Press Releases
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Pat Roberts today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor during debate of the current Farm Bill:
“Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bill before us today, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, traditionally known as the Farm Bill. My colleagues, this is my ninth Farm Bill --either as a staffer or a member. If you include technical corrections, which some times means a complete re-write - sometimes covert - I’ve lost count. Each farm bill debate is unique, especially this one.
“First, the good news. I want to thank the managers of this bill for including some important provisions.
“Senator Conrad and I have been working on our “Open Fields” bill for quite some time and I’m glad to see it included. It is clearly a win-win for sportsmen and women as well as farmers and ranchers who take advantage of the program.
“I also appreciate the authors for working with me to address my concerns regarding the Rural Utilities Service’s broadband loan program. The reforms included here represent a rare bipartisan, consensus-driven effort to bring broadband Internet to more Americans.
“And, Mr. President, the committee bill includes crucial and very important language on rural hospitals that will make a real difference in many of our rural communities.
“Finally, I also want to thank Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss and their staff for creating an agriculture security title in this legislation. This is something that we have worked on for several years.
“Despite the fact our nation enjoys but does not appreciate the fact production agriculture provides America’s and the world’s hungry the best quality food at the lowest price in the history of the world, Mr. President, we’ve heard repeated calls for “reform” of our farm programs.
“While targeted and pertinent reform in some of our farm programs is certainly needed -- and this bill takes major steps forward in answering those calls -- we must be cautious of what comes under the banner of reform.
“We must be mindful of the unintended consequences of our actions. Nowhere in this bill is that more evident than in the livestock title. I represent a state where cattle outnumber people more than 2 to 1. Cattle represented 61 percent of agricultural cash receipts by generating over $6 billion in 2005 -- again, $6 billion. I tell you this so you understand when I say the livestock industry is vital to the Kansas and national economy and our livelihoods.
“Competition issues are nothing new to this body, and I agree that our producers need to be able to compete in today’s markets. It is the role of the government to protect producers from unfair practices and monopolies. And I understand the calls from some for increased government involvement.
“At the same time, we must take careful steps to ensure that in any action we might take, we do not suffer from the law of unintended consequences and risk the significant gains the livestock industry has experienced.
“Mr. President, during this debate we’ve heard from several members about how farm bill debates rarely fall along party lines and traditionally follow regional interests. This may seem odd to those who haven’t worked on a farm bill before. Mr. President, agriculture in one region can mean something very different than agriculture in another region.
“These differences don’t just include the crops and commodities that are produced. There are significant differences in practices, input costs and risk among the different regions. We have low risk in certain states, and high risk in others.
“As a Senator from a state with higher risk agriculture, and there are many of us representing these states, many of our current farm programs simply don’t work for our constituents. However, some of them do. And, in recent years they have represented a lifeline. The only lifeline. Particularly direct payments and crop insurance.
“This is why it is vital that as a federal government, we craft farm programs that do not merely benefit one region or one crop, but that we draft legislation that is national in scope. Reducing programs that benefit one region to increase programs that benefit another region is a dangerous enterprise, and I caution my colleagues against taking this route. If we want a farm bill that represents the entirety of agriculture, we must not play games that pit one sector of agriculture against another.
“Mr. President, for several years now I’ve been telling everyone who will listen about how the current farm bill doesn’t provide assistance when our producers need it the most.
“When mother nature starts stirring up trouble through a drought, or flood, or freeze, our producers out in the fields take it right on the chin and in the pocketbook. Yields go down, prices jump up and again the only programs providing them any cover are direct payments and crop insurance. This story isn’t new to anyone who farms the breadbasket of the world.
“Thankfully this bill doesn’t cut direct payments. I know direct payments may seem like an easy target or bank for some, but to those in the fields, our farmers, the direct payment program helps them produce the safest, most abundant food supply in the world.
“Once again - the standard farm program rationale: Our farm programs are a big reason why we in the U.S. enjoy a market where we spend only 10 cents of each dollar of our disposable income on food - that’s one dime. We need to thank our producers for this.
“But if you look at this farm bill, you’ll see that only 14 percent goes to commodity title. When Senator Conrad was on the floor earlier in the week, he informed us that commodity title payments under this bill represent a mere one quarter of one percent of all federal outlays.
“In fact, $6 billion comes out of that title to pay for initiatives in other titles. That’s $6 billion out of the pocketbooks of the folks who provide the food and fiber for a troubled and hungry world for other programs.
“The conservation title receives an increase of over $4 billion.
“The plus up in nutrition program funding is over $5.5 billion, which brings total nutrition title spending to two-thirds of the entire bill.
“Yet, Mr. President, I have no doubt that during the course of this debate, members will come down to the floor and argue for additional cuts to producers to fund other programs.
“I’m not saying our conservation and nutrition programs don’t need additional funding. Quite the contrary. I’m here today, saying this bill already puts enough of that responsibility on the backs of farmers and ranchers. Let’s not pile on. Production agriculture needs a voice in this debate, and I’m happy to stand up for those producers.
“Fifteen percent of producers produce 85 percent of our nation’s food and fiber. But, in the national media and among many sideline groups and organizations, these producers - because of the size of their operation - are either described or tattooed as rich. In many instances they are taken for granted, ignored or simply do not exist. But, look at their contribution.
“Kansas is the top wheat and grain sorghum producing state in the country. Since 1996 Kansas farmers have produced an average of 365 million bushels of wheat each year. In 2007 alone, plains states produced more than 1.5 billion bushels of wheat. There’s a reason we are known as the “bread basket of the world.”
“If we cut direct payments and crop insurance which are vital to sustaining this production, who will supply the U.S. and the world? What would this do to our food prices if we lost these producers? Do we really want our grain supply to come from China or Brazil or somewhere else?
“Mr. President, I traveled through much of western Kansas in August. Much of Kansas suffered heavy losses on their wheat crop this year. Western Kansas for a change was different. Many of those producers had a bumper crop. But, and I want everyone in the Senate to hear this, for many of them it was their first crop after five years of devastating drought. At stop, after stop on my tour, producers and their lenders – bankers and farm credit – made clear to me one very important fact:
“Had it not been for direct payments and crop insurance during those five years, many of those producers would not have been around to grow that bumper crop this year. Again, we are talking about 350 - 400 million bushels of wheat, let alone other crops. That is why I get very concerned when I hear folks talking about cutting direct payments or crop insurance during this debate. And, it is why I will oppose, make that fight, any such proposals should they come forward.
“Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues just who it is that they are impacting the most if they come forward with amendments that attack these programs. They will not be attacking this Senator, some political or “small farm” philosophy or some business. They will be attacking the people who feed this country and a troubled and hungry world. They will be attacking the farmer who has farmed the land for 40 years or more. The land that his or her father, grandfather, and great-grandfather farmed before them.
“They will be going after the young farm family – the husband and wife team – with two or three young children and agriculture degrees from Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado State, North Dakota State and other land grant universities.
“The young couple that returned to the farm to raise their families because they believed in agriculture, farming, their rural communities, and raising their children as part of the family that is rural America – what we in Kansas call “Real America.”
“They get up at 5:30 in the morning and they often don’t quit until 10:00 at night. They are working hard and may be farming two or three thousand acres, even though they are not rich because of the size of their operation. They are still young, so they don’t have the liquidity built up in their operations that allows them to survive on their own through the droughts that last two, three, four, or five years.
“They’ve kept the dream alive, stayed in business, and secured the operating loans they needed because they and their bankers knew that again, they could depend on the direct payments and crop insurance.
“Mr. President, when you talk about that next generation of farmers and who will replace them - this is the issue. They are highly educated, they are feeding this country and world, but they are operating on the margins. The actions we take here have real world impacts. Yes, conservation is important. Yes, nutrition programs and renewable energy programs are important and we need them and we are increasing the funding for those programs. But so are all those farmers out there – especially that next generation.
“Again, Mr. President, to some here in the Senate, that young family farmer farming the two or three thousand acres are big farmers. Well, I’ve got news for you. Yes, they farm many acres, but they are “family” farmers in every sense of the word. And, they are struggling to survive.
“I hope that before we start offering and passing amendments around here because we think we can save money, or because we had a questionable GAO report, that we think about the impact our actions have in the real world.
“Mr. President, I commend Chairmen Harkin, Conrad and Baucus and Ranking Members Chambliss and Grassley for moving us forward without cutting direct payments. Chairman Harkin has gone from managing the Labor HHS Appropriations bill on the floor to the Ag Committee farm bill markup to now floor consideration of the farm bill in a few short weeks. That’s quite a task.
“Mr. President, we have a long way to go before this bill is ready to become law. There are several things in the House and Senate bills that still need some work. However, I am hopeful that through this process we can improve our agriculture programs to better protect producers in times of need, provide assistance to those both domestically and globally, and increase investments and stability in rural America.
“Because in the end, this bill should be about the men and women in the fields and on the ranches working every day to provide the safest, most efficient food and fiber source for a troubled and hungry world. Our farmers and ranchers would never put the seed in the ground, if they didn’t have faith and optimism. We owe it to make sure we make this the best bill possible and do all we can to keep the “Farm” in the Farm Bill.”
Senator Roberts is a senior member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, a former Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and an outspoken advocate for Kansas farmers and ranchers.
-30-
“Mr. President, I rise to speak on the bill before us today, the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, traditionally known as the Farm Bill. My colleagues, this is my ninth Farm Bill --either as a staffer or a member. If you include technical corrections, which some times means a complete re-write - sometimes covert - I’ve lost count. Each farm bill debate is unique, especially this one.
“First, the good news. I want to thank the managers of this bill for including some important provisions.
“Senator Conrad and I have been working on our “Open Fields” bill for quite some time and I’m glad to see it included. It is clearly a win-win for sportsmen and women as well as farmers and ranchers who take advantage of the program.
“I also appreciate the authors for working with me to address my concerns regarding the Rural Utilities Service’s broadband loan program. The reforms included here represent a rare bipartisan, consensus-driven effort to bring broadband Internet to more Americans.
“And, Mr. President, the committee bill includes crucial and very important language on rural hospitals that will make a real difference in many of our rural communities.
“Finally, I also want to thank Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss and their staff for creating an agriculture security title in this legislation. This is something that we have worked on for several years.
“Despite the fact our nation enjoys but does not appreciate the fact production agriculture provides America’s and the world’s hungry the best quality food at the lowest price in the history of the world, Mr. President, we’ve heard repeated calls for “reform” of our farm programs.
“While targeted and pertinent reform in some of our farm programs is certainly needed -- and this bill takes major steps forward in answering those calls -- we must be cautious of what comes under the banner of reform.
“We must be mindful of the unintended consequences of our actions. Nowhere in this bill is that more evident than in the livestock title. I represent a state where cattle outnumber people more than 2 to 1. Cattle represented 61 percent of agricultural cash receipts by generating over $6 billion in 2005 -- again, $6 billion. I tell you this so you understand when I say the livestock industry is vital to the Kansas and national economy and our livelihoods.
“Competition issues are nothing new to this body, and I agree that our producers need to be able to compete in today’s markets. It is the role of the government to protect producers from unfair practices and monopolies. And I understand the calls from some for increased government involvement.
“At the same time, we must take careful steps to ensure that in any action we might take, we do not suffer from the law of unintended consequences and risk the significant gains the livestock industry has experienced.
“Mr. President, during this debate we’ve heard from several members about how farm bill debates rarely fall along party lines and traditionally follow regional interests. This may seem odd to those who haven’t worked on a farm bill before. Mr. President, agriculture in one region can mean something very different than agriculture in another region.
“These differences don’t just include the crops and commodities that are produced. There are significant differences in practices, input costs and risk among the different regions. We have low risk in certain states, and high risk in others.
“As a Senator from a state with higher risk agriculture, and there are many of us representing these states, many of our current farm programs simply don’t work for our constituents. However, some of them do. And, in recent years they have represented a lifeline. The only lifeline. Particularly direct payments and crop insurance.
“This is why it is vital that as a federal government, we craft farm programs that do not merely benefit one region or one crop, but that we draft legislation that is national in scope. Reducing programs that benefit one region to increase programs that benefit another region is a dangerous enterprise, and I caution my colleagues against taking this route. If we want a farm bill that represents the entirety of agriculture, we must not play games that pit one sector of agriculture against another.
“Mr. President, for several years now I’ve been telling everyone who will listen about how the current farm bill doesn’t provide assistance when our producers need it the most.
“When mother nature starts stirring up trouble through a drought, or flood, or freeze, our producers out in the fields take it right on the chin and in the pocketbook. Yields go down, prices jump up and again the only programs providing them any cover are direct payments and crop insurance. This story isn’t new to anyone who farms the breadbasket of the world.
“Thankfully this bill doesn’t cut direct payments. I know direct payments may seem like an easy target or bank for some, but to those in the fields, our farmers, the direct payment program helps them produce the safest, most abundant food supply in the world.
“Once again - the standard farm program rationale: Our farm programs are a big reason why we in the U.S. enjoy a market where we spend only 10 cents of each dollar of our disposable income on food - that’s one dime. We need to thank our producers for this.
“But if you look at this farm bill, you’ll see that only 14 percent goes to commodity title. When Senator Conrad was on the floor earlier in the week, he informed us that commodity title payments under this bill represent a mere one quarter of one percent of all federal outlays.
“In fact, $6 billion comes out of that title to pay for initiatives in other titles. That’s $6 billion out of the pocketbooks of the folks who provide the food and fiber for a troubled and hungry world for other programs.
“The conservation title receives an increase of over $4 billion.
“The plus up in nutrition program funding is over $5.5 billion, which brings total nutrition title spending to two-thirds of the entire bill.
“Yet, Mr. President, I have no doubt that during the course of this debate, members will come down to the floor and argue for additional cuts to producers to fund other programs.
“I’m not saying our conservation and nutrition programs don’t need additional funding. Quite the contrary. I’m here today, saying this bill already puts enough of that responsibility on the backs of farmers and ranchers. Let’s not pile on. Production agriculture needs a voice in this debate, and I’m happy to stand up for those producers.
“Fifteen percent of producers produce 85 percent of our nation’s food and fiber. But, in the national media and among many sideline groups and organizations, these producers - because of the size of their operation - are either described or tattooed as rich. In many instances they are taken for granted, ignored or simply do not exist. But, look at their contribution.
“Kansas is the top wheat and grain sorghum producing state in the country. Since 1996 Kansas farmers have produced an average of 365 million bushels of wheat each year. In 2007 alone, plains states produced more than 1.5 billion bushels of wheat. There’s a reason we are known as the “bread basket of the world.”
“If we cut direct payments and crop insurance which are vital to sustaining this production, who will supply the U.S. and the world? What would this do to our food prices if we lost these producers? Do we really want our grain supply to come from China or Brazil or somewhere else?
“Mr. President, I traveled through much of western Kansas in August. Much of Kansas suffered heavy losses on their wheat crop this year. Western Kansas for a change was different. Many of those producers had a bumper crop. But, and I want everyone in the Senate to hear this, for many of them it was their first crop after five years of devastating drought. At stop, after stop on my tour, producers and their lenders – bankers and farm credit – made clear to me one very important fact:
“Had it not been for direct payments and crop insurance during those five years, many of those producers would not have been around to grow that bumper crop this year. Again, we are talking about 350 - 400 million bushels of wheat, let alone other crops. That is why I get very concerned when I hear folks talking about cutting direct payments or crop insurance during this debate. And, it is why I will oppose, make that fight, any such proposals should they come forward.
“Mr. President, I want to make clear to my colleagues just who it is that they are impacting the most if they come forward with amendments that attack these programs. They will not be attacking this Senator, some political or “small farm” philosophy or some business. They will be attacking the people who feed this country and a troubled and hungry world. They will be attacking the farmer who has farmed the land for 40 years or more. The land that his or her father, grandfather, and great-grandfather farmed before them.
“They will be going after the young farm family – the husband and wife team – with two or three young children and agriculture degrees from Kansas State, Nebraska, Colorado State, North Dakota State and other land grant universities.
“The young couple that returned to the farm to raise their families because they believed in agriculture, farming, their rural communities, and raising their children as part of the family that is rural America – what we in Kansas call “Real America.”
“They get up at 5:30 in the morning and they often don’t quit until 10:00 at night. They are working hard and may be farming two or three thousand acres, even though they are not rich because of the size of their operation. They are still young, so they don’t have the liquidity built up in their operations that allows them to survive on their own through the droughts that last two, three, four, or five years.
“They’ve kept the dream alive, stayed in business, and secured the operating loans they needed because they and their bankers knew that again, they could depend on the direct payments and crop insurance.
“Mr. President, when you talk about that next generation of farmers and who will replace them - this is the issue. They are highly educated, they are feeding this country and world, but they are operating on the margins. The actions we take here have real world impacts. Yes, conservation is important. Yes, nutrition programs and renewable energy programs are important and we need them and we are increasing the funding for those programs. But so are all those farmers out there – especially that next generation.
“Again, Mr. President, to some here in the Senate, that young family farmer farming the two or three thousand acres are big farmers. Well, I’ve got news for you. Yes, they farm many acres, but they are “family” farmers in every sense of the word. And, they are struggling to survive.
“I hope that before we start offering and passing amendments around here because we think we can save money, or because we had a questionable GAO report, that we think about the impact our actions have in the real world.
“Mr. President, I commend Chairmen Harkin, Conrad and Baucus and Ranking Members Chambliss and Grassley for moving us forward without cutting direct payments. Chairman Harkin has gone from managing the Labor HHS Appropriations bill on the floor to the Ag Committee farm bill markup to now floor consideration of the farm bill in a few short weeks. That’s quite a task.
“Mr. President, we have a long way to go before this bill is ready to become law. There are several things in the House and Senate bills that still need some work. However, I am hopeful that through this process we can improve our agriculture programs to better protect producers in times of need, provide assistance to those both domestically and globally, and increase investments and stability in rural America.
“Because in the end, this bill should be about the men and women in the fields and on the ranches working every day to provide the safest, most efficient food and fiber source for a troubled and hungry world. Our farmers and ranchers would never put the seed in the ground, if they didn’t have faith and optimism. We owe it to make sure we make this the best bill possible and do all we can to keep the “Farm” in the Farm Bill.”
Senator Roberts is a senior member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, a former Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and an outspoken advocate for Kansas farmers and ranchers.
-30-
