• $22 billion in spending paid for by “budget gimmicks.”
• $15 billion in new tax provisions.
• $7 billion in shifted commodity payments.
• $3 billion in shifts in crop insurance payments.
• $12 billion in unfunded commitments including $7 billion associated with the food stamp program and $5 billion associated with disaster assistance.
• Increased loan rates and target prices.
• Current language of the Adjusted Gross Income limit.

If you have any questions, please contact us.  We will be notifying you of the developments as they occur.  As stated in previous emails, we are expecting amendments on crop insurance, but are holding our call requests until we know when the amendment will come up.  
 
Because we are crazy, the NACIA team is on the way back to the Hill to try and make sense of it all.  
 
Hope you are doing well in Reston!
 
Brent W. Gattis
NACIA Washington Representative

November 5 – Afternoon

On the afternoon of Monday, November 5, the Senate began Floor consideration of the 2007 Farm Bill reauthorization legislation – S. 2302, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007.  It is expected to continue Tuesday, and then temporarily cease to allow for consideration of other non-related items, resuming the week of November 12.  Below is an overview of the opening statements made by some Senators.

Chairman Harkin (D-IA)

The substitute amendment at the desk consists of the Finance Committee permanent disaster relief and tax credit provisions and the Agriculture Committee reported bill, which has broad bipartisan support and was reported out of Committee by voice vote.  

The title “farm bill” does not do justice to the scope and range of this bill.  This legislation also helps conserve thousands of acres of farmland, ranchland, wetlands, and grasslands.
 
Drafting this bill was difficult due to funding challenges.  In 2002, there was $73 billion in new funding to spend on the legislation. This year, we had much less money – just above the baseline.  Fortunately, the Finance Committee assisted, supplying additional funding.  
 
This legislation looks to the future and creates new opportunities.  It complies strictly with the pay-go rules, and contains a strong system of farm income protection and disaster protection to help farmers and ranchers provide food, fiber, and energy for our nation.  
 
I have always been a strong supporter of counter-cyclical payments, but not of direct payments. Direct payments do not provide enough assistance when times are bad and are hard to justify when prices are good.  This legislation creates the Average Crop Revenue (ACR) program, which makes the safety net stronger and more flexible, and helps producers manage risk.
 
The legislation also includes a higher payment rate in the MILC program by adjusting target prices and loan rates.
 
It is important to note that this legislation is not just about trying to maximize farm commodity payments, as that is not the most important contributor to the success of the agriculture industry in the past or in the future.  The most vital elements have been the skill, dedication, and hard work of the farm families; the advancement of technology; and the land and climate with which we have been blessed.  Agricultural productivity rose 116 percent from 1960 to 2004, while in other U.S. industries it only rose 13 percent.
 
To be successful, in addition to having a solid counter-cyclical payment program, we must invest in the future.  The increased investment in specialty crops in this legislation is vital.  Specialty crop production accounts for 50 percent of U.S. crop production.  The specialty crop industry did not ask for subsidies.  In this legislation, they are provided with programs to assist in access to overseas markets, to protect from foreign pests and disease, and funding for research. The current trade deficit for specialty crops in the United States is $2.7 billion.  The legislation increases the Marketing Assistance Program for specialty crops by $94 million.  It also contains $200 million in new funding for a USDA program looking at how to detect disease invasions.
 
The Nutrition Title of the legislation strengthens the fight against hunger, including renaming and updating the Food Stamp Program.  The number of food insecure people in the United States has risen, as well as the number of children living in poverty.  Due to budget cuts during the 1990s, the purchasing power of food assistance has decreased. The legislation increases food assistance for families, adjusts for inflation, exempts retirement and education accounts from asset limits, and includes a full reduction for child-care costs.  The bill also seeks to address poor health and nutrition in children, including the obesity epidemic.  It includes a major expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for schools, providing $1 billion over five years.
 
The Energy Title adds biomass crops to farming operations, supports the development of bio-refineries, provides grants and loan guarantees for farmers’ energy efficiency improvements, seeks to support turning livestock manure into energy, and provides investments to enhance renewable energy production.  Overall, the legislation contains $1.1 billion over five years in new investments for farm-based energy, including cellulosic feedstock as well as grains and oilseeds; $130 million for a biomass crop grants program;  $140 million for biomass research; other incentives for pilot plants and loans; and continues the Section 9006 grant program to purchase energy efficiency systems for farms.
 
Agricultural production and forest land comprise 69 percent of U.S. lands, so conservation is essential.  The Conservation Title contains $4 billion in new funding.  The Wetlands and Grassland Reserve Programs had no funding in the baseline for continuation, so new money needed to be provided for those programs. Conservation security had been reduced in recent years, so additional funding is provided.  The Mid-Atlantic region of the United States will receive $165 million for assistance to clean the Chesapeake Bay area.  In addition, the bill includes incentives to producers to allow voluntary access for hunting and fishing on their agricultural lands; a streamlined process for easements in the Conservation, Wetlands, and Grasslands Reserve Programs; a renamed Conservation Stewardship Program; an elimination of the exemptions of certain crop and acres allocated to states; and incentives to prevent erosion and runoff.  The bill does not violate any WTO obligations by providing farmers payments for being environmentally responsible and conserving the land.
 
Organics are the fastest growing sector in U.S. agriculture, and this legislation seeks to address some needs of organic agriculture.  It provides $80 million over five years for research, with $5 million of that for price and yield data collection.   The legislation also removes the five percent surcharge for purchasing crop insurance, makes EQIP payments more available for organic farmers, and provides cost-share assistance while transitioning to organic production.  
 
The United States has been the world’s leading donor of food assistance. This bill sets aside non-emergency development assistance projects.  It is not acceptable for USAID to deplete non-emergency funds if regular appropriations for Title II emergency programs are inadequate.  The bill also includes a pilot program for local and regional cash purchases as a compliment to commodity donations, not a substitute.  If the funding situation had allowed, the McGovern-Dole program would have been made mandatory.  

In the 2002 Farm Bill, the farmers market promotion program was added.  The 2007 legislation includes $30 million for these activities.  It also provides funding through value-added development grant programs and loans through the business and industry loan program.


The bill includes important assistance for rural development, addressing the need to support both farms and rural economic development.  Included is the rural collaborative investment program, which offers incentives for regional businesses, citizens, and communities to improve their local economy..  Also included is $40 million for a micro-loan program to provide support in the form of small loans to entrepreneurs; funding for rural hospitals; $40 million for daycare construction;  $135 million to reduce backlog of water applications; and an introduction to broadband services.
 
The legislation includes additional funding for research, creating a national institute of food and agriculture.  In addition, funding for specialty crop research on safety and $80 million for organic research is included.
 
The bill also assists beginning farmers and ranchers by increasing the funding set-aside in the FSA loan program and increasing operating loan limits.
 
The Livestock Title of the bill prohibits packer ownership and makes other reforms that are necessary for basic fairness for producers using contracts.  
 
The bill addresses food safety through the creation of a Congressional Bipartisan Food Safety Commission to review the nation’s food safety system and make recommendations on how to modernize the system.
 
This legislation is good for farmers, rural communities, the health of children, and for all of America.  It had strong bipartisan support in the Committee, and deserves the same on Senate floor.

Ranking Member Chambliss (R-GA)

The 2002 Farm Bill was a good product, but was made easier by the fact that the funding situation was better in 2002.  


The process for the 2007 Farm bill reauthorization started over three years ago, with a series of eight Farm Bill field hearings nationwide over the two years that I was Chairman.  As a Chairman, Senator Harkin has been very courteous, and a good working partner, allowing us to produce good legislation for the Farmers.  With the product that we have, I would be happy with a vote tonight, and move ahead to the difficult task of conferencing with the House.
 
Senator Conrad (D-ND) is good to his word. The compromise and agreements we have reached have come in a professional, bipartisan way, and that has allowed for the production of a good legislative package for the American people..  This bill is a product of many hours of long work by staff and Members of the Agriculture Committee.  Many Committee Members played an instrumental role in shaping this legislation, specifically Senator Crapo (R-ID) and his work on the Conservation Title.  
 
The Committee passed a bill with 20 out of 21 Members in agreement, and the hope is that the public debate and bipartisan support will continue throughout the Floor debate.  The process should move forward in a normal course, with free and open debate. Everyone should have the opportunity to talk and to offer amendments, and when all the votes are counted we will come out with a good bill.  That will allow for us to come out of Conference with a good bill.  
 
The Substitute Amendment is an extremely complex piece of legislation, with the Agriculture Committee product melded in with the Finance Committee product.  We need to carefully consider all amendments, and should not have any restriction or attempt at circumvention of the normal process.  
 
The safety and security of our food supply is vitally important to our nation.  It is essential to maintain our ability to support ourselves with food produced domestically, and not become dependent on imports the way we are with energy.
 
The 2007 Farm Bill contains $3.1 billion in new spending, provided by Senators Baucus (D-MT), Conrad and Grassley (R-IA).  While it is a different situation than it was in 2002, key priorities did receive new funding, such as specialty crops, nutrition, conservation, and energy.  The largest funding increase goes to nutrition, which contains approximately 66 percent of the spending in the bill, compared to just 14 percent from the Commodity Title.  
 
The Nutrition Title makes critical improvements to the Food Stamp Program, and received the additional money from Senator Roberts’ (R-KS) amendment.  The Food Stamp and other nutrition programs benefit both farmers and ranchers and low-income families. The changes made include an increase in the standard deduction, the exemption of education and retirement savings, an increase for TEFAP funding from $140 million to $250 million, an expansion of access to farmers markets, and expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to all states.  
 
For the second time, the Agriculture Committee included an Energy Title.  The 2007 Farm Bill expands the Energy Title by including programs to help cellulosic ethanol production, which benefits farmers in the Southeast, who can grow any crop because of long growing season.  The research on production of ethanol from other sources than corn will assist farmers in thinking outside the box and producing all types of alternative crops.  Renewable fuels are also extensively supported in the Energy Title.  This Title receives the largest percentage increase of funding – close to $1 billion.  
 
The legislation also provides farmers with assistance in managing risk, with the creation of the ACR program.  Senators Harkin (D-IA), Durbin (D-IL), Brown (D-OH), and Roberts (R-KS) all worked very diligently to create the program.  
 
The Senate must realize that the Committee reported bill contains the biggest reforms to farm programs, and I will oppose any further draconian reforms in that area.  The legislation contains payment limitations, the elimination of the three-entity rule, and direct attribution.  There are many critics of farm programs, but a University of Georgia study on the farm programs found that every $1 in direct payments generated $1.30 in tax revenue, and there was a 3,400 percent return if taking into account all aspects of the programs. Farm programs benefit all Americans, and it is important to farmers and ranchers all over America that we uphold our safety net.  If we did not, we would cripple farm programs and bankrupt our producers, leading to the outsourcing of the production of our food and fiber.  Food imports have increased 10 percent, and we are headed towards importing as much as we export.  This is concerning because this was one area where we did not have a trade deficit.  Relying on foreign nations for our food will make us unsafe.  
 
Senator Conrad (D-ND)

A great thanks is owed to Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss for their hard work in getting this bipartisan bill to the Floor.  Senator Harkin provided a new vision for the farm bill, including a commitment to conservation.  He played an important role in developing the new ACR program, which provides an option for farmers regarding commodity payments.  Senator Harkin was also vital in developing policies for rural development and real reform, including direct attribution and the elimination of the three-entity rule.  The Committee also expresses its appreciation for Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for the provision providing an additional $8 billion above the baseline.
 
The bill improves the Commodity, Energy, and Nutrition titles.  The Nutrition Title was provided $5 billion in new resources and accounts for 66 percent of the money in this bill.  The Commodity Title only accounts for 14 percent, while the Conservation and Rural Development Titles serve as the centerpiece of the legislation.
 
The bill is a product of countless hours of work.  Senator Salazar brought people together to find areas of agreement that are good for the consumer and the taxpayer.  Senator Stabenow fought hard for the specialty crop industry, ensuring $2.5 billion in new resources and the expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.  Senator Lincoln protected her constituents and fought to make sure their needs were being served.  Senators Nelson and Klobuchar did the same, with Senator Klobuchar leading the fight for cellulosic advancement.
 
This bill was difficult to write because there was $20 billion less in the baseline from the 2002 bill.  USDA Acting Secretary Connor has said that President Bush will veto the because of its cost, but the bill is only $8 billion over the baseline, and is completely paid for.
 
This bill was written in much different circumstances.  Along with the dramatic decrease in the baseline, the United States’ national debt has increased from $5.8 trillion to $8.9 trillion, and the agriculture industry is working in an environment with a hostile media.  Media sources such as The Washington Post have nothing positive to say about the industry.  They have missed the facts, including that the United States has the lowest-cost food in the history of the world, the safest food supply, the most plentiful food supply, and the most ambitious nutrition programs in the world.  
 
The members of the European Union are our leading competitors, and they provide their producers with $134 billion, spending three times more than the United States at $43 billion, and the United States provides five times more funding for nutrition programs.  The European Union accounts for 87 percent of the world’s export subsidies, while the United States accounts for only one percent.
 
The United States’ domestic support system is not a free giveaway to farmers.  Agriculture support in the United States is less than two percent of total federal outlays, and commodity programs are less than one-fourth of one percent.  And yet, the Administration still threatens to veto the bill, chastising for the spending.
 
Highlights of the bill include strengthening the safety net for America’s farmers, leaving direct payments untouched, including improvements in the sugar program, increasing investments in the specialty crop industry, including reforms such as the elimination of the three-entity rule and direct attribution, developing the ACR program, and including supplemental disaster assistance.  The disaster assistance program provides supplemental payments when actual revenue falls below projected, non-insurance coverage, a livestock loss assistance program, orchard and vineyard damage assistance, and specialty crop protection from pest and diseases.  The disaster assistance is predictable, provides assistance based on the difference between expected and actual revenue, and encourages purchases of crop insurance.
 
The Energy Title focuses on the development of cellulosic energy production..  It offers us a path to freedom from foreign oil, and it provides $2.5 billion for bio-energy.  It includes incentives for biomass crops and biofuels refineries, investment assistance for small businesses, and funding for industry research.
 
The Conservation Title includes $4.5 billion for investment and extends the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, and the open fields programs.
 
The Nutrition Title received the largest increase in funding, which is used for expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to every state, an increase for TEFAP from $100 million to $250 million, and improvements in the Food Stamp Program.
 
Senator Grassley (R-IA)

This farm bill is an example of how things can be accomplished in the U.S. Senate when parties work together, and the Senate must work together to get the bill passed.  The bill may not be perfect, but it helps the American people and provides a safety net for American farmers.  The additional funding provided by the Finance Committee is a key provision, and this is the first time ever to merge agriculture tax policy with agriculture support policy.
 
The permanent disaster program is an important inclusion in the bill and it is important that crop insurance is a precondition for disaster assistance.  Farmers should manage their own risks, and one way to do that is through crop insurance.  Tying the two together is the only way it would work.  Other Senators might offer additional provisions that affect the crop insurance program, and while he is open to the discussion, he warns against undermining this significant tool.
 
One of the most important titles in this bill is the Livestock Title.  The compromise on country-of-origin labeling (COOL) is a significant inclusion, as well as the ban on mandatory arbitration.  While he is very much a supporter of the arbitration process, he opposes mandatory arbitration.  The ban on packer ownership will ensure a competitive marketplace for small livestock producers. The Livestock Title does not accomplish all that is needed, but it is an important first step to remedy concentration problems in agribusiness.  He will offer additional reforms that are vital to the vibrant future of the livestock industry.
 
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through an Administrative rule, requires the registration of propane tanks that store 7,500 pounds of propane.  This regulation adversely affects farmers and ranchers in rural communities that use propane for their livelihood.  There is a provision included in this bill to reduce this impact on rural Americans.  However, after the provision was included, DHS changed the regulation.  The changes added an exclusion for tanks smaller than 10,000 pounds and raised the threshold to 60,000 for large tanks. While the changes in regulation were appropriate, DHS should have informed the public earlier so that the Committee would not have had to include the provision in the bill.
 
Consolidation in the agriculture industry is reaching an all time high.  Family farmers ultimately derive their income from the market place, not from the farm bill, which is why tighter payment limitations are needed.  Along with Senator Dorgan, he will offer an amendment for a hard cap of $250,000, which they believe is the most effective tool to put small farms on a level playing field with mega-farms. There is nothing wrong with large farms growing larger, but they should not be growing due to continued subsidies.  The agriculture industry must maintain support from and credibility with urban taxpayers and urban consumers, but that cannot be done when 10 percent of farmers get 72 percent of the support.
 
Senator Dorgan (D-ND)

The Agriculture Committee produced a good bill.  The need for a farm bill is great, and the Senate has the ability to produce a bill to give farmers hope.  Congress needs to give farmers some certainty as to what the rules will be before the end of year.  The process has been bipartisan thus far, and hope is that it will remain that way on the Floor.



This process is not just about statistics and theory.  It is about the people who populate this country who are trying to raise family and raise a crop.  It is about the family farmer.  These families live on hope, and this bill gives them hope, reassurance, and a safety net..  The urban population does not understand agriculture or family farming.  We will ruin the reputation of farm country if program payments continue to go to corporate farms and individuals who have mostly non-farm income.
 
Including a safety net for family farmers is important, especially the disaster assistance program. If we did not have family farmers, we might not need a bill.  Large corporate farms could survive disasters and low prices, but family farms cannot. Corporate agri-factories should be allowed to exist and thrive, but the government should not be their banker.  This is why a hard cap payment limitation at $250,000 is needed.  The bill comes to the Floor with the elimination of the three-entity rule, and progress with adjusted gross income limits, but a hard cap on all payments is needed.

Senator Grassley (R-IA)

The Senate unsuccessfully tried for immigration reform earlier this year.  The United States needs a long-term fix, not a government mandate.  The channels of legal immigration need to be addressed.  Agriculture companies want to hire legal workers, and workers want to enter legally..  H1B visas have served a valuable purpose in the past, but their current purpose and the abuse in the system needs evaluation.  They were created to fill a void in the U.S. labor force, but H1B visas workers are now replacing our domestic workforce.  The technology industry is asking the government to raise the H1B visa cap, but increasing the visa supply is not the only solution to the so-called shortage of high-tech workers.  There is much fraud and abuse in the system, including smuggling workers and job openings with “H1B visa holders only” postings.  Firms are making a commodity out of H1B visa workers.  There should be a shortage or a need first, and then – and only then – should foreign workers be allowed to fill jobs temporarily.


November 6 – Morning



After the completion of Morning Business, the Senate resumed consideration of the Farm Bill reauthorization legislation at approximately 11:30 a.m.  Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) offered a series of amendments to the Substitute (offered by Senator Harkin yesterday).  The first amendment Senator Reid offered was the payment limitations amendment on behalf of Senators Dorgan (D-ND) and Grassley (R-IA).  He then proceeded to offer a motion to recommit with instructions, and an amendment to the motion recommit.  This is a parliamentary process technique that prevents any further action on the bill without a unanimous consent agreement.  Debate proceeded with Republicans protesting Senator Reid’s restriction of the process and Senator Reid stating that he had done nothing different than with any other legislation.  Senator Reid and Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY), along with Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss, are expected to negotiate a unanimous consent agreement to proceed with debate. The Senate is currently in recess until 2:15.  



Below is a recount of the debate:  


Senator Tester (D-MT)
During Morning Business, Senator Tester called on Republican Leadership to encourage their caucus to stop playing politics with the Farm Bill.  He stated that the legislation was too important to the country and to America’s farmers and ranchers to be beholden to partisanship.   

Majority Leader Senator Reid (D-NV)
Senator Reid opened by requesting a unanimous consent (UC) agreement that all amendments offered be related to the Farm Bill.  Senator Chambliss objected.  
 
Senator Reid went on to state that the Farm Bill relates to substance, not procedure.  People have worked hard on producing this legislation.  If it was voted on now, it would get 70 votes, but he is not going to get to do that.  He asked the question of whether or not there should be a debate on the war in Iraq on this bill, or a debate on labor issues in American on this bill.  There are going to be political amendments that have nothing to do with this bill.  Senator Reid stated that he is not the first to do this, and Senator Lott, Senator Dole, Senator Mitchell, Senator Daschle have all done it in the past.  This is the only way to get through the debate process.  We have had an open process all year, and accomplished a lot.  This farm bill is a good bill, even though it is not everything everyone wants.  The United States pays far less for food than any other country because of farm policy.  The Senate needs to finish this.  If there are amendments that deal with Farm Bill, they should be debated and voted on.  There should not be debate on a SCHIP bill or estate taxes when this bill needs to get done.  The American people do not deserve that. Republicans and Democrats have worked hard to get a bipartisan bill out of Committee.  
 
Senator Harkin (D-IA)
Senator Harkin opened by asking if everyone understood what had just happened.  He explained that  Senator Reid had requested a UC agreement that all amendments offered be relevant to the Farm Bill, and the other side rejected it.  Senator Harkin questioned why anyone would do that.  The Agriculture Committee has worked hard on this and gotten bipartisan agreements.  The art of compromise is alive.  He expressed surprise that there would be an objection, and stated that he hoped farm country is watching this and those that know what is at stake here are watching what is happening.  Dairy farmers, specialty crop farmers, nutrition benefit recipients all should be watching.  The Agriculture Committee has done good work and now it is held up because some people want to offer amendments that are not relevant.  It should be open to amendments on the Farm Bill, but why must the Senate always debate the rules.
 
Senator Reid (D-NV)
Senator Reid stated that he was fine with people offering amendments that are relevant.  This bill is going to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to children all across America.  It is a good bill.  The Senate should try to get it passed.  He stated that he was not trying to play games with anyone, but was trying to do what is best for the American people.  Senator Reid stated that he was doing what every other majority leader in similar situations in recent history has done.  
 
Senator Reid then went through a series of parliamentary procedures consisting of:

• Requesting that the bill be laid down;
• Offering an amendment on payment limits on behalf of Senators Dorgan and Grassley;
• Offering a second degree amendment;
• Offering a Motion to Recommit;
• Offering an amendment to the Motion to Recommit; and
• Requesting two roll call votes during that process.

Minority Leader Senator McConnell (R-KY)
Senator McConnell stated that the Majority Leader certainly has the right to use this procedure, and has done so in the past.  However, this UC only allows the Minority to offer amendments that the Majority Leader deems relevant.  The Minority also wants the bill to be completed, but want a fair process.  A bill of this magnitude is enormously significant and is debated only once every five years.  There should be an open process moving forward, and it is not too much to ask.  Senator McConnell stated that he was very disappointed that the Majority will not allow an open amendment process.  The Majority has waited this long, currently two months after expiration of the Farm Bill, to bring Farm Bill reauthorization legislation to the Senate Floor.  Now the Minority has been told that there is too much to do to have an open and fair debate.  This is another unfortunate example of the mismanagement of this Congress by the Majority.  In addition, the Majority has changed their position, as they had previously stated that it would be a bipartisan effort.  The Majority has claimed that a bill of this magnitude cannot be made better by open amendment process, but this is not believable.  
 
Senator Reid (D-NV)
American farmers deserve completion of this bill.  The bill can be approved, but the Senate should only be discussing amendments to the Farm Bill.  This is not a closed process, as amendments related to the Farm Bill are permitted.  Democrats and Republicans have agreed upon this bill, and it is here by virtue of bipartisanship.  If the bill needs to be improved, than it should be improved.  
 
Senator McConnell (R-KY)
The two definitions of an open process are not in agreement. Senator Reid is now acting like he is the Chairman of the Rules Committee in the House – deciding which amendments will be allowed to be offered.  
 
Senator Reid (D-NV)
The first amendment was offered on behalf of Dorgan and Grassley.  The amendments offered are not controlled by the Majority Leader, but rather by the UC agreement.  The Rules Committee in the House determines amendments offered and the amount of debate time allowed, and that is not what is happening here.  Senator Reid then stated that he does not think the Senate should be debating SCHIP, Iraq, and estate taxes during the farm bill debate.
 
Senator Gregg (R-NH)
Senator Gregg inquired of Senator Reid if it was true that to move forward, any amendment would have to do so under UC.  When Senator Reid replied in the affirmative, Senator Gregg proceeded to state that Senator Reid had set up a process that is extremely constricted, and even more so than the House Rules Committee process.  Under this process, any amendment that has any opposition at all will not be allowed to be offered.   
 

Senator Reid (D-NV)
Senator Reid stated that today is no different than any other day.  This is the process that is used every day in the Senate.  Every time the Senate considers a bill with amendments, they are set aside for a UC agreement. Any Senator, on any bill, has the same authority to do this, it is not just the Majority Leader.  
 
Senator Gregg (R-NH)
Senator Gregg agreed, but stated that Senator Reid controlled the ability of amendments to come forward.  Control will be exercised in a way that limits amendments until the Majority Leader can successfully get cloture. This is an extraordinarily closed process.  Senator Gregg stated that the Majority Leader said estate taxes should not be brought up, but Senator Gregg believes that the death tax has a huge impact on the farm community and family farms.  In the past, the amendment process was a free-flowing wild-west exercise.  Now, the Majority Leader is going to limit the ability of the Minority to bring forward amendments.
 
Senator Reid (D-NV)
Senator Reid stated that the 4 weeks of debate with 245 amendments that occurred with the 2002 Farm Bill is too much.  The Senate should have a process in which people offer amendments only relating to the Farm Bill.  The only people stopping the current process from going forward is the Minority, as they are making a big deal out of nothing.  
 
When Senator McConnell asked what incentive the Minority had to not object to the offering of an amendment, Senator Reid replied that the minority had tremendous incentive. Everyone can have their amendment heard, and nothing stopping us from hearing amendments.  Senator Reid knows that people on both sides of the aisle want to provide improvements and amendments.
 
Senator McConnell (R-KY)
Senator McConnell stated that the Senate is gridlocked on the Farm Bill because of this decision. Anyone can object to an amendment being set aside to consider another amendment.  Now, everyday, the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader will have to sit together off the floor to decide how to proceed forward.  This is simply not acceptable.  Hope it passes sometime in the near future, but we are going to insist on an open, fair process.
 
Senator Reid (D-NV)
Senator Reid asked why one would not want to debate the bill and offer amendments that are related, and asserted that it was because people want to offer amendments unrelated to the bill.  He asked if it was needed for the Senate to discuss the war, labor issues, and foreign relations during this debate, and answered his own question in the negative.  He stated that he was not trying to stop an open amendment process, but wants the amendments to be relevant.

 
Senator Gregg (R-NH)
Senator Gregg replied that the Majority Leader had now taken off the table very relevant issues – death tax, global warming, and labor.  The Senate is the deliberative body, has always taken a considerable time on the Floor to debate Farm Bills because they are so large and comprehensive.  This bill contains $37 billion in budget gimmicks and new taxes—mandatory spending being shifted over to taxes, $3 million added on in mandatory spending, not including taxes.  Tax policy underlines the way this bill is paid for, and thus death tax should be included.  Why not AMT tax?  Farmers pay AMT taxes.  Relevant is irrelevant on the Floor of the Senate.  
 
Senator Kyl (R-AZ)
Senator Kyl stated that there may be extraordinarily extreme circumstances when it is necessary to move a large piece of legislation in a quick amount of time, but that is not the situation with this bill, and has never been with the Farm Bill. Senators’ prerogative to offer any amendment will be eliminated through the gatekeeper Majority Leader, or any other Senator.  With as many diverse interests as there are in this bill, it needs to be an open process.
 
Senator Salazar (D-CO)
Senator Salazar stated that he hoped the Majority and Minority can find a way to move forward.  The Agriculture Committee has toiled over this bill in a bipartisan manner, and we need to get this Farm Bill, that is good for America, over the finish line.  
 
Senator Salazar then proceeded with other business unrelated to the Farm Bill, after which the Senate recessed until 2:15 p.m.  


November 6 – Afternoon



After recessing for lunch, the Senate reconvened early this afternoon.  They resumed Farm Bill debate shortly after having a brief discussion on unrelated items.  The Floor activity consisted solely of opening statements by various Senators.  No amendments were offered, due to the fact that Senators Reid, McConnell, Harkin, and Chambliss have not yet finished negotiations on the UC agreement that was discussed in our earlier memo.  Below is a recap of this afternoon’s debate:

Senator Salazar (D-CO)
 
The field hearings held over the past few years give evidence to the bipartisan nature of this bill. Senator Harkin has been a great Chairman and done a fantastic job of getting this bill to the Floor.  Senators Baucus and Grassley with the Finance Committee have helped tremendously in providing additional funding for energy, specialty crops, and nutrition provisions.  Their leadership has greatly enhanced this Farm Bill.  Even though many derogatory comments are being made regarding the Chairmen and Ranking Members of these two Committees, this is an historic piece of legislation.  Many agriculture leaders in Colorado have been very helpful in developing this farm policy, including the Commissioner of Agriculture, the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Colorado Farm Bureau, Colorado Association of Wheat Growers, Colorado Corn Growers Association, Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado Livestock Association, Colorado Independent Cattle Growers Association, Colorado dairy farmers, Colorado Potato Administrative Committee, Colorado Water Conservancy District, and other leaders in Colorado.  
 
This is a Farm Bill, and should not be debated with other important issues to our country.  We should keep the focus on agriculture and rural America.  Senator Reid’s attempt to do that should be commended.  We need to have a process that gets us to the conclusion of a Farm Bill.  
 
The possibility and promise for energy independence and a safe food supply brought by farmers and ranchers should not be ignored or neglected.  This bill has smart investments to help farmers and ranchers build clean energy for the health of our environment.  The bill lays down the infrastructure for rural broadband and loans for rural communities; lays the groundwork for water conservation; allows children in America access to healthy foods; and helps Americans maintain a healthy and safe food supply.  In addition, the bill prevents those that should not be receiving government payments from receiving them and assures that those that need them, do.  
 
To be a farmer or a rancher is a way of life.  While the rest of the world goes home at 5:00 in the afternoon, farmers and ranchers are toiling away into the night.  It is hard work.  The values of hard work, family, and faith are found in these rural communities.
 
Thomas Jefferson stated that agriculture is our wisest pursuit.  This bill will be criticized in the media and in urban areas for supporting rural development, for too many investments in renewable energy production, and for providing too many nutrition benefits.  However, the bill and what it does is important for farmers, children, and all Americans.
 
More than half of the counties in America are rural counties.  Rural America is being forgotten and ignored by Washington. This legislation does not forget rural America, as it provides $355 million for rural development, including micro-enterprise loans, hospital access for rural towns, and broadband access for rural communities.
 
This bill includes an Energy Title to push our country toward energy independence, especially through renewable energy.  There are over $1 billion in the Energy Title for investments in biofuel production, incentives for cellulosic and renewable production, and funding for research.  This bill takes us down the road toward the 25 by 25 goal.
 
The Conservation Title is also important.  Thanks to Senator Harkin, this is the greenest farm bill we have ever had.  This bill continues existing effective programs such as the Wetlands Reserve and the Grassland Reserve Programs, EQIP, and the Conservation Reserve Program.
 
At the heart of this legislation is the food security we provide for Americans through the Nutrition Title.  The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program was expanded to include all fifty states, which will help ensure the health of children across the country.
 
This bill helps to ensure the continued safe production of food by bringing some level of certainty and structure to agriculture markets.  It assists with favorable loan rates and counter-cyclical payments that help families survive.  
 
The 2002 Farm Bill was not perfect in addressing waste and abuse, and the Agriculture Committee took this opportunity to address some shortcomings.  We have instituted payment limits, and farm payments must now be attributed to one, real, living person. We have abolished the three-entity rule, and prohibited commodity support payments for land that has been transferred to non-agriculture use.
 
In this Farm Bill, we also had the opportunity to include permanent disaster assistance.  Natural disaster assistance is not being provided efficiently today, and we should not be using emergency funds to do so.  We need a system to respond more efficiently and promptly to the effects of natural disasters, and we have provided a sensible and fiscally responsible solution.
 
Senator Dorgan (D-ND)

I would like to discuss a particular provision brought by The Agriculture Committee.  I believe they have a good bill, but it has some problems.  Family farming is not often discussed in this bill and in this debate.  I hear a lot of talk about the agriculture industry, but my interest is trying to help families out in the countryside that are trying to raise family and raise a crop.  These people are living out in the countryside all alone and taking on all of the risks.  They have to deal with devastating natural disasters, economic downturns, skyrocketing gas prices, and skyrocketing fertilizer prices.  This bill is supposed to provide a safety net to get those people through tough times.  Big factories and corporations have the financial resources to get through the tough times.  
 
There is significant worth to having kids who know how to work on farms and ranches.  During World War II, our nation sent millions of kids off to war.  These kids knew how to do anything, to fix things, to drive things, and became the driving force of this country.  We should care about providing security to these people.
 
I plan to offer an amendment to provide reform to farm program payments.  The amendment will limit payments to  $250,000 annually, and will require that the individual be involved in farming.  This bill has made some strides, such as the elimination of the three-entity rule and the provision of direct attribution.  People who have never farmed in their lives are receiving payments on land that has not grown a crop in 20 years, simply because they had a base acreage in the 1980s. We only give education loans to people who enroll and attend college.  We should not we give farm payments to people who do not farm.  This is a bipartisan amendment, and an effort to do some important reform.
 
This is a hungry world. We are blessed to live here in the United States where we have a safe and affordable food supply.  Family farmers are important in providing food for the hungry.  They are important to this country’s economy and this country’s culture.  
 
Senator Casey (D-PA)

The President’s veto threat is not appropriate for this legislation.  He has vetoed a lot of things that he should not be fighting against.  This bill does so much for nutrition programs, including for Food Stamps, the Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program, and TEFAP – all programs that provide children and families who would normally go hungry with food.  This bill provides $4 billion over five years to help with these priorities.  Food Stamp recipients have been left behind in the past couple of years.  This bill ends benefit erosion and increases purchasing power, eliminates childcare costs from the eligibility requirements, and protects family investments in prepaid college and retirement funds.  This bill expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to allow participation by every state and also directs the program to focus on hungry children.  TEFAP is provided with increased funding, including $50 million for a Hunger-Free Communities Program.  Why would the President of the United States want to veto a bill that does all of these great things?
 
This bill also does great things for dairy farmers and provides a measure of relief for dairy farmers.  In addition, the bill invests in conservation.  The veto threat undermines the great work that Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss and their staff have put into working out this bill.  It is in the best interest of the country for the President to sign this legislation, and he should not veto something that has such broad bipartisan support.
 
Senator Klobuchar (D-MN)

Thanks to Senators Harkin, Chambliss, Baucus, and Grassley, and under the leadership of Chairman Peterson in the House, this bipartisan Farm Bill will invest in farms and rural communities.  The 2002 Farm Bill spurred rural development by allowing farmers to take risks and expand production, while making advances in renewable energy and other areas.  The 2002 Farm Bill was very successful, and still came in $17 billion under budget.  We should not underestimate the value of strong agriculture production.  This 2007 Farm Bill provides investments for cellulosic production, disaster relief, and strong nutrition, and does this all under a balanced budget.  The Farm Bill has worked to revitalize rural communities across the country.  I appreciate that this bill continues to support a safety net and rebalances the commodity program to ensure a safety net exists for Northern Tier commodities.  The permanent disaster program in this bill will provide farmers with security moving into the future. The strong cellulosic ethanol policy is important, and will also be better for our environment if it is implemented the right way.  The biomass crop transition program allows us to expand on corn-based ethanol to an industry based on energy efficient and environmentally friendly production.  I am glad the bill includes provisions to double funding levels for beginning farmers and ranchers and to provide them access to credit and technical assistance.
 
However, there is one critical area where further reform is needed:  urban millionaires need to be prevented from receiving farm program payments.  More than 60 farms received $1 million each in payments, but none of these are in Minnesota.  These payments should be for family farmers, not people like the Florida-based real estate developer that collected $3.2 million in payments.  People in Washington D.C., New York City, and even Beverly Hills received payments.  The reforms in the bill such as the elimination of the three-entity rule and the inclusion of direct attribution are positive, but the amendment of Senators Dorgan and Grassley to limit payments to $250,000 annually needs to be adopted.  That is the final thing needed—an amendment to prevent these payments from going to urban millionaires.
 
Senator Craig (R-ID)

Our nation is strong and independent.  We produce enough to feed ourselves and to feed the world.  That has been due in part to consistent agriculture policy that supports basic commodities.  We take for granted that we can walk into a grocery store and the shelves will be stocked full of food.  We should be proud of that.  
 
American agriculture has changed over the years, and we did not recognize the importance of fruits and vegetables during this change.  They embody a very large part of American agriculture.  American farmers are working to diversify and ensure the availability of the variety of specialty crops that American consumers enjoy. The specialty crop industry has never relied on traditional farm programs to sustain them or asked for subsidies like the traditional programs.  However, they are susceptible to volatile markets, pests and diseases, trade barriers, and numerous other challenges.  These new programs for specialty crops do not cost traditional programs at all.  The specialty crop provisions expand nutritional programs, direct new mandatory funding for research, and extend specialty crop block grants. I applaud the national expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program..  This is a major step forward in recognizing the significance of specialty crops to the success of the agriculture industry and the health of American citizens.  The Farm Bill now covers a much broader reach for agriculture than we have ever had before.
 
The large MILC Program does not fit well with Idaho’s large and rapidly growing dairy industry.  However, that gives evidence to the bipartisan effort the Farm Bill has always had.  The Farm Bill ensures a safety net and provides stability for American farmers and ranchers, and thus ensures that the United States is a nation that can feed itself and stand on its own.  In addition, I applaud Senator Stabenow’s efforts in getting specialty crop recognition in Congress and a provision in the Farm Bill.
 
Senator Stabenow (D-MI)

Senator Craig has been instrumental in getting important specialty crop provisions included in the Farm Bill.  This is a good bill, as evidenced by the favorable voice vote passage out of Committee.  Senator Harkin has provided great leadership in moving the agriculture industry into the future by including in the Farm bill the energy provisions, conservation provisions, and specialty crop provisions. Senator Conrad also has shown great leadership in his work putting the budget together and ensuring that this bill abides with the pay-go rules.  Senator Baucus provided us with assistance and worked to provide revenue and permanent disaster relief.
 
This new Farm Bill represents a progressive policy.  When people think of Michigan, most think of automobiles.  But in fact, the second largest industry is agriculture.  We have more diversity of crops than every state other than California. This bill supports growers, children, and consumers.  It expands open areas initiatives and fresh fruit and vegetable consumption through farmers markets and school nutrition programs.
 
The bill does not go as far as it should, but it is an important first step..  We have included farm program payment reform and other provisions for the future, helping growers produce more and providing consumers with more access.  Energy provisions in this bill provide for further energy independence and invest in renewable energy.  Senator Harkin has ensured that conservation and nutrition are priorities, and I would like to point out that 66 percent of the Farm Bill spending is on nutrition.  The bill also assists beginning and disadvantaged farmers, including them for new a generation of farmers to continue providing for our future.
 
Vital to this bill are the specialty crops provisions, which were mentioned in 2002, defined in 2004, and are further supported and defined in this bill.  To rally behind specialty crops, 36 Members of the Senate with specialty crops in their state came together. Over 120 organizations have been working for several years to get to this point.  They all gave great efforts.  We have come a long way since the 2002 Farm Bill.  The 2004 Specialty Crop Competition Act that defined specialty crops laid the groundwork for this Farm Bill, including specialty crop block grants.
 
The healthy foods package of specialty crop provisions is a “tool box,” which includes competitive grant research funds, research for pest and disease control, enhanced market access, a focus on school children, assistance to organics, and important conservation payments.  There is $1 billion in disaster relief for specialty crops included, and new mandatory funding for the tree assistance program for orchards.  Specialty crop farmers are very diverse, with different diseases and challenges in different regions of the country.  State block grants and competitive research grants help address these diverse needs.  In addition, the pest and disease policy in this bill will help prevent new and invasive species from entering our borders.
 
The United States needs a strong domestic supply of fruits and vegetables.  Our nation currently imports $2.7 billion more specialty crops than we export, and this needs to be addressed.  A better fruit and vegetable supply means more access to a healthy diet for a greater number people.  It will also improve nutrition in children and fight hunger in our nation.  We have addressed hunger in our nation by making reforms to the Food Stamp Program.  There has been no increase in assistance to account for inflation, so the purchasing power of recipients has decreased.  Our bill fixes this, and also excludes childcare costs from counting against individuals for eligibility requirements.  However, we need to do a lot more.  Changes to CSFP would improve the program, and allow it to reach those who need it most.  
 
In the Energy Title, there are loans and loan guarantees for cellulosic production.  These provisions provide technical assistance and resources for conversion of products into ethanol and energy, such as anaerobic digesters, which use manure to produce energy.  They provide new income for farmers, dispose of waste, and reduce pollution to air and water—all at the same time.  The Community Wood Project in the bill provides for research using wood for energy in rural communities.  Projects and technologies such as these go a long way to a cleaner environment.
 
Conservation is one of the most important policies for our country.  Farmers and ranchers are the ultimate stewards of the land.  Policies that meet needs of farmers and ranchers who want to conserve the land and be good stewards are imperative. The Conservation Title is extremely important to the Great Lakes, including the Great Lakes Basin Restoration program.  This program reduces non-point source runoff, reduces soil erosion, and enables the region to initiate pilot projects.
 
Another important provision included in this bill expresses that all purchases of fruits and vegetables in school programs should be of domestic product.  The Buy American provision has not been adequately enforced by this Administration, and our growers and consumers are paying the price.  Schools need to know that all of their purchases made must be of American goods, to the extent practicable.  At a recent school lunch conference, a company was selling peaches from China packed in Thailand.  Congress has put this in numerous pieces of legislation, and I hope we do not have to say it again.  It is vital to the sustainability of American growers.  
 
This Farm Bill is an important bipartisan effort into which a tremendous amount of work has gone. The bill is fiscally responsible and abides by pay-go..  I hope the President will support it.
 
Senator Domenici (R-NM)

The process set forth by the Majority Leader earlier today is not a fair and open process.  It is the Majority’s prerogative to do so, but there is a potential serious danger in this process.  I cannot think of any amendment more relevant than an amendment to increase the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), but I am not sure if it will be deemed relevant by the Majority.  It is a very important amendment to rural America and farmers and ranchers.  
 
This bipartisan amendment sets standards to mandate renewable fuel usage, and is part of the so-called Senate Energy Bill that was passed in June.  The RFS has a lot to do with ethanol, and we took a lot of pride in the bill.  The House has passed two bills, both of which are completely different than what the Senate has passed, making a Conference Committee extremely difficult.  The Senate has failed to move on anything since then.  The RFS amendment addresses cellulosic ethanol production, which is what everyone has been talking about, including the President, in his the State of the Union address.  I sincerely hope this amendment passes the Majority Leader’s test of relevance.  The House does not have three of the large Energy Bill sections that the Senate legislation contains—maintenance and security reduction of cost, CAFE, and this provision. This provision is very popular and is germane to the Farm Bill.  The increased portion of renewable fuels must be advanced biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, and other renewable fuels.  Cellulosic ethanol does not have the shortcomings of traditional ethanol.   
 
Senator Thune (R-SD)

I would like to thank Senator Domenici for his leadership on energy policy, especially renewable fuels.  The RFS was put into place due to Senator Domenici’s leadership. If Congress cannot get energy bills done, it is important to include energy provisions in the Farm Bill.
 
The name of this bill is not without meaning.  Agriculture and energy production are inherently related and together will move the country forward..  The 2002 Farm Bill was the first to include energy provisions.  It was not easy, but we had the foresight to include it.  The 2007 Farm Bill builds upon the success of the 2002 bill.  The incentives greatly increase the United State’s energy independence.  The Senate Agriculture Committee included The Nelson/Thune provision providing incentives to grow energy-dedicated crops in conjunction with the construction of bio-refineries.  This addresses a chicken and egg problem:  investors will not build bio-refineries if there is no crop supply, but producers will not grow crops if there are no bio-refineries to which to send them.  The bill also authorizes USDA to offer grants and loan guarantees for cellulosic ethanol production, including current ethanol plants that retrofit their plants for cellulosic production.
 
However, this bill has one thing missing.  A critical component to include is an increase in the RFS. The RFS has created jobs, but has also raised prices on corn and other feedstuffs.  However, producers have responded by increasing supply and taking the other necessary steps.   Gas prices are high; oil is at $90 a barrel; and they are both getting higher.  We must stop sending dollars overseas and purchase our fuel from domestic producers instead of foreign oil cartels.    
 
There is currently a strong Energy Title in this Farm Bill, thanks to Senators Harkin and Chambliss. However, we must move agriculture and renewable fuel production forward in a sustainable method. The Energy Title is important for the United States’ place in the world, and the inclusion of an RFS would strengthen us through the creation of an even more robust domestic market.  
 
Senator Conrad (D-ND)

It is interesting to note that the veto threat came not from President, but from the President’s staff.  The staff stated that if the Farm Bill in the current form gets to the President’s desk, they would recommend that he veto it. They are claiming that it is $36 billion over budget, but this Farm Bill is fully paid for, is under budget, adheres to the pay-go rules, and does not add anything to the national debt.  
 
This Farm Bill is a five-year bill.  The cost beyond five years will be determined by the Farm Bill for the next five years.  This bill is paid for.  It contains sunsets.  There are programs that will end after this Farm Bill expires.  If they want them to be continued, they will have to find the money for it in five years.
 
They have said that this bill does not contain enough reform.  This bill cuts the commodity programs, eliminates the three entity loophole, contains direct attribution, and cuts payments.  It contains more reform than any other bill.  In the last Farm Bill, the Commodity Title comprised three-quarters of one percent of federal spending.  The Commodity Title of this Farm bill comprises one-quarter of one percent.   The Farm Bill programs costs remain below projections of the 2002 Farm Bill, and a simple extension of the 2002 Farm Bill would be much more expensive.
 
This bill does good things and does not include tax increases as some have claimed.  In fact, it eliminates tax loopholes, increases penalties and punishments for wrongdoing, and prevents scams.  
 
In addition, it includes $7.3 billion for conservation, $2.5 billion for the energy initiative, $800 million for agriculture in rural areas, and is fully paid for, not eligible for any budget point of order, and adheres with pay-go rules.  
 
Senator Coleman (R-MN)

The 2007 farm bill will provide a smarter, stronger safety net that is important to all Americans.  We all eat, and we all have access to affordable food.  As well as food insecurity, this bill addresses and energy needs.  It provides a permanent disaster assistance program, infrastructure opportunities for small communities, and an additional $5.3 billion for nutrition programs.  It moves toward renewable fuel production, crop biomass production, and cellulosic and sugar ethanol production.
 
The bill provides an additional $4.4 billion over the baseline for the Conservation Title, which includes the Grassland Reserve Program and the open range program.
 
There will be people who argue that this is not a good bill.  They will complain about factory farms, and they will complain about too much money being spent.  This bill makes remarkable strides in investing in nutrition, energy, and conservation.  I agree that the reforms made were needed, but tighter restrictions under the banner of reform can wreck industries and destroy farms.
 
Senator Lincoln (D-AR)

Senator Harkin and his staff should be commended for their outstanding leadership, along with Senator Conrad and other members of the Agriculture Committee.  This is a bill that is practical and realistic, providing real reforms, but also moving forward in a progressive way that Americans can be proud of.  The Committee compromised in a bipartisan way that addresses and respects the diversity of our country.
 
The bill provides investment in nutrition, conservation, rural development, and energy.  I am pleased to see the increase of $5 billion in the Nutrition Title to reduce food insecurity.  I am pleased to see Senator Harkin’s hard work in the progressive Conservation Title.  It ensures that we are the best stewards of the land and that we leave our children the land.  The Rural Development Title invests in small businesses and entrepreneurs and broadband.  The Energy Title moves toward reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil.  It will be good for the environment and add an additional marketplace for our producers and their commodities.
 
The Committee brought all of these things together in one bill for our producers.  We must recognize the investment this bill makes, and it should not get held up on the Floor.  We must prove to Americans that we do believe their needs and their values are important to us.
 
The media often reports about unsafe food that is not produced in an environmentally sound way.  But they also report that farm programs should be done away with.  Our agriculture industry works to ensure that Americans have a safe, affordable, abundant food supply that is produced in an environmentally friendly way.  We are working hard to lessen America’s energy dependence.  Without farm programs, our food supply would not be what it is.  It is our duty to provide farmers with the safety net and support they need.  If not, it will lead to outsourcing of our food supply.
 
The United States has told our trading partners that we will reduce our domestic support further and faster as long as they reduce theirs as well.  The rest of the world has not budged.  They do not want to move, but they want us to move.
 
The Committee bill added the direct attribution provision, providing more transparency.  It lowered the AGI limit to prevent millionaires from receiving payments, but people like former NBA basketball player Scottie Pippin will not be affected.  People that receive conservation payments will be affected.  A lot of times those people are not receiving program payments, just conservation payments.  They are being stewards of the land..
 
We often take for granted living in this country of knowing about the safe, affordable, and abundant food supply.  We have a bounty, and I am not going to let someone else send this bounty to foreign countries.  People are misrepresenting the facts, and when that happens it breaks down the process.  It prevents people from knowing what is real and negates the hard work of the committee.
 
Senator Baucus (D-MT)

Senator Baucus spoke on the House of Representatives voting 361-54 to override the President’s veto on the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)..
 
Senator Tester (D-MT)

The farm bill impacts all Americans, because it helps farmers and ranchers provide a high quality, safe, and stable food supply.  The legislation is a comprehensive policy setting national priorities.  I am a third-generation farmer, and I know how hard it is to get by on production agriculture.  If this bill is vetoed as promised, farmers will not be able to supply Americans with this food supply.  Family farms and ranchers have a lot on the line right now.
 
This bill provides great opportunities for rural America. It helps farmers and rancher contribute to energy production with biomass, cellulosic, and wind power production.  We have only scratched the surface of energy production in the agriculture industry, and this bill could help tap into those resources.
 
The farm bill implements country-of-origin (COOL) labeling, which is long overdue.  COOL allows Americans to know where their food came from, and it gives producers the ability to market their product.  The bill also allows for interstate shipment of meat.
 
This farm bill strengthens working lands conservation programs, and helps keep lands available for our future.  It also includes permanent disaster assistance, which provides a real safety net to help family farmers get by when disaster strikes.  The permanent disaster provision only helps those farmers who have taken steps to mitigate their risks by buying crop insurance coverage.
 
The bill makes great strides in acknowledging the growing industry of organic production, by providing funds for family farms to convert to organic product if they choose.  The bill will have a dramatic impact on those who rely on nutrition programs, including children, the elderly, single mothers, and disable vets.  The bill provides long overdue increases to nutrition programs.
 
This bill might not have everything America wants, but it has everything American needs.  It makes great strides in helping America’s families.  It is mainstream, bipartisan legislation that was overwhelmingly passed out of Committee.  The Senate needs to debate and pass this legislation and the President needs to sign it.
 
Senator Grassley (R-IA)

Government assistance to farmers has come under scrutiny in recent years.  These payments were originally designed to benefit small and medium sized farmers, but they have become frequently sent to large corporate farmers.  Farmers should not over-produce or expand rapidly in order to receive the most farm payments.  If this is the case, the market is not working how it should.
 
The bill does include the elimination of the three-entity rule, but people are receiving payments on land they are not farming just because the land has historical base acres.  Also, increased land prices and cash rents are driving family farmers out of business and making it difficult for beginning farmers to get into the industry.  The top ten percent of large farms receive 72 percent of all farm payments, and the top one percent receives almost 32 percent of all farm payments.
 
The Dorgan-Grassley amendment will put a hard cap at $250,000 and close loopholes that allow large corporations to receive large payments, but some people say that our amendment is not as tough as what the Committee reported bill includes.  However, the Committee bill only has hard cap on direct payments and counter-cyclical payments.  This amendment caps both of those at $100,000 and also caps market loan gains at $150,000.  The Committee bill has an AGI cap, but the amendment has a hard cap on payments.  These two caps are not the same and should be looked at separately.
 
The amendment produces some considerable savings.  The amendment identifies two critical programs that would greatly benefit from the savings:  the beginning farmer program and the micro-enterprise program.  The amendment also provides additional funding for the organic cost-share program and the seniors farmer market program.  The amendment doubles the amount for late filers under the Pigford Consent agreement and provides additional funding for the Grassland and Farmland Reserve Programs.  Finally, it also provides additional funding for nutrition programs to adjust for inflation.
 
This amendment was offered during the budget resolution debate two years ago.  Several Senators assured Senator Grassley that they agreed with the amendment but that it should be offered during farm bill debate instead.  The time is now for those Senators to support this amendment.
 
A commission was set up on the application on payment limitations for agriculture.  The commission – consisting of farmers, agriculture economists, and other experts on the agriculture industry – met and recommended the very same loophole closing measure that we included in this amendment.



The Administration has suggested that the President might veto the farm bill due to the tax provision.  Some of the tax policy in this bill is directly related to soil conservation and drought relief and has freed up money that the Agriculture Committee can spend on farm programs.  



One particular revenue raiser comes through the codification of the term “economic substance.”  Four different courts of appeal have defined the term “economic substance” in four different ways, so this codification is long over due.  The modifications are in response to legitimate concerns by taxpayers and are the right thing to do.  This is not raising taxes, but codifying law to ensure that some individuals and businesses are subject to their tax obligations.



Congress is struggling due to the rigid notion of pay-go budgeting.  There is not enough revenue to meet the pay-go requirements for unfinished initiatives through the end of the year.  The farm bill is seen as offset because it fully abides by pay-go. However, the President is threatening a veto due to the tax provision.  We should get to an agreement on offsets that the Senate and the House can agree on and that the President will sign.  Republicans are ready, willing, and able to address the AMT issue, but not at the price of offsets.


to the top