Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008--Conference Report

Floor Speech

FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 2008--CONFERENCE REPORT -- (Senate - May 15, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon the House of Representatives passed the farm bill conference report by a vote of 318 to 106. The Senate will vote in a few minutes and we expect to have an overwhelming majority in favor of this farm bill. I thank Senator Harkin for his great leadership, and Senator Chambliss--it was a bipartisan effort--as well as Senator Conrad and Senator Baucus, all the members of the committee, and I want to take special note of my good friend Representative Collin Peterson from the State of Minnesota who showed such leadership in the House.

America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect struggling family farmers from the financial shocks of volatile weather and equally volatile commodity prices.

Almost 75 years later the reasons for maintaining that strong safety net are still there. The weather is still volatile, as we have seen this year. Crops are still subject to blight and disease. Farming is still a very risk-intensive business. We have seen prices going up and down--recently down in Asia--as we have seen investment and speculation in the farm market. I think it is very important that we have a safety net as we look at our food security so we don't get in the same place as we are with our lack of energy security.

I want to mention a few important things to my State in this bill--the sugar program, the dairy program, and the conservation program. I know we have people here in attendance from Pheasants Forever. The conservation groups worked very hard on this--the nutrition assistance. But I especially wanted to mention the part of the bill that I worked on, the cellulosic piece, which looked to the next generation of biofuels--looking at prairie grass, switchgrass, other forms of biomass. As we look to, say, the country of Brazil, which is energy efficient--energy independent, based on sugarcane--we can do it in this country.

I believe we have to go beyond our crop-based ethanol and look at these other forms of ethanol and this bill creates the incentives so we can use energy crops such as switchgrass and prairie grass and do it in a way that is consistent with conservation, which is why I am so proud we have the support of the conservation groups that are with us today.

I was a strong proponent for reform in this bill. It didn't have everything I asked for, as Senator Murray was discussing; no bill is perfect. But we had significant problems in the last few years with a small number of people--real estate developers from Florida, art collector from San Francisco, 100 people from the Beverly Hills 90210 area code--collecting money. This bill eliminates the three-entity rule. Also, the conferees have included substantial income limits for those who participate in the commodity program--$500,000 in nonfarm income, and they are banned from getting subsidies; and then third, $750,000 for farm-related income.

Frankly, you can go a long way in Minnesota without bumping into a farmer who made $750,000 after expenses. The reform in this bill may not be perfect but it is a lot better than where we were before.

The 2002 farm bill spurred rural development by allowing farmers in Minnesota and across the country to take risks to expand production. Because of productivity gains and innovation, including advances in renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill actually came in $17 billion under budget.

As the Senate considers the conference report, it is important not to underestimate the value of a strong bill for states such as Minnesota where agriculture is so vital to our economy and way of life.

That is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I support the new farm bill. It includes an increased focus on cellulosic-based ethanol, continued support for a strong commodity safety net and a permanent program of disaster assistance.

And, of particular importance is that we have balanced our budget in this farm bill, with every dollar of new spending fully off-set.

Traveling around the state during the campaign I was visiting all 87 counties this year, so I have had a good opportunity to talk to farmers around our State. They have told me that the 2002 farm bill has worked well for them, and they wanted to see that continued.

I am very pleased that this bill continues the same basic structure of the three-part safety net--direct payments, countercyclical payments and marketing loans--and I am especially pleased that we have succeeded in rebalancing the commodity programs to be more equitable to northern crops like wheat, oats, barley, soybeans and--canola, beginning in 2010.

Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent program of disaster assistance for farmers. I would like to thank Senators CONRAD and BAUCUS for their efforts to see this program through. Farmers are tired of coming back to Congress year after year with a tin cup in their hands.

Minnesota has been hit with drought, flooding and everything in between over the several years, and they have had to wait years on end for Congress to pass adhoc disaster relief bills.

The permanent program of disaster relief in this farm bill will give farmers security moving forward, and quick relief when they need it.

This bill holds some good news for Minnesota's dairy farmers--we were able to restore the MILC payment rate that had been cut to 34 percent, back to 45 percent. We also added a feed cost adjuster to the MILC program, which means that when the price of feed goes up, the payment rate will also go up. This is really going to help dairy farmers cope with the high cost of feed and energy.

The new farm bill is also going to work well for Minnesota's sugarbeet growers. It raises the sugar loan rate by 3/4 of a cent--it may sound small to you and me, but it's a big deal to the farmers in the Red River Valley.

We have language in the bill that will give U.S. sugar producers the right to supply 85 percent of the domestic market each year before USDA can allow additional sugar imports. And it creates a new sucrose-to-ethanol program to give us a new source of energy, and provide an outlet for potential increases in imports as a result of this administration's trade policies.

One of my major goals for this farm bill was to include a strong cellulosic ethanol program. Farms can and should play a bigger part in the future of this country's energy security.

Instead of investing in oilfields of the Mideast, we should be investing in the farmers and workers of the Midwest.

Our corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel have taken off in Minnesota, and we are ready to expand to the next generation of biofuels: energy from native, perennial crops like switchgrass and prairie grass that require less fertilizer, yield more energy, and protect soil, water and wildlife.

I was proud to draft first-of-its-kind legislation to provide farmers with an incentive to grow cellulosic energy crops, and I would like to thank Chairman HARKIN and Chairman PETERSON for working with me to include many of my provisions in the farm bill.

Energy crops like switchgrass and prairie grass hold great promise for farmers because they can be grown on marginal land that can't produce a high yield of corn or soybeans, and they restore the land while they're growing. Their deep root systems sequester carbon and put organic material back in the soil.

Native grasses can also save fuel and fertilizer because they don't require lots of passes with farm equipment or heavy fertilizer applications.

The fact that these crops put carbon back in the soil and take less fossil fuel to produce offers us the promise of producing a carbon-neutral motor fuel for this country, which would be a huge advance in the fight against global warming.

In short, the Biomass Energy Reserve Program is going to allow us to expand upon corn ethanol and soy diesel to a new generation of farm-based energy, and greater freedom from imported oil.

I am also pleased that the committee has prioritized beginning farmers and ranchers in the credit title. There are real opportunities today to start out in farming, especially in growing areas like organic farming and energy production. But beginning farmers also face big obstacles, including limited access to credit and technical assistance, and the high price of land.

The beginning farmer and rancher programs in this farm bill provide mentoring and outreach for new farmers, and training in business planning and credit-building--the skills they need to succeed and stay on the land.

So there are a lot of good things for Minnesota and the country in this farm bill. There is, however, one critical area where I fought for more reform, and that was in stopping urban millionaires from pocketing farm subsidies intended for hard-working farmers.

This kind of reform is in the best interests of Minnesota farmers. Here are the facts.

Sixty farmers collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm bill, but none of them have been Minnesotans, even though Minnesota is the fifth-largest agricultural State. The average income of Minnesota farms, after expenses, is $54,000. But under the current system, a part-time farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from outside sources and still qualify for Federal benefits.

It made no sense to hand out payments to multimillionaires when this money should have been targeted to family farmers.

And what we saw so clearly in the media coverage of this farm bill was that big payments to big-city investors were undermining public support for the entire bill, even though commodity payments account for just 16 percent of funding in this bill.

But this bill is going to do better for our farmers by closing loopholes and tightening income eligibility standards.

First, the new farm bill eliminates the ``three-entity rule.'' This will cut down on abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals--and married couples--and ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations to multiply payments.

Second, I am pleased to report that the conferees have included substantial income limits for those who participate in the commodity programs, which is an area where I fought hard for reform. What the bill says is, if you earn more than $500,000 in nonfarm income--so if you have a high-paying job off the farm, or income from investments, or any other source of income off the farm in excess of $500,000--you cannot participate in the commodity programs.

This makes good sense to me. This will take care of multimillionaires, like David Letterman and Paul Allen of Microsoft, or Maurice Wilder, the real-estate developer in Florida, getting farm payments intended for family farmers.

The bill also says that if you have more than $750,000 in farm-related income, you lose your direct payments. I think this also makes sense. I would venture to say that any farm bringing in that much money after expenses is of a size and scope that they no longer need the support of taxpayers.

So the reform in this bill is not perfect, but it is a lot better then where we were before. And I thank the conferees for taking these important steps in the bill.

In conclusion, there are a lot of important changes in this bill, and there is a lot that is good for rural America, and the safety net is vital for farmers. We have made important advances in conservation, and made much-needed improvements to our nutrition programs. Perhaps most importantly, this bill lays the groundwork for farmers to play an even greater role in our country's energy security and will advance us to the next generation of biofuels. For all of these reasons, I will be proud to vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Source