Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007--Continued --

Floor Speech

FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - November 06, 2007)

KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the Senate is now considering the farm bill, and with the leadership of Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss, Senator Conrad, and a Minnesota Congressman, Colin Peterson, in the House, the bipartisan farm bill will invest in our farms and rural communities so they will be a strong, growing, and innovative part of 21st century America.

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 still exist.

The 2002 farm bill actually 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 debates a final 2007 farm bill this week, it is important not to underestimate the value of a strong bill for States such as my State of Minnesota, where agriculture is so vital to our economy and our way of life. That is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I support the new farm bill. This includes an increased focus on cellulosic-based ethanol, continued support for a strong commodity safety net, and additional funds for conservation, nutrition, and disaster relief.

Of particular importance is the fact that we have balanced the budget with every dollar of new spending fully offset.

Traveling around my State during the last 2 years, I have had the opportunity to visit all 87 counties of my State twice, last year and this, and I had the opportunity to talk to many farmers about the good and the bad in the last farm bill. I can tell you this: The farm bill has worked to revitalize many of our rural communities across America. It has spurred rural development by allowing farmers in Minnesota and across the country to take risks and expand their agricultural production. Because of strong commodity prices and advances in renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill are projected to come in $17 billion under budget.

I am pleased this bill continues this safety net, and I appreciate the effort that has also been made to rebalance the commodity programs to be more equitable to northern crops such as wheat, oats, barley, soybeans, and canola.

Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent program of disaster assistance. I thank Senator Baucus for the work the Finance Committee has put into this provision. Farmers have to come back to Congress each year with a tin cup in their hands when in fact we can do it differently. Our State has been hit by drought, flooding, and everything in between, and they had to wait 3 years for Congress to pass another ad hoc disaster relief bill. A permanent program of disaster relief will give farmers security moving forward.

One of my major goals for this farm bill was to include a strong cellulosic ethanol program. 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--cellulosic ethanol, prairie grasses, biomass that yields more energy and, if done the right way, is better for our environment and conservation.

I was proud to draft legislation to provide farmers with an incentive to grow cellulosic energy crops, and I thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Conrad for working with me to include this in the farm bill. The fact 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. In short, the Biomass Crop Transition Program, which is what the cellulosic ethanol provision of this farm bill is, will allow us to expand on corn ethanol and soy diesel to a new generation of farm-based energy and greater freedom from imported oil.

I am also pleased this farm bill includes legislation I introduced, along with Senator Bond, to provide funding for E-85 pumps. It is a chicken-and-egg problem with E-85. Less than 1 percent of our gas stations have the E-85 pumps. In the Energy bill, we have more requirements for flex-fuel vehicles, and this bill will help to get the pumps out there so we can be investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast.

I am also pleased the committee has accepted my amendment to double the authorized funding levels for two programs that serve beginning farmers and ranchers. There are real opportunities today to start out in farming, especially in growing areas such as 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.

There are a lot of good things for rural America in this farm bill. There is, however, one critical area where I believe more reform is needed. We need to stop urban millionaires from pocketing farm subsidies intended for hard-working farmers. This reform is in the best interest of Minnesota farmers. Here are the facts: Nationally, 60 farms have collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm bill, but none of them were in our 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 makes no sense to hand out payments to multimillionaires when this money should be targeted to family farmers. Big payments to big-city investors threaten to undermine the public support for every farm program, even though the commodity payments are projected to be only 15 percent of the total farm bill budget over the next 5 years.

A poster boy for what needs to be changed is Maurice Wilder, a Florida-based real estate developer. From 2003 to 2005, he has collected more than $3.2 million in farm payments for properties in five States, even though his net worth is estimated at $500 million. Nearly 600 residents of New York City, 559 residents of Washington, DC, and even 21 residents of Beverly Hills 90210 received Federal farm checks in the past 3 years. Some collected hundreds of thousands of dollars. Last time I checked, there wasn't a lot of farmland in those neighborhoods.

We can fix this and do better for our farmers by using the new farm bill to close loopholes, tighten payment limits, and enforce tougher income eligibility standards. First, the current Senate and House farm bill proposals eliminate 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, a longstanding bill, which is an amendment that will be considered this week, proposed by Senators DORGAN and GRASSLEY would limit annual payments to $250,000. I will vote in favor of this provision on the Senate floor, and the Senate should adopt it.

I also believe a third kind of reform is needed. Congress should act to prevent payments that are intended for hard-working farmers from going to urban millionaires and giant agribusiness.

We will be talking about these amendments in the week to come, but I wish to say as we move ahead to develop homegrown renewable sources of energy, rural America promises to be central to our Nation's future energy independence as well as the fight against global warming. This bill prepares us. This bill heads us in the right direction.

Inertia may be the most powerful force in the political universe, but after 75 years, the best interests of America's rural economy demand that we correct the abuses of the past so we can move forward with this bill, with some modifications of reform, to ensure a strong safety net for our hard-working farmers.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source