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

Floor Speech

FARM, NUTRITION, AND BIOENERGY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - December 12, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to speak briefly on my amendment, which is amendment No. 3810. I am going to reserve most of my time for tomorrow because some of my colleagues want to address this bill.

Mr. President, America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression. It was created to protect struggling family farmers from volatile prices and from volatile weather. I think the reasons for that safety net still remain today. That is why I am a strong supporter of this farm bill.

I believe there are some forward thinking provisions in this farm bill, including with regard to energy, cellulosic energy--something near and dear to my heart. We have worked hard on those provisions. The permanent disaster relief is so important for the farmers in my State. I think the safety net that helped our farmers in the 2002 farm bill and allowed them to take risks and revitalize a lot of the areas in this country are good. That is why I support this farm bill.

But I also believe there is a need for reform in this farm bill. I believe the money that is set aside for a safety net for our farmers should be going to the hard-working farmers in this country and not to urban millionaires. When you look at what happened over the last few years, there are scandals. There are people who should not have gotten this money. There are art collectors in San Francisco and real estate developers in Florida. When we look at where the money went, I think we can conclude there are not a lot of farms in, say, the District of Columbia, where we stand today. Mr. President, $3.1 million in farm payments went to the District of Columbia, $4.2 million has gone to people living in Manhattan, and $1 billion of taxpayer money for farm payments has gone to Beverly Hills 90210. The last time I checked, there is not a lot of farmland in those areas.

I believe we can fix this problem. As Senator Dorgan said today, if we don't fix it ourselves, someone is going to fix it for us. I believe the people who live in farm States have an obligation to make sure these programs are appropriate and that they are going to the right people.

That is why I am proud that in this last farm bill, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, we have included in this farm bill an end to the three-entity rule. We have eliminated it. It will cut down the abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals and married couples and to ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations so they get multiple payments.

I also support the Dorgan-Grassley amendment that puts some sensible limits on the total number of subsidies. But also I believe it is very important that we put some reasonable limits on income eligibility.

Now, what we have here with our amendment is reasonable. Let me go through what the law is right now. Right now, the law, for full-time farmers, says if you get at least 75 percent of your income from farming, you have an unlimited amount of income and profit you can make, and you can still get Government subsidies. That is how it works. It says for part-time farmers, if you get $2.45 million--you may just be an investor in Beverly Hills--you can still make up to $2.5 million, and you get the subsidies. We know that with the budget problems this country is facing, we need to make some sensible reforms.

The President has proposed a $200,000 limit on income for both part-time and full-time farmers. The House-passed version has suggested a $1 million limit on income for full-time farmers and a $500,000 limit for part-time farmers. So it is more generous than the administration, but it is still a big change from what the current law is. Our Senate bill that came out of committee, unfortunately, still allows for unlimited income for full-time farmers, and then basically for part-time farmers ends up after a number of years at $750,000.

What our amendment does, the Klobuchar-Durbin-Brown amendment--and we have a number of people on the other side of the aisle who are going to be supporting this as well, as well as the Department of Agriculture. It simply says for full-time farmers, if you make in profit $750,000, at that point you are not going to get any more Government farm payments. Now, if you have a bad year, and disaster strikes and you go below that amount, you will be eligible for those payments. For part-time farmers, some of the investors, the people who are making less than 66 percent of their income from farming, if you make $250,000, then, at that point, you are no longer eligible for these payments.

Now, I don't think this is something outrageous. I think this is good policy. When I think about the farmers in my State, the average income of a farmer is $54,000. That is why as we look at this farm bill and what we want to do for the new and beginning farmers, we want to get more farmers involved in agriculture. We want to do more for nutrition, conservation, and most important to me, moving to this next generation of cellulosic ethanol, we have to acknowledge that at some point, multimillionaires who live in urban areas should not be getting these farm payments.

So I am going to reserve the remainder of my time for tomorrow because my colleagues want to address this issue. I think we will have a good debate. But I wanted to put it in people's minds tonight so they can go back and talk to their staffs about how important it is and how sensible it is to put some reasonable income limits on this farm bill. Right now, our Senate bill has no income limits for full-time farmers and goes all the way up to $750,000 for part-time farmers. I believe we can do better and still strongly support the family farmers in this country. I support them. My State is sixth in the country for agriculture; No. 1 turkey producer in the country. We have a lot of corn. We have some great people who are revitalizing our State because of the hard work they did, and the 2002 farm bill helped them. We want to keep those strong reforms in place, keep the safety net in place, add the disaster relief, add the conservation focus, but we also want to have some reasonable reforms so the money goes where it should go, and that is to our hard-working farmers.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source