[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18497-18500]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am here tonight to talk about 
agriculture and the 16 million people all across our country who have 
jobs because of agriculture. What I am very concerned about is the way 
in which an extension is being talked about as part of the larger 
package this evening that goes against my wishes, the wishes of our 
committee, the chairman in the House--Chairman Lucas and I--our four 
leaders, working together on an extension that works and extends all 
the programs for agriculture through the end of the fiscal year, giving 
us time to pass a farm bill. Again, I am very concerned about what I am 
hearing this evening.
  Let me first go back and say how appreciative I am and proud of all 
of us in the Senate for having passed a farm bill last June. We all 
know what it did--more reforms than we have seen in decades, $24 
billion in deficit reduction. I understand the proposal now--the 
negotiations going on are attempting to find ways to pay for some 
provisions in the large package. We sit here with $24 billion in 
deficit reduction in a farm bill that has reforms in it that support 
our farmers and ranchers across the country but reforms through 
consolidation, efficiencies, and cutting subsidies that we have agreed 
should not be paid, that the country cannot afford to pay to farmers 
who do not need them. We worked very hard on that. We passed that in 
June by a large bipartisan vote. We worked together in committee in a 
bipartisan way.
  It is deeply concerning to me that instead of working in a bipartisan 
way, as we have done throughout this process--even though the House 
never took up the bill that was passed out of their committee in a 
bipartisan way, we here have worked in a bipartisan way until now, 
until this moment, at the eleventh hour, as we are dealing with very 
important issues--whether we are going to make sure middle-class 
families do not see tax increases starting tomorrow. And no one has 
fought harder to make sure the middle-class families of Michigan and 
across the country get those tax cuts than I have, and we know we need 
to get things done, but we also need to make sure that in the end we 
are not putting agriculture farmers and ranchers at a disadvantage in 
the process.
  So we on a bipartisan basis--in the House, in the Senate--worked 
together, knowing, when it became very clear that the House leadership, 
the Speaker, had no intention of taking up the farm bill in the House 
despite the fact that farmers need the certainty of a 5-year farm bill 
and disaster assistance--when that became clear, we turned to the next 
responsible approach, which was to work together on how we could keep 
in place farm programs, making sure we address what is now being called 
the dairy cliff in terms of milk prices that over time would go up--not 
immediately but over time--if nothing is done; disaster assistance; and 
keep in place the provisions of the farm bill that we passed that we 
agreed were important for rural communities, for energy security for 
our country, for jobs, for farmers and ranchers.
  Now I understand that the Republican leader has insisted in his 
negotiations that only part of the farm bill be extended for the next 9 
months--not all of it, not all of the pieces that affect rural America 
and farmers and ranchers, but only part of it. They call that a clean 
extension because of the way the funding and baseline work. I call 
that--well, I will not say what I would call it, frankly, except to say 
that this is bad news for American agriculture and certainly for the 
people whom I represent in Michigan.
  Now, why do I say that? Well, first of all, in our extension, we make 
sure we keep our commitment on disaster assistance. We passed an 
important disaster assistance bill a few days ago here in the Senate. I 
supported that, but agriculture was not in it. The majority of the 
counties in this country suffering from severe drought, cherry growers 
in my State being wiped out, other fruit growers having problems--
nothing for agriculture. Well, we in our extension make sure for this 
year and next that livestock and fruit growers have the disaster 
assistance we passed in the farm bill, and we pay for that.
  We also make sure we continue to have an energy title in the farm 
bill. Now, when we look at getting off of foreign oil and creating real 
competition, advanced biofuels are doing that. We are now creating jobs 
across Michigan and America in something called biobased manufacturing, 
using agricultural products to offset petroleum and other chemicals and 
products, and we are creating jobs. We are doing that in part through 
support from the energy title of the farm bill.
  The Republican leader's way of extending the farm bill would have 
zero--there would be no energy title, zero. That is absolutely 
unacceptable. We also would not see the full conservation title 
extended, key areas involving

[[Page 18498]]

protecting land and open spaces that I know Ducks Unlimited and 
Pheasants Forever and others who hunt and fish care deeply about in 
terms of protecting our open spaces.
  Other areas that protect our land and our water would not be extended 
under this partial farm bill extension. We would not see critical 
research for organic or specialty crops that are so important that 
create almost half the cash receipts in agriculture in the country. We 
would not see that support continue.
  There are multiple things that would not continue, not because we 
have gone through a process to eliminate them--in fact, 64 Senators in 
this body voted to continue them, and in some cases to increase funding 
in those areas while cutting back on the subsidies that we should not 
be spending money on. But here is what happened under this extension.
  The subsidies we agreed to end continue. It is amazing, you know, how 
it happens that the folks who want the government subsidies find a way 
to try to keep them at all costs. Not in the light of day. They could 
not sustain a debate in the committee or a debate on the floor where we 
voted to eliminate direct payments. But somehow they are able to come 
back around at the end and keep that government money, even when prices 
are high, even when no one could look straight in the face of any 
taxpayer and say they ought to be getting that subsidy.
  Yet under the Republican leader's partial extension of the farm bill, 
those subsidies we voted to eliminate would be fully continued. Now, in 
our version, agreed to by Chairman Lucas and me, put on the calendar by 
Speaker Boehner, on the suspension calendar in the House by the Rules 
Committee in the House, agreed to on the calendar in the House, we 
would shave a portion of those subsidies to make sure we continued to 
fund all of the farm bill for the next 9 months until we can once again 
come together and write a farm bill.
  But I have to say, as someone who has been operating in good faith in 
the committee and on the floor, to find this situation occurring that 
is not agreed to on a bipartisan basis, not put forward on a bipartisan 
basis, I find to be absolutely outrageous. It makes you wonder what is 
going on here. If in the end, the things we agreed to, the things we 
worked hard to develop into a farm bill that saves $24 billion, at a 
time when we are--right now people are sitting in rooms trying to 
decide how to get deficit reduction. We passed something that saves $24 
billion in a fiscally responsible way, cutting programs. We cut 100 
different programs and authorizations. We went through every single 
page of the farm bill, which is what we ought to be doing in every part 
of government to be responsible, to make the tough choices, to set good 
priorities. We did that.
  Now, at the last minute, none of that matters? They are trying to 
stick in an extension that only extends part of the farm program and 
keeps 100 percent of the direct subsidies going. That is amazing to me, 
I have to say. That is absolutely amazing to me. I want to hear someone 
justify that on the Senate floor.
  We are going to hear all kinds of things. Well, the extension 
involves possibly a budget point of order. This whole bill coming to 
the floor is going to have multiple points of order that we are going 
to have to waive. This is not about procedure or budget points of 
order, it is about whether we mean it when we say we want to reform 
agriculture subsidies; whether we mean it when we say we care about 
rural America and farmers and ranchers who want to know that they can 
have the certainty of a 5-year farm bill and not just limp along.
  I can see it coming, limping along, limping along, extension after 
extension, just like we seem to see happening everywhere here. I 
thought agriculture was the one area where we were not going to do 
that. I was so proud when we came together on a bipartisan basis and 
worked together. Regular order. The leaders, both sides, this is the 
right way to do things. It was regular order, 73 amendments. We went 
through it.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Would the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?
  Ms. STABENOW. I would be happy to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the leader of the Agriculture Committee, my 
colleague from Michigan, who has steered this Chamber through such a 
complex set of issues in trying to address the true agricultural needs 
of our Nation while spending the taxpayers' dollar efficiently, and, in 
fact, producing a huge amount of savings in the overall bill.
  But I wanted to ask a couple of questions in regard to the points the 
Senator from Michigan is making. If I understood the Senator right, 
first, the disaster assistance for America's ranchers and farmers and 
orchardists that has been approved in the farm bill and sent to the 
Senate is not in the Republican leader's version that he wants to put 
through the floor of this Chamber?
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes, I would say to my friend and strong advocate on 
these issues, it is not. Those disaster provisions are not in the 
extension he has arbitrarily on his own put forward.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Just a couple of days ago, due to the efforts the 
Senator engaged in, and I engaged in and others joined us--Senator 
Blunt was very instrumental--we had a debate about putting those 
emergency provisions into the emergency bill for Hurricane Sandy. I 
heard the Republican leader of the Budget Committee stand up and say: 
Don't worry, farmers and ranchers of America, because we are going to 
get those provisions passed in the farm bill.
  But from what I am hearing now, that promise is being broken tonight 
by the Republican leader?
  Ms. STABENOW. If I might respond, yes, that is exactly what is 
happening. Without consultation with me or with the chairman in the 
House, we now have a partial extension of the farm bill. These are 
complex issues that involve a lot of pieces when you try to extend all 
12 titles of the farm bill. They not only do not extend all of the 
titles, but they do not include critical disaster assistance, which, as 
the Senator knows, our farmers and ranchers have been waiting for 
across America.
  Mr. MERKLEY. So if I can try to translate this for the farmers and 
ranchers in my State of Oregon and the orchardists and ranchers in the 
Senator's State, this Chamber committed itself to restoring the 
emergency disaster program either through the farm bill or through some 
other mechanism, but we have left them hanging since the fires and the 
drought of July and August. Since the cold weather problems that 
occurred a year ago, we have left them hanging without disaster 
assistance. Now, the promise made a couple of days ago that we get this 
done in the farm bill is being broken.
  How can I possibly explain to my farmers and ranchers that when they 
had the worst fire in a century, larger than the State of Rhode Island, 
that burned their fences, burned their forage, burned their cattle, 
when others had some of the coldest weather that destroyed the crops, 
how can I explain to them that not only do some of our Republican 
colleagues, and apparently the Republican leader, consider that not to 
be a disaster, but the very argument made a couple of days ago to not 
put it in the Sandy bill is now being thrown aside?
  Ms. STABENOW. I would say to my friend and colleague from Oregon, 
there is no way to explain this. None. There is absolutely no way to 
explain this other than agriculture is just not a priority. I mean, 
despite our best efforts and our working together to get something 
done, it certainly has not been a priority in the House with the 
Republican leadership. It has been on the committee. I have thoroughly 
enjoyed working with my counterpart in the House. We have worked 
together on a bipartisan basis. But we could not even get a bill taken 
up in the House.
  I do appreciate the fact that when they did not act in the House, 
that they have agreed to do the extension that we put together. At 
least that is what they were willing to do. I honestly never thought 
the problem would

[[Page 18499]]

be here in the Senate because we had passed a farm bill. We passed a 
farm bill. We passed a farm bill with disaster assistance, with $24 
billion in deficit reduction, in a strong bipartisan way, with 
supportive words in terms of the process from the leaders.
  I am so shocked to see that the problem now is here in the Senate 
with the Republican leader. There is just no excuse for this.
  Mr. MERKLEY. The Senator from Michigan has worked over the past year 
to find a bipartisan strategy to reform elements of the farm bill that 
we were spending too much money on in certain places and to reform 
those overly generous subsidies, if you will, and make them kind of fit 
the circumstances. The Senator saved a lot of money in the process. Am 
I to understand that the Republican leader has taken those reforms, 
designed to wisely spend the taxpayers' money in the right places, and 
has thrown them out the window?
  Ms. STABENOW. In this extension that he has proposed, the subsidies, 
called direct payments, that we have all agreed should not be given 
during high prices and good times to farmers, extend with absolutely no 
reductions. They are fully extended for the next 9 months, and who 
knows how much longer. I am sure the folks who want to have them are 
going to try to just keep blocking farm bills and doing extensions as 
long as they can in order to get the money--$5 billion a year--$5 
billion a year that we have agreed in taxpayer money should not be 
spent.
  Now, I also want to say, it is not that we do not need to support 
agriculture. I know my friend agrees with that. Whether it is disaster 
assistance, whether it is crop insurance, we need to give them risk 
management tools, conservation tools. We need to make sure we have 
strong crop insurance. We need to make sure that there is disaster 
assistance there. But in good times you should not be able to get a 
government check when prices are high, which is what some in 
agriculture have been doing and getting and it is wrong, and it is 
fully continued in what the Republican leader has proposed.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I would say to my colleague, I have sat on this floor 
and listened to lectures of fiscal responsibility and the need to move 
things and work things in committee before they come to the floor. Now, 
the work that the Senator did was the best of those two qualities: 
Everything being done in committee, being in open conversation, 
dialogue, working on it, bringing it to the floor, having a debate on 
the floor in front of the American people, in front of our colleagues, 
complete openness and a complete sense of fiscal responsibility. So are 
those lectures that I have been hearing about fiscal responsibility and 
committee process, are they just lectures but no real belief in them?
  Ms. STABENOW. If I can say to my colleague, I certainly cannot 
indicate what the intent is of another colleague. But I will tell you 
that my mom always said: Actions speak louder than words. So I can tell 
you that the actions here, the actions that have been occurring, go in 
the opposite direction, both of supporting farmers and ranchers in a 
comprehensive way by fully extending the farm bill for the next 9 
months and by allowing the complete, 100 percent extension of subsidies 
that we voted to eliminate.
  I can tell you, that does not make any sense to me. It certainly goes 
against what I have heard over and over on the floor, and I also find 
it just amazing to me that when we--by passing the farm bill, if the 
farm bill were included in this agreement, we would have $24 billion 
more in deficit reduction to be able to report to the American people.
  They are saying no. I do not understand that.
  Mr. MERKLEY. There is one more piece of this I want to clarify 
because I am not sure where the minority leader's version came out on 
this; that is, our organic farmers have gotten a very unfair deal, and 
that deal was that they were going to be charged extra for their 
insurance. In exchange they were supposed to get the organic price of a 
particular crop. We fixed that on the floor of the Senate. We addressed 
that. We said, no, the Department of Agriculture that was supposed to 
get the studies done to get the organic prices in place so that the 
upfront price had the back side as well, we gave them a confined number 
of years to get that done, to rectify that injustice. Is that now 
missing from the proposal from the Republican leader?
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes. In fact, the organic provisions are not funded, 
are not extended. So, again, when we look at the future of agricultural 
choices for consumers, this is not extended.
  Mr. MERKLEY. How can one possibly justify charging organic farmers 
more because they are going to get a higher insurance compensation, but 
then say they will not get a higher insurance compensation? We are 
going to take that away?
  So it operates as a structural effort to basically take money away 
from the organic community and give it to the nonorganic community--I 
mean, complete unfairness in a competitive marketplace. How can one 
possibly justify stripping that from this extension?
  Ms. STABENOW. I would just say to my friend from Oregon that it makes 
no sense. This is certainly not about fairness. It is not about an open 
process. I mean, when the Senator mentioned earlier that we had worked 
in a very open and transparent process, we did. Throughout the 
committee, throughout the floor, even those who didn't support the farm 
bill indicated they supported the openness, the due process, the 
ability to provide amendments, to have them voted on up or down.
  Now to take what was the consensus view of what things should look 
like and basically throw it out the window at the last minute makes me 
wonder what the motivation is here. What is really going on? All I can 
see is that in the end, what we have is a situation where the 
government subsidies we eliminated are extended 100 percent, and those 
who behind the scenes have been trying to continue to get the 
government money appear to have been successful, at least with the 
Republican leader.
  Mr. MERKLEY. In closing my part of this colloquy, I want to thank the 
Senator for clarifying those three points--that the disaster relief is 
out, that the pork is in, and that the organic farmers are going to 
continue to get the short end of the stick. It seems to me that is 
three strikes and you are out. And I didn't even address many of the 
other points I heard the Senator raising.
  The Senator's outrage about this is so deeply justified, and I am 
certain I will be standing with her as we try to make sure that the 
good work done in committee and on the floor of the Senate for fiscal 
responsibility, for fairness to farmers, for fairness to those who have 
suffered disasters, for fairness to those who are in the organic or the 
inorganic world or nonorganic world--that these mistakes, these three 
strikes-plus, do not carry forth through this Chamber.
  I thank the Senator for her leadership.
  Ms. STABENOW. Again, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his 
leadership on disaster assistance, on support for the organic 
agriculture community, and for others that benefit from his leadership, 
forestry and other areas. The Senator from Oregon has been a very, very 
strong leader, and I thank him for his words and for his actions in 
standing and fighting for the people we are supposed to be fighting 
for. I mean, the farmers and ranchers across the country, like every 
other American right now, are shaking their heads: What is going on?
  I know there is a lot of work going on to come up with a larger 
agreement, but for those of us who care about many things but want to 
make sure agriculture is not lost in this, I am deeply concerned. This 
is the second largest industry in Michigan. It is the largest industry 
for many places in the country. Yet I don't see agriculture being the 
priority it needs to be either on disaster assistance or help for those 
who have been hit so hard by drought or by an early warmth and then a 
freeze in the orchards. Where is the

[[Page 18500]]

willingness to stand and support farmers and ranchers across the 
country?
  Well, I used to be able to say and I have said up to this point: 
Well, the support was in the Senate, where we passed a bipartisan farm 
bill and we worked together very closely to do that. But tonight I find 
that rather than proceeding in a bipartisan way, which has been what we 
have done, rather than consulting with myself as chair in the Senate 
and Chairman Lucas in the House, we see that a proposal which neither 
one of us has put forward or supported and which is adamantly opposed 
by many people is now being offered as the approach to extend part of 
the farm bill, picking and choosing arbitrarily what should be extended 
and not, not doing disaster assistance, and not being willing to shave 
off even 2.5 percent of these government subsidies in order to be able 
to fully fund an extension for the next 9 months--2.5 percent. Mr. 
President, 2.5 percent is directing us, is what we are talking about in 
order to be able to extend critical, important priorities for people 
across the country. This is for consumers, for farmers, for ranchers, 
for people in this Chamber. I can only assume, based on what I see, 
that this is the effort of the group that has been trying very hard to 
make sure that their subsidies continue and that they continue unabated 
100 percent, and this is their opportunity.
  When we are trying to do deficit reduction, which I find amazing this 
is in the context of a deficit reduction package--and I am still going 
to be looking to see where the deficit reduction is. But the deficit 
reduction package--it will not accept $24 billion in savings in 
agriculture. Now, instead, it puts in place policies that will take us 
in the exact opposite direction. It is very, very unfortunate.
  I have been spending the day expressing grave concerns. I will 
continue to do that. There is absolutely no reason this can't be fixed 
before the proposal comes to this body. It absolutely can be fixed. 
People of good will in agriculture have worked together every step of 
the way, certainly in this Chamber. We can continue to do that if there 
is a desire to do it. I hope there is because there is a tremendous 
amount at stake.
  Let me say again that 16 million people across our country pay their 
bills because of income they receive through agriculture or the food 
industry. Small farmers and large farmers want the certainty of a 5-
year farm bill, and they also want to know we are working together with 
their interests in mind. I hope we can still see that happen.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________