Presidential Veto

Floor Speech

PRESIDENTAL VETO -- (Senate - November 13, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are still, as I understand, on the 2007 farm bill. I wanted to speak to one particular title of that bill, if I might, today.

As I have noted before, I support the Food Security and Energy Security Act of 2007, which is currently before the Senate. My hope is that in the not too distant future, we will be able to reach an agreement with regard to amendments so that we can move this process forward.

My fear is, if we do not reach any resolution this week and this gets pushed back until after the Thanksgiving break, that we run a very serious risk that we are not going to be able to get a bill through the Senate, conferenced with the House, before the end of the year.

In my judgment it is incredibly important to farmers and ranchers across this country that we come to some conclusions with this farm bill to give them some certainty, as they approach the 2008 planting season, about what the rules are going to be, what the programs are going to be, how it has perhaps changed from what we currently have in place.

But, in any event, it is, from a timing standpoint, of great importance that we act as soon as we can on the 2007 farm bill. So my hope would be, again, that we reach some resolution between the leadership on both sides as it pertains to amendments, and, of course, I have an amendment dealing with renewable fuel standards that I hope will be able to be included in that list of amendments that we get to debate and ultimately vote on.

But I do want to speak this evening with regard to one particular aspect of this farm bill, and it is an important one. It is one that perhaps has not been emphasized as much in this debate, although the Senator from Iowa, I heard earlier this evening, speaking to the conservation title of the farm bill. But my colleagues and I have spent the better part of the last 2 years listening to our constituents and translating those concerns and suggestions into the farm bill that we have before the Senate today. We have also listened to multiple criticisms, mostly coming from those who are not directly involved in agriculture, telling us what is wrong with this farm bill.

But today I would like to talk about the conservation title because I believe it is just as critical to production agriculture in many respects as the commodity title.

The conservation title of the farm bill comprises only about 9 percent of its total cost. Yet it potentially affects more than 350 million acres of land in the United States.

When I say 9 percent, if you look at total spending in the 2007 farm bill, about 14 percent of the money in the bill is in the commodity title. Those are the programs that support production agriculture. About 9 percent is in this conservation title to which I address my remarks. The balance--about 67 percent or about two-thirds--of the funding in the farm bill actually goes toward nutrition, those aspects of the farm bill that really are very much unrelated to production agriculture. That is where the predominant share of the money is spent. A lot of times when those who criticize farm bills attack the funding that goes toward production agriculture, it is important to realize that most of the money in this bill isn't going to production agriculture. It is not going to the commodity title. It is going, two-thirds of it, to the nutrition title. That is in contrast to the last farm bill, the farm bill we operate under today, where about 28 percent of the funding in the bill goes to the commodity title, production agriculture, and about 54 percent of the funding, under the 2002 farm bill which is currently in effect and which we are hopefully reauthorizing with the 2007 version, goes toward nutrition. Under the new farm bill, the one before us today, about 67 percent of the money would go toward the nutrition title of the bill. I don't think it is fair in many respects when those who would like to criticize this attack it for the money going to the commodity title. That is certainly not the case.

The 9 percent that goes into conservation is important. There probably isn't anything that we do in terms of conservation or environmental stewardship that actually does more to achieve the objectives we all want than this conservation title in the farm bill achieves.

This picture, taken in 2007, is an example of the role played by the farm bill conservation title. What you see in the picture is CRP on the farm. You see also an example of crop production, working literally hand in hand. If you look in the bottom part of the picture, you see Conservation Reserve Program, the land that has been put into native grasses that is in abundance. You see in the center of the photograph a wetland area, some water in the background. Across the way, you see the cornfields that have been planted. The balance that has been struck on this property is seen between conservation, between native grasses, a wetland area that has been managed, and it all being complemented with a corn crop as well. That sort of describes what all of us would like to see when it comes to the way we manage our lands and the way farmers go about incorporating conservation practices into their crop production as well.

The CRP on this farm, the 1.5 million acres enrolled in CRP in South Dakota added 10 million pheasants and $153 million to South Dakota's economy. This year's record corn crop in South Dakota at 556 million bushels is worth an additional $1.8 billion to South Dakota farmers--again, those two working hand in hand in South Dakota achieving record corn crops at the same time that we have a record pheasant crop because of the good conservation practices that have been employed by many of the farmers in our State and which have been in response to, their practices, many of the incentives that were put in place in previous farm bills.

The second picture we have this evening is a picture taken not too long ago in South Dakota, a few months back, in the year 2007, and it tells another story. A lot of people would look at this picture and say: That must be the Great Depression, because when you look at it, that certainly is what it would appear to be. But it is not a scene from the 1930s; it is a scene from last March in 2007. It is an example and a result of what happened when native sod was cropped, because crop insurance provided an unintended incentive to convert marginal pastureland or native sod into cropland. This picture sends a stronger message than any words could about the inherent need to take care of our land. The topsoil you see in the fence line and ditch along this South Dakota field took literally millions of years to create and one dust storm to remove. The damage you see here cannot be undone.

There is a sod saver provision in the farm bill we are considering. It won't prohibit anyone from converting native sod into cropland, but what it does do, what the sod saver provision in this bill does is eliminate the incentives found in current Federal farm policy that encourage unwise farming practices which result in the consequences shown here.

Again, it is not a scene from the 1930s, which at first glance one might expect, but it is a scene literally from last March, calendar year 2007, in South Dakota. It is an example of what can happen when bad practices are undertaken.

The next picture is an example of some of the native sod that is being converted to cropland in South Dakota. For the past 100 years, billions of acres of prairie have been converted to productive farmland. Most native sod that can be productively farmed in South Dakota and other prairie States has already been converted to cropland. We faced a shortage of money to write this farm bill. I don't believe it is a wise use of Federal funds to pay for crop insurance and disaster programs on this type of land. If the farmer who owns this land wants to farm it under this farm bill, he or she is free to do so. But let's not subsidize it. That is an example of land that should not be brought under the plow, and this farm bill prevents crop insurance or disaster program payments from going to a farmer who would convert native prairie ground such as this into cropland.

This is an example of a dust storm that was not limited to the 1930s. This picture was taken in 2005 in South Dakota. Once again, we see the consequences of unwise land stewardship practices disturbingly evident in this picture.

During the 1930s, South Dakota received billions of tons of Kansas and Oklahoma topsoil, much of it still in place in fence lines and fields. The programs we drafted in the conservation title of this farm bill, if funded adequately, will ensure that Kansas and Oklahoma farmers no longer see their topsoil blow to South Dakota and that South Dakota farmers will keep their topsoil in their fields and not in the ditches and fence lines as we saw in the previous picture.

I have stated many times before and I will emphasize once more that production agriculture and conservation should not compete; rather, they should complement each other.

This is another picture of a South Dakota cornfield in CRP. CRP is native grasses in the foreground and then, of course, a cornfield planted toward the background of the

picture. Every agricultural area in the country is blessed with productive land and also land that needs help to keep from polluting the water we drink and the air we breathe.

I ask those who are so critical of this farm bill to take a close look at the conservation title and what it offers. In spite of the budget cuts made in drafting this farm bill, which made it more difficult than writing any other farm bill that has ever been written, I am pleased that my colleagues and I have been able to write a farm bill with a sound conservation title.

I will point out once more examples of the benefits of the conservation title in this farm bill: First, protecting and enhancing our soil and our land; secondly, providing an economic alternative to placing costly fertilizer, seed, and chemicals on unproductive cropland; third, enhancing recreation and boosting local economies, which, as I noted earlier, created in our State of South Dakota an abundance of pheasants, 10 million pheasants this year, which is the highest number of pheasants we have seen at any time since the 1960s--they say about 1962 was the last time we had this kind of pheasant numbers in South Dakota--and $153 million to the economy of my State as a result of the recreation value that comes from good, sound conservation practices.

I believe it is very important to take a breather from the controversy surrounding this farm bill and to take a few minutes to focus on the farm bill's proven capabilities to enhance rural America and to improve our Nation's water and soil. The conservation title will do just that. This is one of many reasons this farm bill deserves the support of our colleagues.

I leave my colleagues with the following information regarding the conservation title in the 2002 farm bill. Nationwide, without a conservation title, we would have 13.5 million fewer pheasants, 450 million tons of topsoil disappearing every single year, 2.2 million fewer ducks, an additional 170,000 miles of unprotected streams, and 40 million fewer acres of wildlife habitat. That is the value of a conservation title in the farm bill which accomplishes multiple objectives--protecting and enhancing our soil and land, providing an economic alternative to placing costly fertilizer, seed, and chemicals on unproductive cropland, and enhancing recreation and boosting local economies. Nine percent of the funding in this farm bill goes toward that end. That, when put in a total perspective of what this farm bill spends, is not that much relative to the benefit we accomplish and to the bad things we avoid happening by having a good conservation title.

As this farm bill is debated, we will have amendments at some point when we get an agreement. The amendments will focus on a lot of other areas of the farm bill. Some will focus on the commodity title and trying to move money around within the farm bill.

I am interested in the energy title. I have an amendment to the energy title, and we worked very hard in crafting the energy title in this farm bill to provide the necessary economic incentives for further investment in cellulosic ethanol production. The renewable fuels standard amendment I hope to be able to offer along with Senators DOMENICI AND NELSON of Nebraska and others on a bipartisan basis will make that energy title stronger. It will improve it.

It will give us some headroom to work within the area of renewable energy. The renewable fuels standard put in place back in 2005 called for 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by the year 2012. We are going to hit 7.5 billion gallons by the end of this year if we don't act to increase the renewable fuels standard. We have a terrible crunch that is coming ahead of us. I hope we can get this amendment adopted that raises the renewable fuels standard, moves it to 8.5 billion gallons in the year 2008. It will give us the necessary headroom to keep this wonderful example of renewable energy in this country and a remarkable story going forward.

If we don't do something to address the renewable fuels standard, my fear is we will run into a wall. That would not be good. It would not be good for those who have already invested in ethanol facilities. It would not be good, clearly, for the economy in rural areas and all the jobs that have been created as a result of renewable energy. As importantly, if not more importantly, it will do nothing to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy, which at the end of the day is so important in terms of our policy objectives.

This farm bill, by encouraging more energy production, if we can get the renewable fuels standard added to it, will take us a long way toward lessening our dependence on foreign energy. I would hope before this debate is concluded we will be able to have the amendments adopted and voted on, if not adopted, but certainly a chance to debate these things which we think will make the farm bill stronger. Some of those amendments may deal with the conservation title, but I think this particular title is one that often gets overlooked in the discussion that is held about the farm bill because of the focus on production agriculture and because of the focus on the nutrition title of the bill which really comprises about two-thirds of the total funding of the bill.

But 9 percent of the money that is spent in this farm bill, the conservation value we get from that and the difference it is making in areas all across this country in protecting our critical soil and water resources, in adding to our economy, providing recreational opportunities such as pheasant hunting in South Dakota--this is a very important title of this bill, one that there was great deliberation and consideration given toward coming up with.

I hope at the end of the day we will get the farm bill passed before the end of the year and get this conservation title, along with the other policy changes that are included in the farm bill, implemented into law so our farmers and our ranchers and those who will benefit from the great recreational opportunities that will result from this conservation title will know what the rules are going to be as we approach this next year.

So, again, I have heard many of my colleagues come down and speak on the floor today about different aspects of this bill. My biggest hope and greatest fear at this point is--my biggest hope is we get this thing moving this week. My greatest fear is if we do not, we are not going to get a farm bill this year. So I hope before we leave this week we will come to a resolution about amendments and the way forward and the process we are going to use to get a farm bill adopted.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

END

Source