September 17, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 161 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
All in Senate sectionPrev17 of 88Next
Agriculture (Executive Session); Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 161
(Senate - September 17, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Page S5689] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] Agriculture Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to talk about what we need to be doing certainly to support the farmers across our country. I know Republican colleagues spoke just a while ago about the need to refill what we call the CCC to make sure that we are providing the funding for the October payments for the farm bill. As one of the authors of the farm bill, I certainly know we have to make those payments, and the good news is that there is enough money there now to do that, although we certainly also want to be providing emergency support, disaster support, for growers who have been hit and have had losses as a result of the Trump chaotic trade policies, as a result of what has happened under COVID-19. Our farmers have been hit every which way, including what is happening on climate change and the weather, prices, everything else, and we certainly want to make sure that they have what they need. I want to raise two points today. One is that in order to do that, the USDA should be focusing on a GAO report that was released on Monday that indicated and actually reaffirmed a report that I released with our Senate Democratic colleagues on the Agricultural Committee that, in fact, the payments going out to farmers have not been fair. They have been picking winners and losers; they have been picking regions in the South, big farms in the South, not over the Midwest or our smaller farmers and over many of those who, frankly, have had the biggest losses. So when I hear my colleagues talk about the fact that we need to be supporting farmers and we need to make sure that the farm bill payments go out, I absolutely agree that money is in there right now to do that. If we are going to add other money, I think we ought to be paying attention to what the GAO has now affirmed, which is we should be making sure we are funding those with losses--those who need the help the most in these chaotic times for farmers. But something has now come up today that is even more alarming to me, and that is related to what the Trump administration appears to be considering right now, which is to take at least $300 million in funds, cash aid, and give it to U.S. oil refineries out of the funds we are talking about--that my colleagues just talked about--that were supposed to be going to farmers. We have had 3\1/2\ years of this administration siding with big oil companies over our ethanol producers. And, by the way, ethanol biofuels are about jobs, about clean energy, and about supporting small towns in rural communities. Then, just this week, at the very last minute--it is election year--they announce that they are going to make a decision that will help ethanol and be able to deal with some of the waivers that they have been doing for the oil companies. They announced that earlier this week, and then, guess what. Through the back door, they are going to take--if this is accurate in Reuters--$300 million away from our farmers to give back to Big Oil. Every time we turn around, they are deciding to support Big Oil over farmers in our rural communities. I want to know from colleagues--I had hoped to get to the floor to ask the question directly, and I am certainly going to ask it of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who I know support ethanol and biofuels--when they are advocating for more money in the CCC, are they advocating for $300 million going to the oil companies? Because, oh, heavenly days, we couldn't really side with ethanol. You know, if we really sided with ethanol, they wouldn't be worried about the oil companies who have been fighting this every step of the way, fighting the efforts to support ethanol and biofuels, and fighting the efforts that are critical for jobs in rural communities in my State and all across the country. If they really meant it, they wouldn't be trying, through the back door, to find some way to go back and get hundreds of millions of dollars for the oil companies so they wouldn't be upset. So I find this pretty outrageous today. We are certainly going to dig deep, and, certainly, we are in the process right now of putting together a letter to the USDA. But the reality is that over and over again there is a lot of lip service for farmers and a lot of money going to Big Oil, and there is a lot of lip service to small and medium-sized farmers across Michigan and across the country, while 95 percent of these payments that are being done are going to big operations with political friends in the South. It is not fair. It is not fair. It is creating a situation where too many family farms are barely making it or, in fact, not making it and having to put the farm up for sale, and that is wrong. It is not good for America. It is not good for diversity in agriculture. We don't need just a few huge farms in America. We need to make sure that we are supporting our small farmers and medium farmers. This is the foundation of so much of the economy in small towns like where I grew up in Northern Michigan. What we have seen is an administration that has chosen to basically throw the farm bill out the window. My colleagues talked about the great bipartisan farm bill. I agree. As the partner with Senator Roberts in putting that together, I agree. It was a great bipartisan effort that the USDA has basically torn up and thrown out the window, and instead of creating markets for our farmers and supporting them with risk management, now it is back to big government payments. By the way, let's make sure they are focused on our friends. That is basically what the report from the GAO has shown us. I am very concerned that one more time there is a lot of lip service for farmers, and we are going to see--and we are certainly going to stop this, by the way--$300 million going to oil companies out of our agriculture support fund. It is stunning to me. By the way, I would just conclude by saying that the Secretary of Agriculture has said he didn't have the authority to help the ethanol producers, couldn't help our corn growers, couldn't help our biofuel and soybeans growers--he didn't have the authority. He didn't have the authority to help our farmers, but somehow he has the authority to dip into agriculture support funds to be able to fund $300 million to Big Oil. This is wrong. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were here speaking earlier about the importance of supporting agriculture will join us in saying to the USDA: You do not have the authority to use dollars for producers that have been hit so hard by the chaos of their trade policies and every other effort that has gone on in the real world that has lowered their prices and created havoc for our farmers. You don't have the right to take their funds and give them to Big Oil. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
All in Senate sectionPrev17 of 88Next