance to farmers who would grow energy crops, and to entrepreneurs 
who will build biorefineries to convert the biomass into biofuel.
  Like any compromise bill resulting from hard bargaining among 
regional and other interests, this farm bill, I suppose, is far from 
perfect--perfection being in the eye of the beholder, of course. I 
don't think anyone, on either the Democratic or Republican sides, would 
say they love every little thing in this bill. As the chair of this 
conference committee, I can tell you it has been a long and difficult 
road, but the end product is a bill with significant reforms, urgent 
new investments in nutrition, conservation, energy, and the health of 
our school kids.
  That is why I was disappointed last week when Agriculture Secretary 
Ed Schafer held a news conference to say the President would veto the 
bill. The administration said we didn't cut payments to farmers in 
times of high farm income. But this administration itself actually 
proposed increasing direct payments, which are least responsive to high 
prices in income.
  By contrast, Congress determined that it makes more sense to ensure 
the programs that help producers manage risk are as effective as 
possible if farm revenue is disrupted because of price or production 
shortfalls. We have only added to the income support if prices or 
revenue declines. That is the right approach. The administration said, 
no, we will put more money in there even if you have high prices. We 
said that is the wrong approach. The right approach is counter-
cyclical. That is what we do. We have the support in place so it is 
available if needed.
  What the administration and USDA proposed would have increased 
payments regardless of the prices. Congress correctly rejected the 
administration's proposal.
  Finally, when the Senate passed the farm bill in December on the 
Senate floor, the bill was approved with 79 votes--the largest majority 
vote any farm bill has received since 1949. I was proud of that vote, 
being chairman of the committee. The bill was further strengthened in 
the conference process. And we went, I believe, over halfway to 
accommodate the President's wishes and concerns. He said the income 
limits weren't low enough. The administration proposed $200,000. As I 
said earlier, for nonfarm income it used to be $2.5 million. We brought 
it to $500,000. That is way over halfway in meeting what the President 
had proposed. So, again, like any compromise bill, this bill has things 
in it that I suppose any one of us could say is not quite right. But as 
a compromise bill, it includes real reforms, major advances in 
conservation, renewable energy, rural economic development, nutrition, 
and help for our kids in schools.
  I am proud of this bill. I hope we have a strong vote in the Senate. 
I still hope the President will sign it. If he doesn't, I am hopeful we 
will have the votes to override the veto and put the bill in place for 
the future of our country.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two minutes.

                          ____________________